The use of music for children and adolescents living with rare diseases in the healthcare setting: a scoping review study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Interest in the application of music in the health, social care and community contexts is growing worldwide. There is an emerging body of literature about the positive effects of music on the well-being and social relationships of children and adult populations. Music has also been found to promote social interaction, communication skills, and social-emotional behaviours of children with medically complex care needs. Despite significant advancements in the area, to the authors’ knowledge, this is the first scoping review to investigate the evidence for using music therapy and music-based interventions for children living with rare diseases in the healthcare setting. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to conduct a scoping review of the literature to map out the existing studies about the use of music therapy and music-based interventions with children who have rare diseases in the healthcare setting. This review will also identify gaps in current knowledge and use of these interventions. Method: This study follows the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodology for scoping reviews, utilising Arksey and O’Malley’s six-stage scoping review framework: 1) identifying the research question; 2) identifying relevant studies; 3) study selection; 4) charting the data; 5) collating, summarising and reporting results; and 6) consulting with relevant stakeholders step. A comprehensive search will be conducted in CINAHL Complete; MEDLINE Complete; Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection; and PubMed Central databases. A search strategy with selected inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used to reveal a wide range of evidence. This study will include quantitative, qualitative and mixed research methods studies published in English from 2010 to 2020.
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 | 0.077 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.011 |
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".