Music therapists’ perspectives on nature-connecting methods and the integration of nature in music therapy: Results of a survey among German and Austrian music therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nature- and ecology-related topics are currently gaining increasing attention in healthcare and among healthcare professions. In music therapy, nature, nature-assisted approaches, and ecology have not yet been frequently discussed issues. Only few concepts and approaches have been developed and implemented so far. Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey to gain more knowledge about music therapists’ perspectives concerning the implementation of nature and nature-connecting methods in music therapy. A total of N = 84 music therapists from Austria and Germany took part in our investigation. The survey included quantitative and qualitative items. For data analysis, we applied SPSS Statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results show that 75% of the participating music therapists have never or rarely conducted music therapy in nature so far. However, almost 67% of them estimated the potentials of integrating nature in music-therapy work to be (very) high. The more pronounced the nature connectedness and openness to experience, the higher the music therapists’ assessments of the potentials of nature in music therapy. Music therapists judged music therapy in nature to enhance the therapists’ diagnostic insights and listening to nature sounds to positively affect clients’ well-being. As for potential risks, heightened distraction and confidentiality breaks were ranked highest. These findings offer preliminary insights into music therapists’ attitudes and experiences concerning the integration of nature and nature-assisted methods in music therapy. Further studies are indicated to expand and deepen limited evidence. • Music therapists have rarely conducted music therapy in nature so far. • Music therapists judge the potential of nature in music therapy to be (very) high. • Music therapy in nature enhances the therapists’ diagnostic insights. • Listening to nature sounds may affect clients’ well-being. • Heighted distraction, confidentiality breaches rank highest among potential risks.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".