Promoting Prosociality and Health through Musical Interventions with Groups at Risk of Social Exclusion: A Systematic Review
, Maria Villalonga-Aragón 1, Francisco González-Sala 2, Sergio Hidalgo-Fuentes 1,3, César Merino-Soto 4 and Filiberto Toledano-Toledano 5,6,7,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
1) Could you clarify the reason for having two queries? (line 155 and line 157). Typically, a single query is utilised and applied uniformly across the entire database to reduce bias. Moreover, using an OR statement such as "pro sociality OR prosocial", can potentially enhance the query's performance.
2) Could you kindly supply the taxonomy of the 11 articles? As this paper focuses on a systematic review, having the taxonomy will be beneficial.
3) It would be helpful to create additional table covering the topics of Similarity, Comparison, Challenges, Motivation, and Recommendation found in the 11 articles.
4) I am having difficulty seeing how the author connects their topic to the theme of Sustainability as this journal emphasises sustainable aspects.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear author,
1) Could you clarify the reason for having two queries? (line 155 and line 157). Typically, a single query is utilised and applied uniformly across the entire database to reduce bias. Moreover, using an OR statement such as "pro sociality OR prosocial", can potentially enhance the query's performance.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. The text has been modified. An initial search was conducted, and then, following the selected articles, a manual search was conducted on the basis of the bibliographies of the selected papers.
The term prosocial* was used in this review. The use of the asterisk allows us to identify all derived words containing the root prosocial. It also allows us to identify the term prosociality.
2) Could you kindly supply the taxonomy of the 11 articles? As this paper focuses on a systematic review, having the taxonomy will be beneficial.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your contribution. The authors understand that the reviewer refers to the documentary typology when talking about taxonomy. If this is correct, it is specified among the inclusion criteria that only empirical articles are included in the review and that , other documentary typologies were discarded.
3) It would be helpful to create additional table covering the topics of Similarity, Comparison, Challenges, Motivation, and Recommendation found in the 11 articles.
RESPONSE: Thank you very much for this suggestion. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of interventions based on musical activities on prosocial behavior, so it was decided not to include these variables in the study. However, given that we are working on new articles related to this topic, including other groups of beneficiaries, the reviewer's contribution will be considered in future studies.
4) I am having difficulty seeing how the author connects their topic to the theme of Sustainability as this journal emphasises sustainable aspects.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. The subject of this article is related to the concept of social sustainability, which aims to strengthen the cohesion and stability of specific social groups. In this particular case, the study focuses on socially excluded groups and addresses the impact on prosociality, which can be related to psychological health in this group of people and to a decrease in antisocial behavior. It is worth bearing in mind the importance of improving the psychological health of people in general and of vulnerable groups in particular, for individuals, for society itself and for the health and social protection systems.
Reviewer 2 Report
Promoting Prosociality and Health through Musical Interven- 2 tions with Groups at Risk of Social Exclusion: A Systematic Review
It is a very interesting article. The main recommendations are set out below.
In the abstract:
“There is evidence that promoting prosociality through music helps activate participation
and integration with the environment for various reasons” I recommend specifying some of these factors, the most relevant.
“populations at risk of social Exclusion” What type of exclusion, demarcate based on the dimensions of analysis
“PRISMA methodology guidelines were followed in a Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, PubMed, and ProQuest database search. A total of 11 studies met the selection criteria” period studied? Selection criteria?
“interventions applied” the idea is not very clear.
“The limitations highlight the importance of investigating other variables within the studied populations” other variables? as which?
Evidence to a greater degree the contributions of the study to the knowledge of the object, as well as its scientific impact.
In the introduction, the objectives of the article, research questions should be evidenced. It is important to infer how this research contributes to the advancement of science, its contributions and social impact, identifying direct and indirect beneficiaries, as well as the relevance of this research within the framework of emerging paradigms that explain the subject studied from sustainability processes, more specifically from a human development perspective. the methodological routes that allow art mediation for the development of prosocial behaviors should be deepened; It would be interesting to delve into the dimension of prosocial competencies as a dimension of analysis.
From the discourse, it is important to demonstrate to a greater degree the sequentiality and relationship between the socio-emotional dimension and the dimension of mediation, they seem disjointed
The theoretical and empirical gaps of the situation under study should be evidenced to a greater degree, as well as the descriptors associated with the main variables studied; the variables and their dimensions should be described with greater emphasis. It is necessary to strengthen the citations of recent scientific literature that allow contrasting the descriptors of reality and show the state of knowledge related to the situation under study.
The situation under study, as well as the associated descriptors, the importance and relevance of the topic must be strengthened in their description.
It must be discussed, deepened and argued how music and its associated manifestations represent a mediation agent for the development of a profile focused on socio-emotional competencies.
It is important to propose a deductive route; it is necessary that the implications of the problem situation be described on a macro, meso and micro plane; situation that must be described in greater depth because it must be better argued; the problem must start from a more general scope, before falling into the variables of the investigation; that is, they should begin by presenting descriptors of the macro; then locate yourself in the meso and micro plane.
As it is a systematic review article, I suggest that this section: Social Exclusion Risks and the Effects of Music on Prosociality be included in the introduction section (do not identify it as a subsection), in which case the main ideas should be extracted, and the main gaps highlighted, and integrated into the writing.
“The aim of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of musical interventions in promoting prosociality in groups at risk of social exclusion and identify the possible determinants through a systematic review of the scientific literature”, the concepts of musical intervention and exclusion should be better argued.
Inclusion Criteria: The inclusion criteria must not only be identified, but also conceptualized, based on the variables and dimensions worked on in the article (a) studies of an empirical nature using music as an intervention tool, b) peer-reviewed articles, d) studies including groups at risk of social exclusion as a target population, e) articles evaluating prosocial behaviors).
Justify levels of representativeness of 11 articles with respect to the scientific literature produced in that period.
Justify from the scientific point of view the selection of the period worked
It would be important to infer what has happened to the topic studied since 2021 by now.
It is necessary to identify and justify the typology of the article. Is important specify the predominant research approach, as well as the type of design; In each component of the methodology, a more detailed description should be organized.
It is important to argue the degree of representativeness of the documentary samples worked in correspondence with the sense of totality and completeness of the investigated object, possibilities that the results can be generalized.
Review the way to organize the results; there must be a better correspondence with the procedural systematization in the methodology, that is, how each component of the design leads to the different sections that are presented in the results. Review the correspondence between the methodological systematization and the systematization of the results, attend to variables, dimensions and their operationalization.
The discussion section should be strengthened. Organize the results in such a way that they are evident in relation to the objectives evidence of contrast between the objectives - supporting theory - meaning of the data itself - argument of the researchers, the argumentation or counter-argumentation with the supporting scientific literature, This aspect should be shown.
the conclusions show correspondence with the identified objectives; demonstrate possibilities of generalization of the research. Conclusions must transcend results. Organize as concluding ideas.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Promoting Prosociality and Health through Musical Interventions with Groups at Risk of Social Exclusion: A Systematic Review
It is a very interesting article. The main recommendations are set out below.
In the abstract:
“There is evidence that promoting prosociality through music helps activate participation and integration with the environment for various reasons” I recommend specifying some of these factors, the most relevant.
RESPONSE: Thank you very much for your comment. The following phrase has been included: "favoring the emergence of empathic responses and fostering bonds between people".
“populations at risk of social Exclusion” What type of exclusion, demarcate based on the dimensions of analysis
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. At the end of the introduction when the hypothesis of the study is stated and in the method section when the inclusion criteria are included, it is specified which groups are included within the category of risk of social exclusion, such as poverty, unstructured sociofamily environments, incarceration or contact with the judicial system or the presence of emotional and/or behavioral problems.
“PRISMA methodology guidelines were followed in a Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, PubMed, and ProQuest database search. A total of 11 studies met the selection criteria” period studied? Selection criteria?
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. The period studied is specified in the summary and in the methods section. The selection criteria are included in the method. It was decided not to include them in the summary to reduce the length.
“interventions applied” the idea is not very clear.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your input. "Interventions applied" was replaced with "type of applied musical activity".
“The limitations highlight the importance of investigating other variables within the studied populations” other variables? as which?
RESPONSE: Thank you for the comment. As noted by the reviewer, these variables have been included in the abstract.
Evidence to a greater degree the contributions of the study to the knowledge of the object, as well as its scientific impact.
ANSWER: Thank you very much. In response to the reviewer's comment, the end of the abstract has been modified to include a conclusion and the importance of developing a greater number of studies in this line while accounting for variables related to the methodology of the intervention programs.
In the introduction, the objectives of the article, research questions should be evidenced. It is important to infer how this research contributes to the advancement of science, its contributions and social impact, identifying direct and indirect beneficiaries, as well as the relevance of this research within the framework of emerging paradigms that explain the subject studied from sustainability processes, more specifically from a human development perspective. the methodological routes that allow art mediation for the development of prosocial behaviors should be deepened; It would be interesting to delve into the dimension of prosocial competencies as a dimension of analysis.
ANSWER: The hypotheses and potential beneficiaries have been included at the end of the introduction.
From the discourse, it is important to demonstrate to a greater degree the sequentiality and relationship between the socio-emotional dimension and the dimension of mediation, they seem disjointed
The theoretical and empirical gaps of the situation under study should be evidenced to a greater degree, as well as the descriptors associated with the main variables studied; the variables and their dimensions should be described with greater emphasis. It is necessary to strengthen the citations of recent scientific literature that allow contrasting the descriptors of reality and show the state of knowledge related to the situation under study.
ANSWER: The importance of the present study has been emphasized in the introduction. This is the first study to examine the effect of musical interventions on health and prosocial behavior since the work of Daykin et al. (2012)
The situation under study, as well as the associated descriptors, the importance and relevance of the topic must be strengthened in their description.
It must be discussed, deepened and argued how music and its associated manifestations represent a mediation agent for the development of a profile focused on socio-emotional competencies.
It is important to propose a deductive route; it is necessary that the implications of the problem situation be described on a macro, meso and micro plane; situation that must be described in greater depth because it must be better argued; the problem must start from a more general scope, before falling into the variables of the investigation; that is, they should begin by presenting descriptors of the macro; then locate yourself in the meso and micro plane.
As it is a systematic review article, I suggest that this section: Social Exclusion Risks and the Effects of Music on Prosociality be included in the introduction section (do not identify it as a subsection), in which case the main ideas should be extracted, and the main gaps highlighted, and integrated into the writing.
“The aim of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of musical interventions in promoting prosociality in groups at risk of social exclusion and identify the possible determinants through a systematic review of the scientific literature”, the concepts of musical intervention and exclusion should be better argued.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. At the end of the introduction section, the research question has been included, the hypothesis of the study has been specified, and variables related to the dimension of prosociality and to the risk of social exclusion have been specified.
With respect to music-based interventions, the type of actions included in these programs according to different authors have been specified. These citations have been included in the references section.
As suggested by the reviewer, the section Social Exclusion Risks and the Effects of Music on Prosociality has been eliminated. In addition, the section has been restructured as suggested by the reviewer.
Inclusion Criteria: The inclusion criteria must not only be identified, but also conceptualized, based on the variables and dimensions worked on in the article (a) studies of an empirical nature using music as an intervention tool, b) peer-reviewed articles, d) studies including groups at risk of social exclusion as a target population, e) articles evaluating prosocial behaviors).
RESPONSE: Thank you very much for your comment. As suggested by the reviewer, the inclusion criteria have been described according to the study variables included in the present study.
Justify levels of representativeness of 11 articles with respect to the scientific literature produced in that period.
Justify from the scientific point of view the selection of the period worked
It would be important to infer what has happened to the topic studied since 2021 by now.
It is necessary to identify and justify the typology of the article. Is important specify the predominant research approach, as well as the type of design; In each component of the methodology, a more detailed description should be organized.
ANSWER: In Table 1, the design has been included in addition to the type of methodology (quantitative and/or qualitative).
It is important to argue the degree of representativeness of the documentary samples worked in correspondence with the sense of totality and completeness of the investigated object, possibilities that the results can be generalized.
Review the way to organize the results; there must be a better correspondence with the procedural systematization in the methodology, that is, how each component of the design leads to the different sections that are presented in the results. Review the correspondence between the methodological systematization and the systematization of the results, attend to variables, dimensions and their operationalization.
The discussion section should be strengthened. Organize the results in such a way that they are evident in relation to the objectives evidence of contrast between the objectives - supporting theory - meaning of the data itself - argument of the researchers, the argumentation or counter-argumentation with the supporting scientific literature, This aspect should be shown.
the conclusions show correspondence with the identified objectives; demonstrate possibilities of generalization of the research. Conclusions must transcend results. Organize as concluding ideas.
ANSWER: A first paragraph has been included in the discussion with the objective and the assumption of the hypothesis.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the opportunity to read your manuscript. It is very interesting and the study reported is well conducted. I think the introduction and method sections work very well but I would like a more structured and clear presentation of the results and the discussion. That is, can you please use subheadings to split the different categories of results you gained? For example, you can consider two separate sub-sections those interventions using percussion and those using rap music.
The discussion is very long and sometimes I cannot follow it. I suggest organizing it by splitting it into a) theoretical implications and b) applied implications. Also, can you change the first paragraph of the discussion with a clear description of a) what was the aim of the study, b) what you have done and c) which are the main results?
Sentences are very long and difficult to understand. Indeed, I am not sure that I have completely understood some parts of the manuscript. I recommend proofreading prior to submission of the review.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thanks for the opportunity to read your manuscript. It is very interesting and the study reported is well conducted. I think the introduction and method sections work very well but I would like a more structured and clear presentation of the results and the discussion. That is, can you please use subheadings to split the different categories of results you gained? For example, you can consider two separate sub-sections those interventions using percussion and those using rap music.
ANSWER: As the reviewer points out, an attempt was made to include a section based on the musical genre used in the interventions, but the low number of studies found did not allow groupings to be made in relation to this variable. Therefore, it was decided to organize the results in terms of the general characteristics of the studies, the design, the measurement instruments and the effectiveness of the interventions.
The discussion is very long and sometimes I cannot follow it. I suggest organizing it by splitting it into a) theoretical implications and b) applied implications. Also, can you change the first paragraph of the discussion with a clear description of a) what was the aim of the study, b) what you have done and c) which are the main results?
ANSWER: A paragraph has been introduced in the discussion with the objectives, what has been done previously and the main results found.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Sentences are very long and difficult to understand. Indeed, I am not sure that I have completely understood some parts of the manuscript. I recommend proofreading prior to submission of the review.
RESPONSE: Thank you very much for your comment. Efforts have been made to improve the quality of the English language. We hope that the manuscript will now be more understandable.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1) In section 2.4, which covers the procedure, I'm still struggling to comprehend why the researcher needs to employ those specific keywords for the manual search, as mentioned in line 178. I assume this refers to the manual screening process.
2) Let's rephrase the sentence from line 185: Is the total number of articles received 374, or does it represent the total yielded in the search?
3) For Table 1, I recommend changing the term "study" to "author's name and country." Additionally, it's worth noting that the summary of the results under Table 1 lacks consistency.
4) In Section 3.1, which deals with the relevant characteristics of the interventions implemented in the studies, I propose including a brief explanation of this section before diving into the content at line 213. This suggestion applies to sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 as well.
5) The text is well-written from line 489 to 515. However, there is room for improvement from line 567 to 655. I suggest grouping this section and exploring more engaging discussions, such as identifying similarities and differences among the 11 papers.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
COMMENT 1) In section 2.4, which covers the procedure, I'm still struggling to comprehend why the researcher needs to employ those specific keywords for the manual search, as mentioned in line 178. I assume this refers to the manual screening proces.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. Certainly, we had not explained the procedure well. We have proceeded to write it differently in order to clarify the different search phases. The keywords are used in the database search, while in the manual search phase the references of the 28 articles selected for eligibility are consulted in order to find other papers that can be included in the review according to the objective of the review.
The present systematic review was carried out in the WoS, Scopus, Eric, PubMed and ProQuest databases. In a first search, the following keywords were entered: proso-cial* AND music* AND social exclusion*. Subsequently, in order to find as many papers as possible, a second search was carried out by entering the following keywords: prosocial* AND music* AND intervention. The number of papers found taking into account both searches was 374.
Finally, from the 28 papers assessed for eligibility, a manual search was performed by consulting the references of these papers, although no new papers were included in the review.
COMMENT 2) Let's rephrase the sentence from line 185: Is the total number of articles received 374, or does it represent the total yielded in the search?
ANSWER: Thank you very much for the appreciation. This sentence has been removed and included in the previous paragraph. It is specified that the number of papers found between the two searches performed is 374.
The number of papers found taking into account both searches was 374.
3) COMMENT: For Table 1, I recommend changing the term "study" to "author's name and country." Additionally, it's worth noting that the summary of the results under Table 1 lacks consistency.
ANSWER: Thanks for the suggestion. Following the reviewer's recommendation, the term Study has been replaced by Author's and Country.
The paragraph following table 1 has been removed.
COMMENT 4) In Section 3.1, which deals with the relevant characteristics of the interventions implemented in the studies, I propose including a brief explanation of this section before diving into the content at line 213. This suggestion applies to sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 as well.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, an introductory paragraph has been included in each of the different sections of the results.
3.1. Relevant Characteristics of the Interventions Implemented in the Studies
The following is a description of the different music-related actions implemented in the studies included in this systematic review.
3.2. Design
This section of the results shows the type of design used in each study, as well as the inclusion or not of a control group.
3.3. Sample Size and Sociodemographic Characteristics
The following is a description of the characteristics of the samples that participated in the studies included in this review. Specifically, we include data related to sample size, gender, educational level of the participants, ethnicity and race, and other conditions that may be relevant, such as participants with judicial measures or in special education centers.
3.4. Measuring Instruments
This section of the results presents the different instruments and techniques used in the evaluation of the dependent variables included in each study.
3.5. Effectiveness of Musical Interventions in Promoting Prosociality and Health: Analysis of Results
The effects of the music-based interventions on the dependent variables analyzed in each study are presented below, taking into account the results either between experimental and control groups or between before and after applying the intervention.
5) The text is well-written from line 489 to 515. However, there is room for improvement from line 567 to 655. I suggest grouping this section and exploring more engaging discussions, such as identifying similarities and differences among the 11 papers.
ANSWER: Thanks for the suggestion. Information on individual studies has been reduced and grouped and, as suggested by the reviewer, information on the similar results and characteristics of the different studies included in the review has been added.
In general, most of the studies included in the systematic review found improvements in different areas of prosocial behavior thanks to interventions based on music therapy [42,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,52]. In the case of the studies that did not find significant effects after the interventions [43,51], methodological aspects, very large groups of participants and poorly structured programs could explain the lack of positive effects. All the studies included had samples of children or adolescents, so it would be interesting, given the good results obtained, to test the effectiveness of musical interventions in subjects at risk of social exclusion of different age groups.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Only one comment has failed to address my inquiries which is the keyword search. Is it acceptable to recommend utilizing these keywords: (proso-cial* OR prosocial*) AND (music) AND ("social exclusion" OR "intervention")? Is this the search criteria you are seeking?
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Only one comment has failed to address my inquiries which is the keyword search. Is it acceptable to recommend utilizing these keywords: (proso-cial* OR prosocial*) AND (music) AND ("social exclusion" OR "intervention")? Is this the search criteria you are seeking?
Answer
Thank you very much for your comment.
We made a transcription error.
Our answer is:
The present systematic review was carried out in the WoS, Scopus, Eric, PubMed and ProQuest databases. In a first search, the following keywords were entered: prosocial* AND music* AND social exclusion*.
