Report highlight | Mapping arts & public well-being in the Baltic states: between policy and practice
In Lithuania, a family doctor can prescribe a museum visit to a lonely senior. In Latvia, people with anxiety attend heritage sites and art museums as part of a structured programme. In Estonia, psychiatric outpatients receive free museum tickets between therapy sessions, and autistic children attend sensory-friendly ballet performances designed just for them.
This is not an experiment, an art project, or a fringe initiative. It is happening now — across the Baltic States.
A new 89-page report, Status Quo in the Field of Culture and Health Interventions for Vulnerable Groups in the Baltic Countries (2025), maps for the first time how Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are — at different speeds — building a bridge between culture and health systems.
Developed within the Erasmus+ project Inclusive Wellbeing Through Arts and Culture in the Baltics (WITAC) by the Latvian Academy of Culture, Riga Stradiņš University, the Northern Dimension Partnership on Culture, the Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre and the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, the report maps policies, training frameworks, practices and end-user experiences at macro, mezzo and micro levels, combining desk research with in-depth interviews across sectors.
The report:
– Identifies key gaps in regulation, professional training, cross-sector collaboration, and impact evaluation
– Compares Baltic realities with Nordic good practices
Its findings have also directly informed the creation of the WITAC micro-qualification programme Culture and Health: Managing Cross-Sectoral Initiatives (10 ECTS, offered in 2025–2026).
Learn more about the report in the article below
From “Culture for Health” to “Culture and Health”
The report deliberately adopts the term “Culture and Health”, reflecting a shift seen in EU and WHO discourse. Culture is no longer framed as a tool for health, but as an equal partner sector that contributes to physical, mental, and social well-being.
Drawing on WHO frameworks and EU policy developments, the authors examine how cultural engagement affects:
- prevention and health promotion,
- management and treatment of conditions,
- social determinants of health such as loneliness, exclusion and inequality.
To make sense of this complex field, the report uses a three-level lens:
- Macro – the political level; policies and national/municipal frameworks,
- Mezzo – the intermediary level; training, practices, and institutional cooperation,
- Micro – the people; impact on end-users, especially vulnerable groups.
Lithuania: Where culture is already written into health policy
Among the three countries, Lithuania stands out as the most advanced in formalising Culture and Health at the national level.
Two long-running national programmes are central:
The “Social Recipe” programme (since 2023)
Family doctors and mental health professionals can refer seniors (65+) experiencing loneliness, anxiety, chronic illness, or bereavement to free cultural and community activities. Museums, libraries, theatres, and workshops become part of a prescribed pathway to well-being. Municipal public health coordinators match individuals with activities based on their needs and capacities.
Early reports show:
- improved emotional well-being,
- increased sense of belonging,
- even a reduction in non-urgent GP visits for psychosomatic complaints.
“Art for Human Well-being” (since 2012)
Funded by the Ministry of Culture, this programme supports professional artists working with people in healthcare and social institutions, older adults, and people with disabilities. Evaluations show clear links between access to professional art and improved health outcomes.
Crucially, Lithuania has gone beyond programmes. Culture and health links are embedded in:
- national cultural policy,
- health strategies,
- disability and accessibility indicators,
- the 2024 Law on the Framework of Cultural Policy.
The report shows that Lithuania has moved from projects to policy architecture.
Latvia: Strong practices in weak frameworks
Latvia has no national Culture and Health framework, but the presence of compelling practices is recorded.
Through the Interreg project “Arts on Prescription in the Baltic Sea Region”, municipalities such as Cēsis and Saldus have established local legal arrangements between cultural institutions and referrers from social services, clinics and employment agencies. Adults with mild to moderate mental health issues attend structured cultural programmes in museums and heritage sites over 8–10 weeks.
Other examples include:
- Latvian National Symphony Orchestra musicians playing harp music in neonatal intensive care units and palliative wards,
- socially engaged artist residencies working with patients in psychoneurological hospitals,
- museums developing health literacy centres for children.
These initiatives show deep collaboration between culture, health, and social sectors — but they rely on project funding, EU support, and individual champions rather than national strategy.
The report repeatedly highlights a gap: initiatives without a system.
Estonia: Mental health focus, but not a cultural framing
Estonia has no explicit Culture and Health policy, but an intense national focus on mental health.
Documents such as the Mental Health Action Plan 2023–2026 and the Green Book of Mental Health emphasise community-based support and informal activities that foster belonging and reduce loneliness — spaces where cultural activity naturally fits, though rarely named.
In practice, cultural institutions are stepping into this space:
- The Estonian National Opera created a sensory-friendly ballet for children with autism and intellectual disabilities.
- Tartu Art Museum distributes free tickets to psychiatric outpatients.
- Art museums run workshops on mental health for young people.
- Tallinn University offers a micro-degree on supporting well-being through creative activities.
Like Latvia, Estonia shows different practices, but little formal recognition of culture as part of health strategy.
A common problem: No training, no monitoring, fragmented knowledge
Despite the richness of initiatives, all three countries share major gaps:
- Almost no formal training for Culture and Health practitioners,
- Confusion between art therapy and broader cultural participation,
- Limited impact evaluation,
- Heavy reliance on short-term project funding.
The report suggests that the Baltics are at a tipping point where they have enough experience to build systems, but not yet the structures to sustain them.
A dedicated chapter compares the Baltics with some of the Nordic countries: Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, where Culture and Health is supported by long-term policy, funding schemes, and professional training pathways.
The comparison is not discouraging but instructive. The Baltics are not behind in ideas, but in institutionalisation, missing adequate leverage from:
- recorded evidence from real practice,
- motivated cultural institutions,
- cross-sector examples,
- recognition of social and mental health challenges,
- EU and WHO policy alignment.