Search

Abstract Background Interventions are needed to improve well-being and promote community reintegration among Veterans with housing insecurity. The objective was to conduct a developmental formative evaluation of a participatory music program. Methods This single-site, pilot study implemented a participatory music program at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Domiciliary that included one-hour sessions (group music instruction and ensemble playing), 3 times per week for 3 months. Intervention development was guided by the Model of Human Occupation (MOHO). Evaluation was guided by the MOHO and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Evaluation (CFIR). Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews from participants and non-participants, and were analyzed using an interdisciplinary, constant comparison qualitative analysis technique. Results Sixteen program participants and 8 non-participants were enrolled, age range 26–59 (mean 41; standard deviation, 11) years; 75% were White. The sample for this study (N = 12) included five participants and seven non-participants. Semi-structured interview responses produced three salient themes illuminating Veterans’ perspectives: (1) key characteristics of the intervention (the relative advantage of the participatory program over other problem-focused programs; the importance of a supportive, encouraging teaching; the group setting; the role of music); (2) the therapeutic power of the program (based on it being enjoyable; and serving as an escape from preoccupations); and (3) the context and culture (which included Veterans supporting each other and the Domiciliary setting). Conclusions Veterans described the benefits of a participatory music intervention compared to problem-based groups, which included enjoyment, skill acquisition facilitating pride, escape, reconnecting with their identity prior to current problems, and experiencing positive aspects of Veteran culture such as mutual support and discipline. These data support ongoing research about participatory music programs to support Veterans with housing insecurity. Graphical Abstract

Many autistic people (including researchers and non-researchers) are becoming increasingly involved in, and increasingly critical of, autism intervention research. They have expressed concerns regarding applied behavior analysis (ABA) interventions on a number of grounds, one of which is the prevalence of conflicts of interests (COIs) among autism intervention researchers. These concerns are now also being addressed by non-autistic researchers. COIs can introduce bias into the research process, and allow researchers to demonstrate positive effects for interventions that are not actually effective. Despite these concerns, there are no studies to date that examine the prevalence of COIs in behavioral journals. Because ABA services are routinely provided to autistic people in the United States as a means to address difficulties experienced by autistic people, this is an important area of investigation. We tallied author COIs in articles published over a 1-year period that tested, commented on, or reviewed ABA autism intervention strategies, extracted from eight journals devoted to publishing behavioral research. We coded included studies for COIs related to researcher employment as an ABA clinical provider or a training consultant to ABA clinical providers. We found that 84% of studies had at least one author with this type of COI, but they were only disclosed as COIs in 2% of studies. Additionally, 87% of studies with statements claiming the authors did not have COIs, were authored by researchers found to have clinical/training consultancy COIs. Pervasive, undisclosed COIs likely lead to researcher bias, and could at least partially account for persistent poor quality research in this area. The high prevalence of COIs among this research corroborates the concerns expressed by many autistic people. The autism community – including autistic people, autism researchers, and other stakeholders – should be aware of the prevalence of undisclosed COIs in this literature and take this into account when using, providing, or recommending ABA services.