Reporting Guidelines for Music-based Intervention: an update and validation study

Authors

  • Sheri L. Robb Universidad de Indiana
  • Stacey Springs Universidad de Harvard
  • Emmeline Edwars Centro Nacional de Salud Complementaria e Integral
  • Tasha L. Golden Universidad de Florida
  • Julene K. Johnson Universidad de California en San Francisco
  • Debra S. Burns Universidad de Memphis
  • Melita Belgrave Universidad Estatal de Arizona
  • Joke Bradt Universidad de Drexel
  • Christian Gold Universidad de Bergan
  • Assal Habibi Universidad del Sur de California
  • John R. Iversen Universidad McMaster
  • Miriam Lense Universidad de Vanderbilt
  • Jessica A. MacLean Universidad de Indiana
  • Susan M. Perkins Universidad de Indiana

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59028/misostenido.2025.08

Keywords:

reporting guidelines, music, music therapy, intervention, reporting quality

Abstract

Background: Detailed intervention reporting is essential to interpretation, replication, and translation of music-based interventions (MBIs). The 2011 Reporting Guidelines for Music-Based Interventions were developed to improve transparency and reporting quality of published research; however, problems with reporting quality persist. This represents a significant barrier to advances in MBI scientific research and translation of findings to practice. Objective: To update and validate the 2011 reporting guidelines using a rigorous Delphi approach that involved an interdisciplinary group of MBI researchers; and to develop an explanation and elaboration guidance statement to support dissemination and usage. Methods: We followed the methodological framework for developing reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR Network and guidance recommendations for developing health research reporting guidelines. Our three-stage process included: (1) an initial field scan, (2) a consensus process using Delphi surveys (two rounds) and Expert Panel meetings, and (3) development and dissemination of an explanation and elaboration document. Results: First-Round survey findings revealed that the original checklist items were capturing content that investigators deemed essential to MBI reporting; however, it also revealed problems with item wording and terminology. Subsequent Expert Panel meetings and the Second-Round survey centered on reaching consensus for item language. The revised RG-MBI checklist has a total of 12-items that pertain to eight different components of MBI interventions including name, theory/scientific rationale, content, interventionist, individual/group, setting, delivery schedule, and treatment fidelity. Conclusion: We recommend that authors, journal editors, and reviewers use the RG-MBI guidelines, in conjunction with methods-based guidelines (e.g., CONSORT) to accelerate and improve the scientific rigor of MBI research.

Published

2025-07-30