Development and crossover pilot randomized controlled trial of a patient-oriented music intervention to reduce pain in the adult intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.Adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) often experience pain.A multimodal approach to pain management is recommended, including nonpharmacological interventions such as music.To determine the effect of music interventions for ICU pain management, our systematic review of randomized controlled trials supported that 20-30 minutes of music with a tempo of 60-80 bpm was efficacious to reduce pain in ICU patients able to self-report.However, music efficacy in patients unable to self-report remains unknown.Gaps in acceptability and feasibility of music interventions tested in the ICU setting were also highlighted.Objectives.This study included two phases.Phase I aimed to describe the acceptability of a newly developed patient-oriented music intervention (POMI) and to guide its refinement.Phase II aimed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of POMI, and the feasibility of research methods.A secondary objective was to examine the preliminary efficacy of POMI to reduce pain.Methods.I.A descriptive design was used to inform the acceptability of a preliminary POMI developed based on theoretical and empirical knowledge, which uses a music streaming service to generate playlists based on patient preferences, the recommended tempo and duration.Critical care experts were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling and completed a questionnaire and a semi-structured interview via video conference.Participants rated acceptability items from 0-4 and provided feedback on POMI acceptability and features.Their experiential knowledge guided the POMI refinements.II.Three samples of participants were recruited: ICU patients (2 groups: able and unable to self-report); family members; and nurses.Patients were randomized to either sequence 1 (POMI period, then control period), or sequence 2 (control period, then POMI period), with a 4-hour washout period.POMI was administered for at least 20 minutes before a turning procedure.No music was played during the control period.Outcomes Blossoms for the lunches and fun activities: you are such inspiring, amazing, and inclusive women.You gave me a new perspective on nursing, and I sincerely appreciate your support.Shout out to the entire Graphos 3MAYT team, including facilitators Mariève, Donetta, Alexandra, Shannon, Mirjam, Marc and everyone who generously provided support: Sam, Sarika, Sophie, Moses, Susan, Eyre, Mike, Richard, Sarah, Fiona and so many more, for the guidance, peer support, sense of community, and positive environment you all created.Our meetings allowed me to grow as a writer, make new connections and progress beyond what I thought possible.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".