TY - JOUR
T1 - Reporting quality of music intervention research in healthcare
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Robb, Sheri L.
AU - Hanson-Abromeit, Deanna
AU - May, Lindsey
AU - Hernandez-Ruiz, Eugenia
AU - Allison, Megan
AU - Beloat, Alyssa
AU - Daugherty, Sarah
AU - Kurtz, Rebecca
AU - Ott, Alyssa
AU - Oyedele, Oladele Oladimeji
AU - Polasik, Shelbi
AU - Rager, Allison
AU - Rifkin, Jamie
AU - Wolf, Emily
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded in part by the first author's grant funding from the NIH, National Institute of Nursing Research (R01 NR015789).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Authors
PY - 2018/6
Y1 - 2018/6
N2 - Introduction: 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.
AB - Introduction: 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.
KW - Intervention
KW - Music
KW - Music therapy
KW - Reporting quality
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044940675&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044940675&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ctim.2018.02.008
DO - 10.1016/j.ctim.2018.02.008
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29857877
AN - SCOPUS:85044940675
SN - 0965-2299
VL - 38
SP - 24
EP - 41
JO - Complementary Therapies in Medicine
JF - Complementary Therapies in Medicine
ER -