Effect of a rehabilitation program on performance-related musculoskeletal disorders in student and professional orchestral musicians: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore the feasibility of a rehabilitation program and its effect on the performance-related musculoskeletal symptoms and functional limitations of orchestral musicians. Design: Single-blind pilot randomized controlled trial with exercise group and control group. Setting: Workplace of professional symphony orchestra and tertiary-level conservatory orchestral musicians. Participants: Professional and student orchestral musicians with or without performance-related musculoskeletal disorders. Interventions: A rehabilitation program including an educational presentation, an 11-week home exercise program and three supervised exercise sessions, versus no intervention. Measures: Feasibility measures included adherence and drop-out rate. The Musculoskeletal Pain Intensity and Interference Questionnaire for professional orchestra Musicians (MPIIQM) measured symptom intensity and functional limitations, while the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) measured symptom prevalence and frequency. Results: A total of 30 participants were recruited ( n = 15 per group). Exercise group adherence was 97.7% for the supervised sessions and 89% for the home exercise program. There were no drop-outs. Significant group-time interactions were obtained for both the pain intensity (partial η 2 = 0.166; P = 0.025) and pain interference (partial η 2 = 0.186; P = 0.017) sections of the MPIIQM. Mean (standard deviation) pain intensity score changes from baseline to 11 weeks were control group: 0.40 (5.04); P = 0.763; partial η 2 = 0.007; and exercise group: –4.07 (5.31); P = 0.010; partial η 2 = 0.386. For pain interference, mean score changes were control group: 0.20 (9.10); P = 0.933; partial η 2 = 0.001; and exercise group: –9.00 (10.73); P = 0.006; partial η 2 = 0.430. NMQ analyses revealed no significant interaction ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: Results suggest that the studied program is feasible and effective in decreasing the intensity and functional impact of musicians’ symptoms. However, no significant medium-term effect on the prevalence and frequency of symptoms was shown.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".