Table 4.
Outcome measures and results.
| References | Outcome measures | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Children with cancer: visual media | ||
| Khodabakhshi Koolaee et al. (2016) | Children's Inventory of Anger (Nelson and Finch, 2000) Spence Children's Anxiety Scale (Spence et al., 2003) |
Significant pre/post-intervention reductions in anger (p = 0.001), anxiety (p = 0.001) in the experimental group |
| Abdulah and Abdulla (2018) | KIDSCREEN-10 (parent) (Ravens-Sieberer et al., 2010) | Experimental group: significantly more physically active and energetic; less depressed, emotional, and stressed; more enjoyment of social/leisure time and more social participation; improved relationships and better health (all p < 0.05) |
| Children with cancer: music media | ||
| Robb (2000) | Time sampling observations and coding of (i) behavior frequency (activity, attention, choice making, following directions, affective state) and (ii) environment support (verbal directions, activities, choices, positive non/verbal reinforcement, changes initiated by child, positive adult-initiated interaction, attention from adult) Affective Face Scale (McGrath, 1985) |
Higher environmental support during music condition Significant main effects for environment (p < 0.001) and condition (p < 0.001) Significant interaction of condition × environment (p < 0.001) Higher behavior scores in music conditionSignificant main effects for behavior (p < 0.001) and condition (p < 0.001) Significant interaction of condition × behavior (p = 0.001) Significant correlation of environment and behavior: control (p < 0.001) and music (p = 0.002) |
| Barrera et al. (2002) | Adapted FACES pain scale (Bieri et al., 1990) Play Performance Scale (Lansky et al., 1987) Satisfaction questionnaire (SQ) |
Improved child-reported feelings pre/post (p < 0.01) and higher for AME than passively engaged (p < 0.01) More parent-reported play after active vs. passive music engagement (p < 0.01) and more improvement for adolescents (p < 0.05) Satisfaction with music intervention Children <5 years: “I liked the guitar”; children 6–10: “I like the silly songs”; adolescents: “It made my nausea go away” Parents: comforting to child (64%); reducing child anxiety (58%) and own anxiety (49%); comments: “takes their mind off their disease/treatments,” “helps children and parents feel less anxious” Staff comments: “The sessions were excellent.” “She has such a therapeutic effect on the children and families.” “I don't understand what she does.” |
| Colwell et al. (2005) | Piers Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (Piers and Herzberg, 2002) |
Significant improvements: pre–post-intervention All subjects: total score (p = 0.004)Art: total score (p = 0.002) and popularity (p = 0.009) Music: school status (p = 0.02); physical appearance/attributes (p = 0.026) Significant improvements: between-group differences Music: greater intellectual/school status (p = 0.017) Art group: popularity (p = 0.021) |
| Robb et al. (2008) | Behavioral coding of coping behavior: facial affect, active engagement, initiation | AME: significantly more coping behaviors than ML or ASB Significantly higher positive facial affect and active engagement in AME than ML and ASB (p < 0.0001) Initiation significantly higher during AME than ASB (p < 0.05) |
| Giordano et al. (2020) | Modified Yale Pre-operative Anxiety Scale (Jenkins et al., 2014) Interviews with medical staff |
Lower anxiety levels in music therapy group >90% medical staff satisfied with music therapy |
| Children with cancer: composite arts-based therapies (music, movement, and art) and virtual reality play therapy | ||
| Madden et al. (2010) | Pediatric Oncology Quality of Life Inventory (Varni et al., 1998) SQ Faces Scale (McGrath et al., 1996) Emotional Reactions Checklist (Reid et al., 1998) |
Randomized phase: parent-reported reduced pain (p = 0.03) and nausea (p = 0.006) Cohort phase: child-reported improved mood (p = 0.006): more excited (p = 0.04), happier (p = 0.02), less nervous (p = 0.02) Positive parent (e.g., “Really good” and “He was able to express feelings and creativity”) and provider satisfaction (e.g., “on a busy day it is chaotic if there are drums”) |
| Li et al. (2011) | Short State Anxiety Scale for Children (Li and Lopez, 2007) Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale for Children (Weissman et al., 1980) |
Significantly less depression symptoms in intervention group (p = 0.02) |
| Children with blood disorders and other health conditions: visual media | ||
| Beebe et al. (2010) | Pediatric Quality of Life Asthma Module (Varni et al., 2004) Beck Youth Inventory (Beck et al., 2005) Formal Elements Art Therapy Rating Scale : Draw a Person Picking an Apple from a Tree (Gantt and Tabone, 2003) |
Post-intervention and 6 months: improved parent/child-reported quality of life and worry (all p < 0.05) Post-intervention: improved self-concept and anxiety; improved anxiety sustained for 6 months (all p < 0.05) Improved coping and resourcefulness at post-intervention and 6 months (all p < 0.05) |
| Stafstrom et al. (2012) | Childhood Attitude Toward Illness Scale (CATIS) (Austin and Huberty, 1993) | No differences pre/post-intervention Children and parents positive about art therapy |
| MacDonald et al. (2019) | Medical Outcomes Study Social Support scale (Sherbourne and Stewart, 1991) Mental Health Continuum Short-Form scale (Lamers et al., 2011) Problem Areas in Diabetes (Polonsky et al., 1995) SQ |
29% mental health pre/post-intervention change: languishing/moderate 57% reduced diabetes distress post-intervention 80% intervention acceptable and effective |
| Children with blood disorders and other conditions: music media and play therapy | ||
| Colwell et al. (2013) | Wong–Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (Wong and Baker, 2001) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (Spielberger, 1973) Physiological measures Time sampling engagement/interaction |
Intervention group more eye contact with therapist (p = 0.000) |
| Robb et al. (2014) | Measures related to Haase's Resilience in Illness Model | Post-intervention: TMV group (n = 41) significantly better courageous coping (p = 0.03) 100 days post-transplant: TMV group (n = 30) significantly better social integration (p = 0.028) and family environment (p = 0.008) |
| Tomaj et al. (2016) | Piers Harris Self Concept Scale (Piers and Herzberg, 2002) | Intervention group, significantly higher self-concept pre/post-intervention and 1 month FU (p < 0.001) |
| Uggla et al. (2018) | Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (generic and cancer module) (Varni et al., 2002) Astrid Lindgren Children's Hospital Pain Scale (Lundqvist et al., 2014) |
Music group: higher physical function post-intervention (p = 0.04); wait-list control group improved in all domains (p = 0.015) |
SR, self-report; SD, standard deviation; FU, follow-up; AME, active music engagement; ML, music listening; ASB, audio-storybooks; TMV, therapeutic music video.