FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2322203435> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2322203435 endingPage "190" @default.
• W2322203435 startingPage "185" @default.
• W2322203435 abstract "The purpose of this study was to systematically examine the levels of evidence from articles published in the Journal of Music Therapy (JMT) from 2000 – 2009 using the classification taxonomy established by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2005). Most JMT studies were Level Vi (single descriptive or qualitative study, n = 83, 45.36%) or Level ii (randomized & controlled trial, n = 32, 17.49%). The populations most studied were other (n = 31, 16.94%), nondisabled persons (n = 24, 13.12%), medical/surgical (n = 16, 8.74%), Alzheimer’s/dementia (n = 12, 6.56%), and school-age populations (n = 12, 6.56%). As many systematic reviews only include Level ii evidence, there is a need for additional randomized controlled trials. The variety of research designs and clinical populations are a testament to the breadth of JMT and the profession. Limitations, implications, and suggestions for future research are provided. Music therapy clinical practice and research have unquestionably evolved since the inception of the Journal of Music Therapy (JMT) in 1964. The literature base is continually expanding as clinicians and researchers implement innovative music therapy interventions to address consumer needs. This research continues to build upon itself as authors utilize information, knowledge, and techniques found in the literature base to assess, design, implement, and evaluate methods and treatments. if a particular research study is deemed of high enough quality by a blind editorial board of experts in the field, results may be reported in JMT, which is considered a premiere research journal in the music therapy field (Madsen & Madsen, 1997). Music therapy researchers have also investigated the literature base itself. Resultant data may be constructive as scholars and clinicians can utilize results to gain perspectives concerning the status of the field and for setting future research agendas (Yarbourgh, 1984). Researchers have evaluated modes of inquiry in music therapy research (Jellison, 1973), music therapy journal articles in the English language (Brooks, 2003), the population served and researcher institutional affiliation of research posters (silverman, 2008), the history of published music therapy case studies (silverman, 2006), and other types of music therapy journals (Webster, 1993; Wheeler, 1988). Researchers have also specifically studied aspects of JMT. To date, researchers conducting descriptive studies concerning JMT have analyzed the history of the journal (solomon, 1993), the use of control groups (Jones, 2005), study content (Codding, 1987), the use of behavioral research designs (gregory, 2002), identified the focus and implications for future research (gilbert, 1979), identified test instruments used by authors (gregory, 2000), described the sources of authors’ affiliation, gender, and credentials (James, 1985), and provided annotated bibliographies for single case experiment research (Nicolas & Boyle, 1983). These studies are of considerable value as they detail the history of the journal, identify gaps in the literature base, and can serve to guide future scientific inquiry for both clinicians and researchers. As research is a vital component in providing the most effective care for music therapy recipients, classification systems of research are necessary so clinicians can interpret and apply results to clinical practice. Evidence-based practice (EBp) was a resultant of this movement toward clinical practice based upon systematic investigation, consumer values and preferences, and clinician expertise. With the modern amplified emphasis concerning evidence-based practice in contemporary music therapy (Abrams, 2010; Edwards, 2005; Else & Wheeler, 2010; Kern, 2010), it seems that music therapists are increasingly aware of utilizing this model. However, there is a plethora of available systems that researchers and clinicians can utilize to evaluate individual research studies, known as levels of evidence (phillips et al., 2001; Rice, 2008; stevens, 2005). These hierarchies differentiate levels of evidence based on the research paradigm and design of a single study. Readers should note that these hierarchies do not rate one type of research study as superior than another, provide quality indicators, nor provide a synthesis of results. Rather, researchers and clinicians can utilize levels of evidence to show a natural progression of research from a single descriptive or qualitative study (i.e., the most basic level) to meta-analysis consisting of only randomized control trials (i.e., the most complex level). A number of different levels of evidence hierarchies exist. silverman (2010) compared, contrasted, and applied a number of these hierarchies to the psychiatric music therapy literature base. For the purposes of the current paper, the researchers utilized Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt’s (2005) levels of evidence hierarchy from the nursing profession because the fields of nursing and music therapy similarly serve a broad spectrum of clinical and nonclinical populations. Additionally, the Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2005) hierarchy utilized a numbered system that facilitated communication and © the American Music Therapy Association 2014. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com Andrea Yun-springer, MT-BC, is co-owner and music therapist at Toneworks Music Therapy in Minneapolis, MN. Michael J. silverman, phD, MT-BC, is the Director of Music Therapy at the University of Minnesota. All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrea Yun-springer, MT-BC, 1918 19th Ave NE, Minneapolis, MN 55418. Email: andrea.b.springer@gmail.com. phone: 651-231-3296. doi:10.1093/mtp/miu020 Advance Access publication september 16, 2014 Music Therapy Perspectives, 32(2), 2014, 185–190 at U niersity of M inesota on N ovem er 8, 2014 hp://m tp.oxfoournals.org/ D ow nladed from Music Therapy Perspectives (2014), Vol. 32 186 comparison whereas other levels of evidence did not utilize a numbered system (Deveraux & Yusuf, 2003; Levant, 2005). Moreover, Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt’s (2005) hierarchy contained seven levels, further differentiating studies compared to other systems utilizing only three levels (Harris et al., 2001; salmond, 2007). Table 1 depicts levels of evidence as described by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2005). in the contemporary healthcare climate, funding is increasingly difficult to acquire. Clinicians utilizing interventions based from higher levels of evidence may have greater success in acquiring grants, funding treatment, and establishing paid positions. Additionally, if administrators solicit research concerning the effectiveness of clinical interventions, clinicians should be aware of the levels of evidence to provide the most appropriate and representative examples from the literature. Thus, levels of evidence are important not only for researchers, but also for clinicians and students. Although silverman (2010) applied Melnyk and FineoutOverholt’s (2005) hierarchy of levels of evidence to the psychiatric music therapy literature, there has not been a comprehensive and systematic review of recent music therapy literature utilizing an established level of evidence taxonomy. This represents a gap in the literature base as knowledge concerning what levels of evidence are needed for specific clinical populations may serve to contribute to the breadth and depth of the existing research. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically examine the levels of evidence from articles published in the Journal of Music Therapy from 2000 – 2009 using the classification system established by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2005). The researchers formulated the following specific research questions: 1. From 2000 2009, what levels of evidence have JMT authors been utilizing most frequently? 2. From 2000 2009, what levels of evidence have JMT authors utilized to study specific clinical populations?" @default.
• W2322203435 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2322203435 creator A5009106110 @default.
• W2322203435 creator A5012940608 @default.
• W2322203435 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W2322203435 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2322203435 title "Levels of Evidence in the Journal of Music Therapy from 2000-2009: Descriptive Analyses by Year and Clinical Population" @default.
• W2322203435 cites W1971271486 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2004839516 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2032227828 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2038016764 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2038146494 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2047814153 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2053702984 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2055047572 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2061627517 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2075533775 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2078126433 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2083819524 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2086381017 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2110448405 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2125188165 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2141778479 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2142960568 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2165836482 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2325092093 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2329175092 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2330422262 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2330574487 @default.
• W2322203435 cites W2735449998 @default.
• W2322203435 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/mtp/miu020" @default.
• W2322203435 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2322203435 type Work @default.
• W2322203435 sameAs 2322203435 @default.
• W2322203435 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2322203435 countsByYear W23222034352015 @default.
• W2322203435 countsByYear W23222034352019 @default.
• W2322203435 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2322203435 hasAuthorship W2322203435A5009106110 @default.
• W2322203435 hasAuthorship W2322203435A5012940608 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConcept C2779284498 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConcept C39896193 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConceptScore W2322203435C105795698 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConceptScore W2322203435C144024400 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConceptScore W2322203435C149923435 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConceptScore W2322203435C15744967 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConceptScore W2322203435C2779284498 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConceptScore W2322203435C2908647359 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConceptScore W2322203435C33923547 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConceptScore W2322203435C39896193 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConceptScore W2322203435C542102704 @default.
• W2322203435 hasConceptScore W2322203435C71924100 @default.
• W2322203435 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2322203435 hasLocation W23222034351 @default.
• W2322203435 hasOpenAccess W2322203435 @default.
• W2322203435 hasPrimaryLocation W23222034351 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W1526094601 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W1595485210 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W1757803024 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W1988694443 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2011464469 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2022074346 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2027322194 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2028612979 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2031714133 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W206794171 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2100568839 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2111328574 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2159746721 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2163744947 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2165638853 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2204958264 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2902259421 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W2904719162 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W327899419 @default.
• W2322203435 hasRelatedWork W80804945 @default.
• W2322203435 hasVolume "32" @default.
• W2322203435 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2322203435 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2322203435 magId "2322203435" @default.
• W2322203435 workType "article" @default.