I need help revising my article review.
Critique each article using the appropriate appraisal form:
·
Qualitative Review
Download Qualitative Review
·
Quantitative Review
Download Quantitative Review
Use the information below to help you know which section of the article to use to answer the questions in the template:
· Introduction and its subsections have the purpose or WHY study done.
· Methods section and its subsections contains HOW the study was done.
· Results, Discussion and Conclusions section have WHAT was found.
Vocal Music Therapy for Chronic Pain:
A Mixed Methods Feasibility Study
Ming Yuan Low, MA, MT-BC,1 Clarissa Lacson, MA, MT-BC,1 Fengqing Zhang, PhD,2
Amy Kesslick, MA, MT-BC, LPC,3 and Joke Bradt, PhD, MT-BC1
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and preliminary effects of a vocal music
therapy (VMT) program on chronic pain management.
Design: A mixed methods intervention design was used in which qualitative data were embedded within a
randomized controlled trial.
Setting: An urban nurse-management health center on the East Coast of the United States.
Subjects: Participants (N = 43) were predominantly Black (79%) and female (76.7%) with an average pain
duration of 10 years.
Intervention: Participants were randomly allocated to a 12-week VMT program or a waitlist control.
Outcome measures: We tracked consent rate (percentage of participants enrolled out of total number
screened), attrition rate, and treatment adherence. We used PROMIS
�
(Patient Reported Outcomes Measure-
ment Information System) tools to measure pain interference, pain-related self-efficacy, pain intensity, de-
pression, anxiety, positive effect, and well-being, ability to participate in social activities, and satisfaction with
social roles at baseline and week 12. VMT participants also completed the Patient Global Impression of Change
Scale. We conducted semistructured interviews to better understand participants’ experience of the intervention.
Results: The consent rate was 56%. The attrition rate was 23%. Large treatment effects (partial eta squared) were
obtained for self-efficacy (0.20), depression (0.26), and ability to participate in social activities (0.24). Medium effects
were found for pain intensity (0.10), anxiety (0.06), positive effect, and well-being (0.06), and small effects for pain
interference (0.03) and satisfaction with social roles (0.03). On average, participants felt moderately better after
completion of the VMT program (M = 4.93, standard deviation = 1.98). Qualitative findings suggest that VMT resulted
in better self-management of pain, enhanced psychological well-being, and stronger social and spiritual connections.
Conclusions: Recruitment into the 12-week program was challenging, but quantitative and qualitative
findings suggest significant benefits of VMT for chronic pain management.
Keywords: music therapy, pain management, clinical trials
Introduction
Chronic pain is a significant public health problemamounting to an annual health care expense of ap-
proximately half a trillion dollars in the United States
alone.
1
In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention issued recommendations to move away from
opioids and instead use nonpharmacological thera-
pies for the treatment of chronic pain.
2
The use of music
for the
Take free quizzes online at acsjournals.com/ce
ONLINE CONTINUING EDUCATION ACTIVITY
After reading the article “Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Evidence-Based Use of Integrative Therapies During and After Breast Cancer Treatment,” the learner
should be able to:
ARTICLE TITLE: Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Evidence-Based Use of Integrative Therapies During
and After Breast Cancer Treatment
CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION ACCREDITATION AND DESIGNATION STATEMENT:
Blackwell Futura Media Services is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education (CME)
for physicians.
Blackwell Futura Media Services designates this enduring material for a maximum of 2.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. Physicians should only claim credit
commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
CONTINUING NURSING EDUCATION ACCREDITATION AND DESIGNATION STATEMENT:
The American Cancer Society (ACS) is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education (CNE) by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Commission on
Accreditation.
Accredited status does not imply endorsement by the ACS or the American Nurses Credentialing Center of any commercial products displayed or discussed in
conjunction with an educational activity. The ACS gratefully acknowledges the sponsorship provided by Wiley for hosting these CNE activities.
EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES:
ACTIVITY DISCLOSURES:
No commercial support has been accepted related to the development or publication of this activity.
ACS CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE DISCLOSURES:
Editor: Ted Gansler, MD, MBA, MPH, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
Associate Editor: Durado Brooks, MD, MPH, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
Lead Nurse Planner: Cathy Meade, PhD, RN, FAAN, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
Editorial Advisory Member: Richard C. Wender, MD, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
NURSING ADVISORY BOARD DISCLOSURES:
Maureen Berg, RN, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
Susan Jackson, RN, MPH, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
Barbara L
World Journal of
Meta-Analysis
World J Meta-Anal 2019 November 28; 7(9): 406-435
ISSN 2308-3840 (online)
Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
W J M A
World Journal of
Meta-Analysis
Contents Irregular Volume 7 Number 9 November 28, 2019
REVIEW
406 Treatment of early stage (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma: Personalizing the best therapy choice
Kumble LD, Silver E, Oh A, Abrams JA, Sonett JR, Hur C
MINIREVIEWS
418 Mechanisms of action of aqueous extract from the Hunteria umbellata seed and metformin in diabetes
Ejelonu OC
423 Fecal microbiota transplantation: Historical review and current perspective
Leung PC, Cheng KF
META-ANALYSIS
428 Use of music during colonoscopy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Heath RD, Parsa N, Matteson-Kome ML, Buescher V, Samiullah S, Nguyen DL, Tahan V, Ghouri YA, Puli SR, Bechtold ML
WJMA https://www.wjgnet.com November 28, 2019 Volume 7 Issue 9I
Contents
World Journal of Meta-Analysis
Volume 7 Number 9 November 28, 2019
ABOUT COVER Editorial Board Member of World Journal of Meta-Analysis, Xiangchun Shen,
PhD, Director, Postdoc, Professor, Teacher, School of Pharmaceutical
Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Functions and Applications of Medicinal
Plants, Guizhou Medical University, Guian New District 550025, Guizhou
Province, China
AIMS AND SCOPE The primary aim of World Journal of Meta-Analysis (WJMA, World J Meta-
Anal) is to provide scholars and readers from various fields of clinical
medicine with a platform to publish high-quality meta-analysis and
systematic review articles and communicate their research findings online.
WJMA mainly publishes articles reporting research results and findings
obtained through meta-analysis and systematic review in a wide range of
areas, including medicine, pharmacy, preventive medicine, stomatology,
nursing, medical imaging, and laboratory medicine.
INDEXING/ABSTRACTING The WJMA is now abstracted and indexed in China National Knowledge
Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (CSTJ), and
Superstar Journals Database
RESPONSIBLE EDITORS FOR
THIS ISSUE
Responsible Electronic Editor: Yan-Xia Xing
Proofing Production Department Director: Yun-Xiaojian Wu
NAME OF JOURNAL
World Journal of Meta-Analysis
ISSN
ISSN 2308-3840 (online)
LAUNCH DATE
May 26, 2013
FREQUENCY
Irregular
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/editorialboard.htm
EDITORIAL OFFICE
Jin-Lei Wang, Director
PUBLICATION DATE
November 28, 2019
COPYRIGHT
© 2019 Baish
APPENDIX E
Appraisal Guide:
Findings of a Qualitative Study
Citation:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Synopsis
What experience, situation, or subculture does the researcher seek to understand?
Does the researcher want to produce a description of an experience, a social process, or an event, or is the goal to generate a theory?
How was data collected?
How did the researcher control his or her biases and preconceptions?
Are specific pieces of data (e.g., direct quotes) and more generalized statements (themes, theories) included in the report?
What are the main findings of the study?
Credibility
Is the study published in a source
that required peer review? Yes No Not clear
Were the methods used appropriate
to the study purpose? Yes No Not clear
Was the sampling of observations or
interviews appropriate and varied
enough to serve the purpose of the study? Yes No Not clear
*Were data collection methods
effective in obtaining in-depth data? Yes No Not clear
Did the data collection methods
avoid the possibility of oversight,
underrepresentation, or
overrepresentation from certain
types of sources? Yes No Not clear
Were data collection and analysis
intermingled in a dynamic way? Yes No Not clear
*Is the data presented in ways that
provide a vivid portrayal of what was
experienced or happened and its
context? Yes No Not clear
*Does the data provided justify
generalized statements, themes,
or theory? Yes No Not clear
Are the findings credible? Yes All Yes Some No
Clinical Significance
*Are the findings rich and informative? Yes No Not clear
*Is the perspective provided
potentially useful in providing
insight, support, or guidance
for assessing patient status
or progress? Yes Some No Not clear
Are the findings
clinically significant? Yes All Yes Some No
* = Important criteria
Comments
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
APP E-2 Brown
Brown APP E-1
APPENDIX F
Appraisal Guide:
Findings of a Quantitative Study
Citation:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Synopsis
What was the purpose of the study (research questions, purposes, and hypotheses)?
How was the sample obtained?
What inclusion or exclusion criteria were used?
Who from the sample actually participated or contributed data (demographic or clinical profile and dropout rate)?
What methods were used to collect data (e.g., sequence, timing, types of data, and measures)?
Was an intervention tested? Yes No
1. How was the sample size determined?
2. Were patients randomly assigned to treatment groups?
What are the main findings?
Credibility
Is the study published in a source
that required peer review? Yes No Not clear
*Did the data obtained and the
analysis conducted answer the
research question? Yes No Not clear
Were the measuring instruments
reliable and valid? Yes No Not clear
*Were important extraneous
variables and bias controlled? Yes No Not clear
*If an intervention was tested,
answer the following five questions: Yes No Not clear
1. Were participants randomly
assigned to groups and were
the two groups similar at the
start (before the intervention)? Yes No Not clear
2. Were the interventions well
defined and consistently
delivered? Yes No Not clear
3. Were the groups treated
equally other than the
difference in interventions? Yes No Not clear
4. If no difference was found, was
the sample size large enough
to detect a difference if one existed? Yes No Not clear
5. If a difference was found, are
you confident it was due to the
intervention? Yes No Not clear
Are the findings consistent with
findings from other studies? Yes Some No Not clear
Are the findings credible? Yes All Yes Some No
Clinical Significance
Note any difference in means, r2s, or measures of clinical effects (ABI, NNT, RR, OR)
*Is the target population clearly
described? Yes No Not clear
*Is the frequency, association, or
treatment effect impressive enough
for you to be confident that the finding
would make a clinical difference if used
as the basis for care? Yes No Not clear
Are the findings
clinically significant? Yes All Yes Some No
* = Important criteria
Comments
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
______