Music: A holistic approach to symptom management for patients undergoing cancer treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Patients undergoing chemotherapy carry a tremendous amount of psychological and physical burdens. The focus of care in the oncology setting should include a blend of pharmacological and holistic medicine to achieve desired health goals. This research includes a comprehensive review of music therapy as a vehicle to promote psychotherapeutic effects on patients receiving chemotherapy. This review serves to identify the positive outcomes of patients engaging in music therapy while receiving chemotherapy.Methods: An integrative literature review was conducted. Articles published between 2007 and 2020 were identified searching the databases of CINAHL, PubMed, and ProQuest. Key words included music therapy, psychological, chemotherapy, depression, anxiety and cancer.Results: Eight articles were reviewed that identified three emotional effects in relation to receiving chemotherapy: anxiety, depression and quality of life. The literature focused on how music therapy was used to improve these emotional states. The Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory- State Anxiety Scale and other standardized units were used to evaluate the positive effects of music therapy. These tools, which help standardize assessments, found noticeable psychosocial improvements.Conclusions: Further studies are needed to conduct a more comprehensive use of music therapy in the healthcare setting. Inclusive literature should also be available as an alternative method of treatment to provide additional outlets for improvement of health outcomes. The information studied has already found promising results of music therapy on patients' psychological wellbeing while receiving chemotherapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".