Reporting quality of music intervention research in healthcare: A systematic review

dc.contributor.authorRobb, Sheri L.
dc.contributor.authorHanson-Abromeit, Deanna
dc.contributor.authorMay, Lindsey
dc.contributor.authorHernandez-Ruiz, Eugenia
dc.contributor.authorAllison, Megan
dc.contributor.authorBeloat, Alyssa
dc.contributor.authorDaugherty, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorKurtz, Rebecca
dc.contributor.authorOtt, Alyssa
dc.contributor.authorOyedele, Oladele Oladimeji
dc.contributor.authorPolasik, Shelbi
dc.contributor.authorRager, Allison
dc.contributor.authorRifkin, Jamie
dc.contributor.authorWolf, Emily
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Nursingen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-26T16:17:56Z
dc.date.available2019-08-26T16:17:56Z
dc.date.issued2018-06
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: Concomitant with the growth of music intervention research, are concerns about inadequate intervention reporting and inconsistent terminology, which limits validity, replicability, and clinical application of findings. OBJECTIVE: Examine reporting quality of music intervention research, in chronic and acute medical settings, using the Checklist for Reporting Music-based Interventions. In addition, describe patient populations and primary outcomes, intervention content and corresponding interventionist qualifications, and terminology. METHODS: Searching MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, and PsycINFO we identified articles meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria for a five-year period (2010-2015) and extracted relevant data. Coded material included reporting quality across seven areas (theory, content, delivery schedule, interventionist qualifications, treatment fidelity, setting, unit of delivery), author/journal information, patient population/outcomes, and terminology. RESULTS: Of 860 articles, 187 met review criteria (128 experimental; 59 quasi-experimental), with 121 publishing journals, and authors from 31 countries. Overall reporting quality was poor with <50% providing information for four of the seven checklist components (theory, interventionist qualifications, treatment fidelity, setting). Intervention content reporting was also poor with <50% providing information about the music used, decibel levels/volume controls, or materials. Credentialed music therapists and registered nurses delivered most interventions, with clear differences in content and delivery. Terminology was varied and inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Problems with reporting quality impedes meaningful interpretation and cross-study comparisons. Inconsistent and misapplied terminology also create barriers to interprofessional communication and translation of findings to patient care. Improved reporting quality and creation of shared language will advance scientific rigor and clinical relevance of music intervention research.en_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.citationRobb, S. L., Hanson-Abromeit, D., May, L., Hernandez-Ruiz, E., Allison, M., Beloat, A., … Wolf, E. (2018). Reporting quality of music intervention research in healthcare: A systematic review. Complementary therapies in medicine, 38, 24–41. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2018.02.008en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/20572
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.ctim.2018.02.008en_US
dc.relation.journalComplementary Therapies in Medicineen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourcePMCen_US
dc.subjectInterventionen_US
dc.subjectMusicen_US
dc.subjectMusic therapyen_US
dc.subjectReporting qualityen_US
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen_US
dc.titleReporting quality of music intervention research in healthcare: A systematic reviewen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
nihms958215.pdf
Size:
602.29 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: