The form of causation in health, disease and intervention: biopsychosocial dispositionalism, conserved quantity transfers and dualist mechanistic chains

Studying Nonlinear Change in Music Therapy Applying Dynamic Systems Theory

Change in music therapy is often modeled linearly. In linear analysis, change is represented as the difference between the scores recorded before and after treatment, where changes in the input are proportional to the output. However, changes in complex systems are often not linear and depend on time. We propose Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) as a means to overcome the shortcomings of linear analysis and enrich the study of change in music therapy. This article aims to introduce and critically discuss the applications of DST in music therapy, focusing on its theoretical and methodological aspects. DST offers a meta-framework to model nonlinear change in music therapy, considering time as continuous. The application of DST can further enhance the understanding of how music therapy works, the shape of the change, and how the relevant therapeutic processes within music therapy support therapeutic change. An introduction to DST theory is provided along with its history, implications, assessment methods, statistical analyses, mathematical modeling, and implementation examples in music therapy research.

How to gain evidence for causation in disease and therapeutic intervention: from Koch’s postulates to counter-counterfactuals

Researchers, clinicians, and patients have good reasons for wanting answers to causal questions of disease and therapeutic intervention. This paper uses microbiologist Robert Koch’s pioneering work and famous postulates to extrapolate a logical sequence of evidence for confirming the causes of disease: association between individuals with and without a disease; isolation of causal agents; and the creation of a counterfactual (demonstrating that an agent is sufficient to reproduce the disease anew). This paper formally introduces counter-counterfactuals, which appear to have been used, perhaps intuitively, since the time of Koch and possibly earlier. An argument is presented that counter-counterfactuals (disease-preventers) are a useful tool for identifying necessary causes of disease, and sometimes must be used in place of isolation which is not always possible. In addition, a logical sequence of causal evidence for a therapeutic intervention is presented: creating a counterfactual (demonstrating that the intervention is sufficient to change the natural course of a disease), comparisons between subjects in receipt of treatment versus those who are not (typically within a randomised controlled trial, which can quantify effects of intervention), and counter-counterfactuals (treatment-preventers, which can identify the intervention’s mechanisms of action).

Quality of mobility measures among individuals with acquired brain injury: an umbrella review

Background and objective

While several mobility measures exist, there is large variability across measures in how mobility is conceptualized, the source of information and the measurement properties making it challenging to select relevant mobility measures for individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). Therefore, the objective was to conduct a comprehensive synthesis of existing evidence on the measurement properties, the interpretability and the feasibility of mobility measures from various sources of information (patients, clinicians, technology) using an umbrella review of published systematic reviews among individuals with ABI.

Methods

Ovid MEDLINE, CINHAL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from 2000 to March 2020. Two independent reviewers appraised the methodological quality of the systematic reviews using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. Measurement properties and quality of evidence were applied according to COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) guidelines. Mobility measures were categorized using international standards with the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF).

Results

Thirty-five systematic reviews were included covering 147 mobility measures, of which 85% were mapped to the ICF Activity and Participation component. Results showed an acceptable overall "sufficient" rating for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness for 132 (90%), 127 (86%) and 76 (52%) of the measures, respectively; however, among these measures, ≤ 25% of the methods for evaluating these properties were rated as ‘high’ quality of evidence. Also, there was limited information that supports measure feasibility and scoring interpretability.

Conclusions

Future systematic reviews should report measures’ content validity to support the use of the measure in clinical care and research. More evaluations of the minimal important difference and floor and ceiling effects are needed to help guide clinical interpretation.

Registration information

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); ID: CRD42018100068.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03103-4.

From Ideal to Real Risk: Philosophy of Causation Meets Risk Analysis

A question has been raised in recent years as to whether the risk field, including analysis, assessment, and management, ought to be considered a discipline on its own. As suggested by Terje Aven, unification of the risk field would require a common understanding of basic concepts, such as risk and probability; hence, more discussion is needed of what he calls "foundational issues." In this article, we show that causation is a foundational issue of risk, and that a proper understanding of it is crucial. We propose that some old ideas about the nature of causation must be abandoned in order to overcome certain persisting challenges facing risk experts over the last decade. In particular, we discuss the challenge of including causally relevant knowledge from the local context when studying risk. Although it is uncontroversial that the receptor plays an important role for risk evaluations, we show how the implementation of receptor-based frameworks is hindered by methodological shortcomings that can be traced back to Humean orthodoxies about causation. We argue that the first step toward the development of frameworks better suited to make realistic risk predictions is to reconceptualize causation, by examining a philosophical alternative to the Humean understanding. In this article, we show how our preferred account, causal dispositionalism, offers a different perspective in how risk is evaluated and understood.