A qualitative study exploring the implementation determinants of rehabilitation and global wellness programs for orchestral musicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore the facilitators and barriers to implementation of a pilot workplace rehabilitation and global wellness program for orchestral musicians. Design: Qualitative study comprising focus groups and interviews. Setting: Workplace of conservatory and orchestral musicians and administrators. Participants: Musicians, administrators and a conductor from two professional orchestras; tertiary-level orchestral students and an administrator from a conservatory of music. Interventions: We held four focus groups and two interviews to document the perspectives of the participants concerning the implementation determinants of a pilot workplace rehabilitation and wellness program (exercises and health-related education). Meetings consisted of questions based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Thematic content analysis was conducted using this same framework, with subcoding according to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: Fourteen musicians and five administrators participated. Results suggest that the implementation determinants for the pilot and future programs rely mainly on the Inner Setting, that is, what musicians refer to as ‘the music world’, specifically cultural elements such as pain beliefs (e.g. no pain no gain) and lack of resources and time (barriers). Characteristics of Individuals such as social influences amongst colleagues and beliefs about the consequences of self-care or lack thereof, and Intervention Characteristics such as complexity can be facilitators or barriers. All emerging themes have an undercurrent that lies in the Inner Setting. Conclusion: Musicians’ culture, currently a barrier, is a crucial determinant of rehabilitation and wellness program implementation in the orchestral musicians’ workplace. A focus on musicians’ workplace environment is necessary to optimise implementation and intervention impacts.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".