Effect of music therapy on patient experience in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Music therapy is a low-cost and low-risk intervention that has been shown to improve patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in various areas of medicine including gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. A scoping review was performed to answer the following research question: What is known from the existing literature about the effect of music therapy used in adult GI endoscopy on PROMs (eg pain, anxiety) and PREMs (eg satisfaction, willingness to repeat procedure)? Methods Guided by the methodologic framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley, 3 medical databases were queried for articles pertinent to the research question and published between January 2005 and December 2024. Studies were selected for inclusion based on established criteria and summarized in a comprehensive data table as well as accompanying figures. Results A total of 30 original research articles were selected for inclusion. The most reported outcomes were pain (N = 21), anxiety (N = 21), and satisfaction (N = 14). Significant improvements following music therapy were described most commonly for anxiety (N = 15, 71% of 21) and satisfaction (N = 10, 71% of 14) and less commonly for pain (N = 11, 52% of 21). Reductions in pain and anxiety were more consistent for music interventions performed in the pre-endoscopy period. Conclusions Music therapy appears to be an effective means of improving anxiety and satisfaction in patients undergoing GI endoscopy. Endoscopists should consider music therapy as a non-pharmacologic adjunct to improve the patient experience in endoscopy.
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 | 0.015 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".