ArticleJournal of music therapy2020
Music Therapist Experiences of a Randomized Controlled Trial as Clinician Researchers.
Article in Journal of music therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Music therapy clinicians bring an important perspective to the design and conduct of clinically meaningful studies. Unfortunately, there continue to be roadblocks that hinder clinician involvement in research and the development of successful partnerships between academic researchers and practicing clinicians. To help grow clinician involvement, it is important that research teams share their experiences. As such, the purpose of this qualitative study was to share music therapists' perspectives about their experience of working as a research clinician on a large multisite randomized controlled trial. 10 board-certified music therapists provided written responses to 6 data-generating questions about: (a) reasons for participating, (b) perceived challenges and benefits, (c) experiences of quality assurance monitoring, (d) professional growth, (e) value of research, and (f) advice for clinicians considering research involvement. Using thematic content analysis, we identified primary themes and subthemes for each question (20 themes; 30 subthemes). Qualitative analysis revealed not only common challenges, such as reconciling clinical and research responsibilities, but also benefits, including continued professional growth, greater understanding of research processes, and research participation as a way to advocate and advance the profession. Finally, for clinicians interested in becoming involved in research, therapists noted the importance of having workplace support from a mentor, supervisor, and/or administrator; seeking out available resources; and knowing roles and responsibilities before initiating research involvement. Findings offer important insight and recommendations to support the involvement of clinicians in research and support further exploration of clinician involvement in dissemination efforts to improve translation and uptake of research into practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.