The MATISSE Trial–A Critique
U.K. national guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia recommend art therapy among other approaches. However, a recent major trial called MATISSE (Multicenter evaluation of Art Therapy in Schizophrenia: Systematic Evaluation) suggests that art therapy may not be helpful. The purpose of the pres...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2014-04-01
|
Series: | SAGE Open |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014532930 |
id |
doaj-c5d3001c52114038881c88f4d0ef4bfc |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-c5d3001c52114038881c88f4d0ef4bfc2020-11-25T03:08:24ZengSAGE PublishingSAGE Open2158-24402014-04-01410.1177/215824401453293010.1177_2158244014532930The MATISSE Trial–A CritiqueSue Holttum0Val Huet1Canterbury Christ Church University, Southborough, UKBritish Association of Art Therapists, London, UKU.K. national guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia recommend art therapy among other approaches. However, a recent major trial called MATISSE (Multicenter evaluation of Art Therapy in Schizophrenia: Systematic Evaluation) suggests that art therapy may not be helpful. The purpose of the present study was to explore reasons for the MATISSE trial findings. A critical review of the MATISSE trial drawing on six papers reporting on the trial and its processes was performed. The MATISSE trial appeared to have weak conceptualization of the mechanisms for change, lack of piloting, incomplete process and subgroup analyses, and inappropriate assumptions about the generalizability of findings. The MATISSE trial’s conclusion that art therapy is of no value to people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia is unwarranted. More account should be taken of extant quality guidelines for complex interventions, including proposed change mechanisms, piloting, process analyses, variations in practice and contexts, and the effect of randomization on generalizability.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014532930 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Sue Holttum Val Huet |
spellingShingle |
Sue Holttum Val Huet The MATISSE Trial–A Critique SAGE Open |
author_facet |
Sue Holttum Val Huet |
author_sort |
Sue Holttum |
title |
The MATISSE Trial–A Critique |
title_short |
The MATISSE Trial–A Critique |
title_full |
The MATISSE Trial–A Critique |
title_fullStr |
The MATISSE Trial–A Critique |
title_full_unstemmed |
The MATISSE Trial–A Critique |
title_sort |
matisse trial–a critique |
publisher |
SAGE Publishing |
series |
SAGE Open |
issn |
2158-2440 |
publishDate |
2014-04-01 |
description |
U.K. national guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia recommend art therapy among other approaches. However, a recent major trial called MATISSE (Multicenter evaluation of Art Therapy in Schizophrenia: Systematic Evaluation) suggests that art therapy may not be helpful. The purpose of the present study was to explore reasons for the MATISSE trial findings. A critical review of the MATISSE trial drawing on six papers reporting on the trial and its processes was performed. The MATISSE trial appeared to have weak conceptualization of the mechanisms for change, lack of piloting, incomplete process and subgroup analyses, and inappropriate assumptions about the generalizability of findings. The MATISSE trial’s conclusion that art therapy is of no value to people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia is unwarranted. More account should be taken of extant quality guidelines for complex interventions, including proposed change mechanisms, piloting, process analyses, variations in practice and contexts, and the effect of randomization on generalizability. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014532930 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT sueholttum thematissetrialacritique AT valhuet thematissetrialacritique AT sueholttum matissetrialacritique AT valhuet matissetrialacritique |
_version_ |
1724666725553668096 |