MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413413350 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1329029

A scoping review of mental health literacy in performing and creative artists: identifying current gaps and future directions

2025· review· en· W4413413350 on OpenAlexafffund
Shelly‐Anne Li, Naoko Sakata, Gemma Donn

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusicians’ Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersAzrieli Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyMental healthLiteracyApplied psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychotherapistPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Mental health literacy is a multifaceted construct that consists of helping individuals recognize the early warning signs of mental health conditions, understanding the concept of stigma and misconceptions associated with mental illness, encouraging appropriate help-seeking behaviors, and facilitating access to mental health services. However, mental health literacy remains a largely unexplored topic in artists' health literature. This scoping review examines the conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement of mental health literacy in performing and creative artists. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Our search was designed to identify articles relevant to mental health literacy among artists, encompassing aspects related to the understanding, identification, and education of mental health conditions. Two independent reviewers conducted both abstract and full-text screenings. Our findings are synthesized using the four components of mental health literacy as a framework for organization. Results: Of the 669 unique citations, 26 articles met the inclusion criteria; of these, 23 focused on performing artists. The articles were published between 1997 and 2024, with at least 4,710 participants from nine countries. Only one study included a definition of mental health literacy. Sixteen articles included one of the four components of mental health literacy, nine included two, four included three, and one had all four components. Discussion: Despite the high prevalence of mental health challenges among performing and creative artists, there is a disproportionately low number of interventions aimed at increasing mental health literacy compared to other fields, such as sports medicine and education. This highlights the need for more comprehensive efforts to increase awareness and understanding of mental health issues among artists. Furthermore, the lack of consensus on the conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement of mental health literacy in this field prompts further research. A standardized definition and validated instrument could facilitate more robust research on mental health literacy in the artists' health literature and help identify effective interventions. Future research can build on this review to develop and evaluate interventions aiming to improve mental health literacy in artists.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0310.027
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.431 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychology→Same topicMusicians’ Health and Performance→French-language works237,207→