Abstract: Is it fair to rely on clinical trials to assess the efficacy of holistic art-based therapies? Drawing from a one-year ethnography of a choir for people with dementia and a literature review of the history of clinical trials for musicotherapy on dementia care, I argue the efficacy that clinical trials can prove does not align with the holistic effects art-based therapies try to achieve. Musicotherapy creates connections and enables attentiveness, improving well-being and helping develop trust in care relations. Therefore, their effects are holistic. Clinical trials try to prove direct causation between a specific use of music and a measurable improvement for a symptom, such as cognition or agitation. During the 1990s, several clinical reports stated musicotherapy offered non-pharmaceutical avenues to reduce symptoms of dementia such as agitation, aggressiveness, and cognitive loss, potentially enhancing overall well-being without the side effects of dug-based care. Those data were considered weak or anecdotal and deemed insufficient to guarantee investment and inclusion in Westernized biomedical healthcare systems. As a result, in the last 15 years, musicotherapy is facing clinical trials. Up until now, the outcomes are inconclusive and timid. I argue such outcomes relate to an epistemic incompatibility of clinical trials and holistic therapies rather than a lack of efficacy of musicotherapy. Such trials often prioritize quantifiable outcomes, which does not capture the holistic nature of art therapy. Based on the case of musicotherapy, the need for clinical trials is acting as a barrier to including art-based holistic therapies in Westernized biomedical healthcare systems.
Learning Objectives:
After participating in this conference, attendees should be able to:
Compare the rationale of clinical trials and the rationale of holistic art therapies
Understand how clinical trials are acting as a barrier to including art-based holistic therapies in Westernized biomedical healthcare systems
