MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902752952 · doi:10.1186/s12904-018-0378-1

A randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study of music therapy for improving the quality of life of hospice inpatients

2018· article· en· W2902752952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sam Porter, Tracey McConnell, Lisa Graham‐Wisener, Joan Regan, Miriam McKeown, Jenny Kirkwood, Mike Clarke, Evie Gardner, Saskie Dorman, Kerry McGrillen, Joanne Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Palliative Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth and Social Care Research and Development DivisionPublic Health AgencyBournemouth University
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialPhysical therapyClinical endpointMusic therapyIntervention (counseling)Palliative carePsychological interventionFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence about the effectiveness of music therapy for improving the quality of life of palliative care patients is positive but weak in terms of risk of bias. METHODS: This study aimed to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of music therapy for improving the quality of life of hospice inpatients, as measured by the McGill Quality of Life questionnaire. Objectives included recruitment of 52 participants over 12 months and provision of data to support the calculation of the required sample size for a definitive randomised trial, taking into account the retention rates of recruited participants; and evaluation of the viability of the intervention and the acceptability of the assessment tool. The design was a single-centre, researcher-blinded randomised pilot and feasibility study involving two parallel groups. Participants were recruited from one inpatient hospice unit in Northern Ireland. Eligibility criteria were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of two or lower and an Abbreviated Mental Test score of seven or more. Consenting patients were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention group received up to six individual music therapy sessions over 3 weeks in addition to usual care. The control group received usual care only. RESULTS: Fifty one participants were recruited over 12 months. Twenty five were allocated to the intervention group and 26 to the control group. Seventy one percent of participants were lost to follow up by week 3, the proposed primary endpoint. The primary endpoint was moved from week 3, when 71% were lost to follow up to week 1, when 33% were lost. The McGill Quality of Life questionnaire was generally acceptable to participants. In order to detect a small to moderate effect size of 0.3, a fully powered study would require the recruitment of 698 participants. CONCLUSIONS: A Phase III randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of music therapy in improving the quality of life of hospice inpatients is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02791048 . Registered 6 June 2016.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.226
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Palliative CareSame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207