| Literature DB >> 32073877 |
Kristen A Russ1, Steven J Holochwost2, Susan M Perkins3,4, Kristin Stegenga5, Seethal A Jacob3,6, David Delgado7, Amanda K Henley8, Joan E Haase8, Sheri L Robb8.
Abstract
Objective: Primary aims of the proposed protocol are to determine the feasibility/acceptability of the active music engagement intervention protocol during hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and clinical feasibility/acceptability of the biological sample collection schedule. Design: The authors propose a single-case, alternating treatment design to compare levels of child and caregiver cortisol in blood and saliva collected on alternating days, when the dyad receives and does not receive AME sessions. Included are the scientific rationale for this design and detailed intervention and sample collection schedules based on transplant type. Setting/Location: Pediatric inpatient HSCT unit. Subjects: Eligible participants are dyads of children 3-8 years old, hospitalized for HSCT, and their caregiver. Children with malignant and nonmalignant conditions will be eligible, regardless of transplant type. Intervention: AME intervention is delivered by a board-certified music therapist who tailors music-based play experiences to encourage active engagement in, and independent use of, music play to manage the inter-related emotional distress experienced by children and their caregivers during HSCT. Dyads will receive two 45-min AME sessions each week during hospitalization. Outcome Measures: Eight collections of blood (child) and saliva (child/caregiver) will be performed for cortisol measurement. The authors will also collect self-report and caregiver proxy measures for dyad emotional distress, quality of life, and family function. At study conclusion, qualitative caregiver interviews will be conducted.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; cortisol; hematopoietic stem cell transplant; music therapy; pediatric; stress
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32073877 PMCID: PMC7232696 DOI: 10.1089/acm.2019.0413
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Altern Complement Med ISSN: 1075-5535 Impact factor: 2.579
FIG. 1.Conceptual framework. AME, active music engagement; ESAS, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System; PCL-S, PTSD checklist; PIES, Prior Illness Experiences Scale.
FIG. 2.Study schema.
Active Music Engagement Intervention Components and Theoretical Principles
| Intervention component | Theoretical principles |
|---|---|
| Component 1: Music-Based Play Activities | (1) Predictable environment provides a structure that supports child competence. |
| Therapist uses familiar music activities to provide structure and increase child's ability to predict what will happen in their environment. | |
| (2) Leveled activities help ensure success and support child competence. | |
| Therapist tailors physical activity requirements to meet the individual needs of each child. Enables child success and engagement during periods of high or fluctuating symptom distress. | |
| (3) Opportunities to make independent decisions support child autonomy. | |
| Children choose from a variety of music play activities, and each activity includes a wide range of materials. Activities include a wide range of materials and activity options so that the child can make choices for self and others. | |
| Therapist uses improvisational techniques to follow child-initiated changes in their music making (e.g., child changes tempo or style of playing). | |
| (4) Activities structured to support caregiver–child interaction. | |
| Activities structure and support reciprocal caregiver–child interactions. The therapist individualizes experiences to support increased frequency and quality of interactions. | |
| Component 2: Music Play Resource Kit | Supports independent use of music play to manage distress between therapist-led sessions. |
| Activities mirror content from therapist-led sessions. The kit includes: | |
| (1) Professional CD recording of music composed and/or arranged specifically for the AME intervention. | |
| (2) Age-appropriate musical instrument and play materials that correspond to each activity. | |
| (3) Activity cards designed to give children/caregivers at-a-glance information on ways they can use their kit. | |
| Component 3: Session Planning and Caregiver Tip Sheets | (1) Promotes caregiver competence about how children use play to cope and ways to engage their child in music play during the transplant period. |
| (2) Promotes caregiver autonomy by empowering caregivers with skills/resources to support their child during treatment. | |
| (3) Supports caregiver–child relationships through normalizing music-based play activities. |
AME, active music engagement.
FIG. 3.Autologous transplant biological sample collection timetable.
FIG. 4.Allogeneic transplant biological sample collection timetable.
Measures
| Variable(s) | Measure | No. of items | Reliability evidence | Admin. schedule | Completed by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antecedent factors | |||||
| Demographics | Family Information Form | 3 | N/A | T1 | Parent |
| | |||||
| Prior distress w/hospitalization | Prior Illness Experiences Scale | 13 | 0.78[ | T1 | Parent |
| | Abbreviated PTSD Checklist (PCL-S) | 6 | 0.94[ | T1, T2, T3, T4 | Parent |
| Disease characteristics | Diagnosis and Treatment Form | 2 | N/A | T4 | Research Assistant (RA) |
| Treatment characteristics | Medication Data Form | N/A | N/A | T1, T2, T3, T4 | RA |
| Proximal mediators | |||||
| Child engagement | Behavioral Coding Form | N/A | 0.85[ | Sessions 2, 4, 6 | Trained Coder |
| Parent–child interaction | Behavioral Coding Form | N/A | 85[ | Sessions 2, 4, 6 | Trained Coder |
| Distal mediators | |||||
| Family normalcy perspective | Family Management Measure | 14 | 0.90[ | T1, T2, T3, T4 | Parent |
| Parent self-efficacy | Parental Beliefs Scale | 20 | 0.85[ | T1, T2, T3, T4 | Parent |
| Independent music play | Parent Report | 2 | N/A | Sessions 2–6; T4 | Parent |
| Child outcomes | |||||
| Child emotional distress | CHQ— | 16 | 0.81[ | T1, T2, T3, T4 | Parent |
| Child physical symptom distress (mood, anxiety, pain, fatigue, nausea) | Edmonton Symptom Assessment System | 5 | 0.69–0.80[ | T1, T4 | Parent |
| Child quality of life | KINDLR | 20 | 0.89[ | T1, T2, T3, T4 | Parent |
| Neurophysiological indicator of stress | Cortisol (serum; salivary) | N/A | N/A | Appendix 5, 6 | Nurse (serum); RA (salivary) |
| Parent outcomes | |||||
| Parent emotional and traumatic stress symptoms | Profile of Mood States-Short Form | 37 | 0.99[ | T1, T2, T3, T4 | Parent |
| Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) | 22 | 0.84–0.91[ | T1, T2, T3, T4 | Parent | |
| Parent distress (mood, anxiety, fatigue) | Edmonton Symptom Assessment System | 3 | 0.69–0.80[ | T1, T4 | Parent |
| Parent quality of life | Index of Well-being | 9 | 0.93[ | T1, T2, T3, T4 | Parent |
| Neurophysiological indicator of stress | Cortisol (salivary) | N/A | N/A | Appendix 6 | RA |
| Parent/child outcomes | |||||
| Family function | FACES II | 30 | 0.90[ | T1, T2, T3, T4 | Parent |
| Qualitative interviews | |||||
| Parent acceptability | Parent Interview | N/A | N/A | T4 | Parent |
Cronbach's α.
Inter-rater reliability.
Correlation with POMS.
FACES, Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale; POMS, Profile of Mood States.