Title: The title is attractive, catchy, self explanatory and it has addressed an important public health issue.

It contains the subject but the study type, study setting and the study population are not mentioned in the title.

Abstract: In the Background section, the public health importance of the research topic has been properly and lucidly explained.

The purpose and the need to conduct the study are mentioned.

Aims and objectives are clearly mentioned that highlights the whole article. In the Methodology section, the specific sampling technique is not adequately described. There is no mention of the Inclusion and Exclusion criteria for the study subjects.

Result section is adequately described

Keywords are mentioned at the end.

Background: Definition of ‘Good Mental health’ & ‘Arts engagement’, the Population at risk for mental illness, the factors associated with Mental well-being and the Justification & public health importance of the problem have been adequately mentioned in the Background section.

The Authors have cited the global scenario. But the present scenario in Australia where the study had been done is not mentioned.

It provides a rationale and justification to carry out this research.

The objectives are mentioned at the end of this section.

Objective: The objectives are corroborating with the title of the study.

They are SMART i.e. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound.

Methodology: Design of the study: not mentioned. Telephonic survey may not be truly representative of the population. Study design flaws could be there for possibilities of different Biases as well as Hawthorne effect. Setting of the study: mentioned Duration of the study: mentioned Study subjects: The upper limit of the age has not been mentioned. No Inclusion and Exclusion criteria are mentioned. Sample size and techniques: No mention of specific types of sampling that was followed and calculation of sample size is there. Sampling technique is properly mentioned.

Study tools and techniques: Tools are mentioned. But WEMWBS scale is not fully shown. The technique has been elaborated. All the Variables i.e. Dependent or outcome variable, Independent variable as well as the other 11 covariates of the arts-mental health relationship are all nicely elaborated. WEMWBS Scale has been nicely described and scoring pattern is mentioned though its contents are not fully shown. Data Analysis: The name and version of the software used is mentioned. All the Relevant statistical tests are mentioned. Ethical issues, consent & permissions from relevant authority are all nicely mentioned.

Results: Result section is elaborately detailed. Relationship between arts engagement & subjective mental well-being and their quantification are nicely described. If there is a drop out of more than 10% of the study population, power of the study decreases(28%) that is not mentioned. In Table1, Detailed Demographic characteristics with percentages or proportions, Arts engagement prevalence and Mean values with SD values of WEMWBS are all mentioned. In Table2, Prevalence of arts engagement in the previous 12 months and Days & Total hours engaged in the arts in the previous 12 months are mentioned. In Table 3, the association between subjective mental well-being(WEMWBS) and arts engagement(hours/year) have been shown. Overall, three models are fitted and Linear Regression analysis has been done.

First model estimated the direct(unadjusted) effects of arts engagement, Second model estimated the effect after adjustment for demographics and the Third model adjusted for demographics, general health, sports engagement, religious activities and holidays. In Table3, Model 1(unadjusted), Respondents with High level of arts engagement had higher mean WEMWBS scores(54.8) than the None(52.8) or Low(52.6) or Medium(53.4) groups.

In Table3, Model 3(adjusted for demographics & other covariates),(overall Test 4 groups), Respondents with High level of arts engagement had higher WEMWBS scores than none, low or medium group.(p=0.003)

In Table3,Model 3(overall Test 3 groups),The none, low or medium group had similar WEMWBS scores(p=0.358).

And finally in Model 3(overall Test 2 score), it had been shown that relationship between arts engagement and WEMWBS score was non-linear in nature with evidence of a minimum threshold of 100 or more hours per year(p=0.0006)

Discussion: This study is the first of its kind to quantify the dose-response relationship between recreational arts engagement and mental health in the general population as per authors’ claim.

The group of respondents who participated in 100 or more hours of arts engagement per year(High arts engagement) had a mean WEBWMS score appx.two points higher than other groups highlighting the possibility of a dose-response health effect. Finally the authors have mentioned that if, in time, the relationship is found to be causal, there is potential for new & innovative ‘time based’ arts-mental health campaigns, such as those used to promote the health benefits of physical activity.

So the Discussion part has been written well over all.

Conclusion: The Conclusion part has been written well. Here the Strengths and Limitations of the study are mentioned elaborately. In the limitation section, probability of Recall bias, Measurement bias, Interviewer’s bias( Inter-observer variability), Good health Bias & Hawthorne effect are not mentioned which may point towards Design & Result flaw of the study. Telephonic survey may not be representative of the whole population. Also the need for further robust study designs to establish a causal relationship has been stressed e.g. prospective cohort study.

References: References are written in Vancouver style and retrievable.