TY - JOUR
T1 - Arts in health considering language from an educational perspective in the United States
AU - Sonke, Jill
AU - B. Lee, Jenny
AU - Helgemo, Max
AU - Rollins, Judy
AU - Carytsas, Ferol
AU - Imus, Susan
AU - Lambert, Patricia Dewey
AU - Mullen, Tina
AU - Pabst, Margery
AU - Rosal, Marcia
AU - Spooner, Heather
AU - Walsh, Ian
PY - 2017/6/13
Y1 - 2017/6/13
N2 - Background: There has been tremendous progress linking the arts to health over the past five decades in the United States. An academic discipline has been clearly established through the development of programs at accredited universities, a growing body of research and dedicated field journals. However, significant inconsistencies in the use of language to reference the discipline pose challenges for practitioners, educators, policy-makers, service users and the public, and may impede progress. Methods: This descriptive study investigated the language used to reference the discipline informed by literature review, technical examination of language, a field survey and round-table dialog among educators. Results: The literature review revealed “arts and health” as the most common term used, which also was the preferred term for the greatest number of survey respondents (26%), followed by “arts, health and well-being” (22%) and “arts in health” (21%), confirming a general lack of consensus. Technical examination of language identified certain terms or phases as problematic. Dialog among round-table participants yielded the recommendation for “arts in health” as the term that, for educational purposes, may best describe the overarching discipline and be inclusive of both health care and community-based practices. Conclusions: A recommendation is made for use of the term “arts in health” to reference the discipline in educational programs in the U.S.
AB - Background: There has been tremendous progress linking the arts to health over the past five decades in the United States. An academic discipline has been clearly established through the development of programs at accredited universities, a growing body of research and dedicated field journals. However, significant inconsistencies in the use of language to reference the discipline pose challenges for practitioners, educators, policy-makers, service users and the public, and may impede progress. Methods: This descriptive study investigated the language used to reference the discipline informed by literature review, technical examination of language, a field survey and round-table dialog among educators. Results: The literature review revealed “arts and health” as the most common term used, which also was the preferred term for the greatest number of survey respondents (26%), followed by “arts, health and well-being” (22%) and “arts in health” (21%), confirming a general lack of consensus. Technical examination of language identified certain terms or phases as problematic. Dialog among round-table participants yielded the recommendation for “arts in health” as the term that, for educational purposes, may best describe the overarching discipline and be inclusive of both health care and community-based practices. Conclusions: A recommendation is made for use of the term “arts in health” to reference the discipline in educational programs in the U.S.
KW - arts and health
KW - Arts in health
KW - arts in health care
KW - arts in medicine
KW - language
KW - terminology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020738256&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/17533015.2017.1334680
DO - 10.1080/17533015.2017.1334680
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85020738256
SP - 1
EP - 14
JO - Arts & Health: An International Journal for Research, Policy and Practice
JF - Arts & Health: An International Journal for Research, Policy and Practice
SN - 1753-3015
ER -