Joke Bradt

Background A considerable number of published reviews have addressed the treatment effects of arts-based interventions for health outcomes in people with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). It is important to summarise this evidence base to inform policy and practice, identify research gaps, and provide research recommendations. Methods We searched The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, and Embase for systematic reviews published between database inception and 7 September 2023. We included systematic reviews (SR) with meta-analyses that summarised the effects of arts-based interventions on psychological, physical, cognitive functioning, or quality of life outcomes in people with cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic respiratory disease (CRD), diabetes, mental health conditions, or neurological conditions. Eligible effect sizes (ES) were converted to standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Overall ES were calculated for each NCD population as well as across the four outcome domains, supplemented with subgroup analysis on study-, outcome-, and intervention variables. For all meta-analyses, we used restricted likelihood multilevel meta-analysis to account for non-independence of ES within individual meta-analyses. We assessed methodological quality using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 checklist. This umbrella review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023493088). Findings Our search resulted in 3,885 unique citations, of which 149 SR (including 573 ES) were included in our analyses. Music and dance interventions contributed 86.6% of ES estimates. We found medium overall treatment benefits for cancer (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.59), cardiovascular disease (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.35–0.58) and mental health conditions (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.39–0.58), a small-to-medium overall effect for neurological conditions (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.24–0.37), but not for chronic respiratory disease (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.07–0.80). Most reviews were of low methodological quality. Interpretation Our findings indicate that people with NCDs may benefit from arts-based interventions for physical, psychological, cognitive functioning and QoL outcomes. Therefore, arts-based interventions may be a valuable addition to traditionally first-line treatments such as psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies, and standard medical treatment for NCDs.

Research supports the efficacy of music-based interventions (MBIs) for pain management, but understanding of their underlying mechanisms is lagging. This scoping review aims to map existing mechanism-focused MBI research, identify knowledge gaps, and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of this body of research. Studies were eligible if they tested a mechanism, moderator, or predictor of the effects of MBIs on clinical or experimental pain and were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus from inception through February 2026. Two reviewers completed screening and data extraction, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. From 663 records screened, 57 studies were included. Most studies employed experimental pain models with healthy volunteers. All but 4 studies examined the mechanisms of music audio recordings; the remaining studies examined active music-making. We identified convergent evidence for several candidate mechanisms, including positive emotional valence, cognitive agency, and sensorimotor synchronization. Evidence from neuroimaging studies point to the impact of music on early stages of pain processing as well as on higher-order cognitive and affective interpretation of pain. Finally, preliminary evidence suggests that music may restore default mode network connectivity involved in self-referential thoughts. Across studies, several methodological limitations constrained inferences. Future research should (1) employ rigorous designs that distinguish between competing mechanistic models and, when feasible, incorporate causal manipulations to test hypothesized mechanisms and (2) examine whether music influences pain processing differently in populations with vs without clinical pain.

Purpose: Many cancer survivors experience long-term cancer-related psychosocial effects like anxiety, depression, and isolation, yet their ongoing needs for effective supportive care are frequently unmet. Songwriting during music therapy sessions can help cancer survivors process and communicate their thoughts and feelings about their needs and challenges. The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to analyze songs written by cancer survivors with elevated anxiety as part of their participation in a randomized controlled trial aimed at reducing anxiety. Methods: We performed a reflexive thematic analysis of 26 songs to explore the needs and challenges cancer survivors expressed in them. We used clinical session information to supplement our interpretation of the song lyrics. Results: Through our analysis, we generated four themes: (1) the need to use time wisely, (2) personal influences on coping, (3) the need to feel others’ support, and (4) existential needs. Connections between the themes and categories highlighted how coping with one challenge typically activated another, often impacting participants’ relationships. Conclusions: Our results suggest that songwriting helped participants process and communicate a range of needs and challenges, including those regarding self-concept, relationships, and existential concerns. Better understanding and communicating these needs may enable participants to address challenges and meet their needs more effectively. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Findings suggest that cancer survivors who are experiencing anxiety may find that songwriting with a music therapist helps them understand, work through, and share thoughts and feelings about their needs with others.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: Primary objective To evaluate the benefits and harms of music-based interventions (MBIs) for chronic pain management in adults with pain lasting more than 12 weeks, comparing MBIs with the following comparators: active care, placebo, or no treatment/waitlist control. Specifically, we aim to assess the effects of MBIs on critical outcomes, such as pain intensity, pain-related distress, and pain interference with daily functioning. Secondary objectives To evaluate the effects of MBIs on important outcomes, including functioning and disability, psychological outcomes (e.g. depression, anxiety, pain catastrophising, kinesiophobia (fear of movement due to pain), self-efficacy, perceived social support, wellbeing), health-related quality of life, and sleep quality To identify and report any adverse effects associated with MBIs To examine whether intervention effects differ across prespecified subgroups (i.e. pain aetiology, type of engagement, intervention duration), using subgroup analyses where sufficient data are available.

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of standard care combined with music therapy for the management of physical symptoms and psychosocial outcomes in individuals receiving end‐of‐life care, compared with (a) standard care alone or (b) standard care plus other non‐music interventions To evaluate the relative benefits and harms of different types of music therapy interventions (e.g. music listening, songwriting, or improvisation as part of a structured therapeutic process) for the management of physical symptoms and psychosocial outcomes in individuals receiving end‐of‐life care

This paper describes three research networks funded by the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The networks seek to advance the mechanistic understanding of music-based interventions (MBIs) for pain management. The networks address critical gaps hindering MBI research, including inconsistent terminology, lack of mechanistic understanding, and insufficient objective measures. The Music4Pain Network focuses on the development of a taxonomy, a mechanistic framework, and research priorities; the ENSEMBLE Network promotes cross-disciplinary collaboration, collation of real-world data from clinical settings, and biomarker identification; and the Audio Analgesia Network emphasizes computational methods and innovative technologies to advance mechanistic research in MBIs. Together, these networks form the Music and Health Consortium, conducting collaborative research through specialized working groups, pilot funding opportunities, and training programs to improve the rigor and mechanistic understanding of MBIs for pain management.

Background: Detailed intervention reporting is essential to interpretation, replication, and translation of music-based interventions (MBIs). The 2011 Reporting Guidelines for Music-Based Interventions were developed to improve transparency and reporting quality of published research; however, problems with reporting quality persist.Methods: The purpose of this study was to update and validate the 2011 reporting guidelines using rigorous Delphi approach that involved an interdisciplinary group of MBI researchers; and to develop an explanation and elaboration guidance statement to support dissemination and usage. We followed the methodological framework for developing reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR Network and guidance recommendations for developing health research reporting guidelines. Our three-stage process included: (1) an initial field scan, (2) a consensus process using Delphi surveys (two rounds) and Expert Panel meetings, and (3) development and dissemination of an explanation and elaboration document.Results: First-Round survey findings revealed that the original checklist items were capturing content that investigators deemed essential to MBI reporting; however, it also revealed problems with item wording and terminology. Subsequent Expert Panel meetings and the Second-Round survey centered on reaching consensus for item language. The revised RG-MBI checklist has a total of 12-items that pertain to eight different components of MBI interventions including name, theory/scientific rationale, content, interventionist, individual/group, setting, delivery schedule, and treatment fidelity.Conclusion: We recommend that authors, journal editors, and reviewers use the RG-MBI guidelines, in conjunction with methods-based guidelines (e.g., CONSORT) to accelerate and improve the scientific rigor of MBI research.

Background: Detailed intervention reporting is essential to interpretation, replication, and eventual translation of music-based interventions (MBIs) into practice. Despite availability of Reporting Guidelines for Music-based Interventions (RG-MBI, published 2011), multiple reviews reveal sustained problems with reporting quality and consistency. To address this, we convened an interdisciplinary expert panel to update and improve the utility and validity of the existing guidelines using a rigorous Delphi approach. The resulting updated checklist includes 12-items across eight areas considered essential to ensure transparent reporting of MBIs.Methods: The purpose of this explanation and elaboration document is to facilitate consistent understanding, use, and dissemination of the revised RG-MBI. Members of the interdisciplinary expert panel collaborated to create the resulting guidance statement.Results: This guidance statement offers: (1) the scope and intended use of the RG-MBI, (2) an explanation for each checklist item, with examples from published studies, and (3) 2 published studies with annotations indicating where the authors reported each checklist item.Conclusion: Broader uptake of the RG-MBIs by study authors, editors, and peer reviewers will lead to better reporting of MBI trials, and in turn facilitate greater replication of research, improve cross-study comparisons and meta-analyses, and increase implementation of findings.

Antecedentes: La elaboración de informes detallados de las intervenciones es esencial para la interpretación, replicación y traducción de las intervenciones musicales (MBI). Las Directrices de Informes para Intervenciones Musicales de 2011 se desarrollaron para mejorar la transparencia y la calidad de los informes de las investigaciones publicadas; sin embargo, persisten problemas con la calidad de los informes. Esto representa un obstáculo importante para los avances en la investigación científica de las MBI y la aplicación práctica de los hallazgos. Objetivo: Actualizar y validar las directrices de presentación de informes de 2011 utilizando un riguroso enfoque Delphi que involucró a un grupo interdisciplinario de investigadores del MBI; y desarrollar una declaración de guía de explicación y elaboración para apoyar la difusión y el uso. Métodos: Seguimos el marco metodológico para el desarrollo de las directrices de reporte recomendadas por la Red EQUATOR y las recomendaciones para el desarrollo de directrices de reporte de investigación en salud. Nuestro proceso de tres etapas incluyó: (1) un análisis de campo inicial, (2) un proceso de consenso mediante encuestas Delphi (dos rondas) y reuniones de un panel de expertos, y (3) la elaboración y difusión de un documento explicativo y de desarrollo. Resultados: Los hallazgos de la primera ronda de la encuesta revelaron que los ítems originales de la lista de verificación capturaban contenido que los investigadores consideraban esencial para los informes de MBI; sin embargo, también se detectaron problemas con la redacción y la terminología de los ítems. Las reuniones posteriores del Panel de Expertos y la segunda ronda de la encuesta se centraron en alcanzar un consenso sobre la redacción de los ítems. La lista de verificación revisada de RG-MBI consta de 12 ítems que corresponden a ocho componentes diferentes de las intervenciones de MBI, incluyendo nombre, fundamento teórico/científico, contenido, intervencionista, individuo/grupo, entorno, cronograma de administración y fidelidad al tratamiento. Conclusión: Recomendamos que los autores, editores de revistas y revisores utilicen las pautas RG-MBI, junto con las pautas basadas en métodos (por ejemplo, CONSORT) para acelerar y mejorar el rigor científico de la investigación de MBI.