Scope, Findability, and Quality of Information About Music-Based Interventions in Oncology: Quantitative Content Analysis of Public-Facing Websites at National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Music-based interventions (MBIs) are evidence-based, nonpharmacological treatments that include music therapy (MT) delivered by board-certified music therapists, as well as music services (MS) delivered by other health professionals and volunteers. Despite MBI's growing evidence base in cancer symptom management, it remains unclear how MBI-related information is presented to the public. Over 80% of people with cancer use the internet to find health-related information. In the United States, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) identifies certain Cancer Centers (CCs) as NCI-designated CCs or Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) based on their excellence in research. As NCI-designated CCs and CCCs are considered the gold standard in cancer care, their websites are viewed by the public as important sources of information. Objective: We aimed to determine scope, findability, and quality of MBI-related information on public-facing websites of NCI-designated CCs/CCCs. Methods: We reviewed 64 NCI-designated CC/CCC websites (excluding basic laboratories) between November 2022 and January 2023. We extracted data on the scope of information: (1) type of MBI offered (MT or MS), (2) format (individual, group), (3) method of delivery (in person or remotely delivered), (4) setting (inpatient or outpatient), (5) target population (pediatric or adult), (6) MBI practitioner qualifications, (7) clinical indications or benefits, (8) presence of testimonials, (9) cost, and (10) scheduling or referral information. We also extracted data on findability (ie, presence of direct link or drop-down menu and the number of clicks to locate MBI-related information). Based on the scope and findability data, we rated the information quality as high, moderate, or low using an adapted scale informed by prior research. Results: Thirty-one (48%) of the 64 CC/CCCs described MBIs on their websites. Of these, 6 (19%) mentioned both MT and MS, 16 (52%) mentioned MT only, and 9 (29%) mentioned MS only. The most common format was hybrid, involving individuals and groups (n=20, 65%). The most common delivery method was in person (n=16, 52%). The most common target population was adults (n=12, 39%). The most common MBI practitioners were board-certified music therapists (n=21, 68%). The most described indications or benefits were psychological. Twenty-eight (90%) websites lacked testimonials, and 26 (84%) lacked cost information. Twenty-six (84%) websites provided scheduling or referral information. MBI-related information was found with an average of 4 (SD 1) clicks. Nine (29%) websites were of high quality, 18 (58%) were moderate, and 4 (13%) were low. Conclusions: Based on public websites, MBIs were most commonly delivered in person by board-certified music therapists to outpatient and inpatient adults, using individual and group formats to provide psychological benefits. The findability and quality of this information should be improved to promote the dissemination of MBIs for cancer symptom management.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,137 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».