BACKGROUND: Substance use disorder (SUD) is the continued use of one or more psychoactive substances, including alcohol, despite negative effects on health, functioning, and social relations. Problematic drug use has increased by 10% globally since 2013, and harmful use of alcohol is associated with 5.3% of all deaths. Direct effects of music therapy (MT) on problematic substance use are not known, but it may be helpful in alleviating associated psychological symptoms and decreasing substance craving.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of music therapy (MT) in addition to standard care versus standard care alone, or to standard care plus an active control intervention, on psychological symptoms, substance craving, motivation for treatment, and motivation to stay clean/sober.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from inception to 1 February 2021): the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE (PubMed); eight other databases, and two trials registries. We handsearched reference lists of all retrieved studies and relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing MT plus standard care to standard care alone, or MT plus standard care to active intervention plus standard care for people with SUD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 trials involving 1984 people. We found moderate-certainty evidence of a medium effect favouring MT plus standard care over standard care alone for substance craving (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.10; 3 studies, 254 participants), with significant subgroup differences indicating greater reduction in craving for MT intervention lasting one to three months; and small-to-medium effect favouring MT for motivation for treatment/change (SMD 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61; 5 studies, 408 participants). We found no clear evidence of a beneficial effect on depression (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.07; 3 studies, 100 participants), or motivation to stay sober/clean (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.47; 3 studies, 269 participants), though effect sizes ranged from large favourable effect to no effect, and we are uncertain about the result. There was no evidence of beneficial effect on anxiety (mean difference (MD) -0.17, 95% CI -4.39 to 4.05; 1 study, 60 participants), though we are uncertain about the result. There was no meaningful effect for retention in treatment for participants receiving MT plus standard care as compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% 0.93 to 1.05; 6 studies, 199 participants). There was a moderate effect on motivation for treatment/change when comparing MT plus standard care to another active intervention plus standard care (SMD 0.46, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.93; 5 studies, 411 participants), and certainty in the result was moderate. We found no clear evidence of an effect of MT on motivation to stay sober/clean when compared to active intervention, though effect sizes ranged from large favourable effect to no effect, and we are uncertain about the result (MD 0.34, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.78; 3 studies, 258 participants). There was no clear evidence of effect on substance craving (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.48; 3 studies, 232 participants), depression (MD -1.49, 95% CI -4.98 to 2.00; 1 study, 110 participants), or substance use (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; 1 study, 140 participants) at one-month follow-up when comparing MT plus standard care to active intervention plus standard care. There were no data on adverse effects. Unclear risk of selection bias applied to most studies due to incomplete description of processes of randomisation and allocation concealment. All studies were at unclear risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors for subjective outcomes (mostly self-report). We judged that bias arising from such lack of blinding would not differ between groups. Similarly, it is not possible to blind participants and providers to MT. We consider knowledge of receiving this type of therapy as part of the therapeutic effect itself, and thus all studies were at low risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes. We downgraded all outcomes one level for imprecision due to optimal information size not being met, and two levels for outcomes with very low sample size. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from this review suggest that MT as 'add on' treatment to standard care can lead to moderate reductions in substance craving and can increase motivation for treatment/change for people with SUDs receiving treatment in detoxification and short-term rehabilitation settings. Greater reduction in craving is associated with MT lasting longer than a single session. We have moderate-to-low confidence in our findings as the included studies were downgraded in certainty due to imprecision, and most included studies were conducted by the same researcher in the same detoxification unit, which considerably impacts the transferability of findings.
Depression is a very common mood disorder, resulting in a loss of social function, reduced quality of life and increased mortality. Music interventions have been shown to be a potential alternative for depression therapy but the number of up-to-date research literature is quite limited. We present a review of original research trials which utilize music or music therapy as intervention to treat participants with depressive symptoms. Our goal was to differentiate the impact of certain therapeutic uses of music used in the various experiments. Randomized controlled study designs were preferred but also longitudinal studies were chosen to be included. 28 studies with a total number of 1,810 participants met our inclusion criteria and were finally selected. We distinguished between passive listening to music (record from a CD or live music) (79%), and active singing, playing, or improvising with instruments (46%). Within certain boundaries of variance an analysis of similar studies was attempted. Critical parameters were for example length of trial, number of sessions, participants' age, kind of music, active or passive participation and single- or group setting. In 26 studies, a statistically significant reduction in depression levels was found over time in the experimental (music intervention) group compared to a control (n = 25) or comparison group (n = 2). In particular, elderly participants showed impressive improvements when they listened to music or participated in music therapy projects. Researchers used group settings more often than individual sessions and our results indicated a slightly better outcome for those cases. Additional questionnaires about participants confidence, self-esteem or motivation, confirmed further improvements after music treatment. Consequently, the present review offers an extensive set of comparable data, observations about the range of treatment options these papers addressed, and thus might represent a valuable aid for future projects for the use of music-based interventions to improve symptoms of depression.
Music therapy (MT) and music-based interventions (MBIs) are increasingly used for the treatment of substance use disorders (SUD). Previous reviews on the efficacy of MT emphasized the dearth of research evidence for this topic, although various positive effects were identified. Therefore, we conducted a systematic search on published articles examining effects of music, MT and MBIs and found 34 quantitative and six qualitative studies. There was a clear increase in the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) during the past few years. We had planned for a meta-analysis, but due to the diversity of the quantitative studies, effect sizes were not computed. Beneficial effects of MT/ MBI on emotional and motivational outcomes, participation, locus of control, and perceived helpfulness were reported, but results were inconsistent across studies. Furthermore, many RCTs focused on effects of single sessions. No published longitudinal trials could be found. The analysis of the qualitative studies revealed four themes: emotional expression, group interaction, development of skills, and improvement of quality of life. Considering these issues for quantitative research, there is a need to examine social and health variables in future studies. In conclusion, due to the heterogeneity of the studies, the efficacy of MT/ MBI in SUD treatment still remains unclear. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
The current review provides a summarized synthesis and evaluation of studies addressing the effects of music therapy (MT) alone or MT added to standard care on mental health among adults. Potential studies were identified through electronic bibliographic databases and manual searches. Studies were included for review if (1) the study methodology involved a randomized control trial, (2) the study outcome included a measure of mental health, (3) the study sample included adults ages 18 and older, and (4) the study was published in an English language peer-reviewed journal since 2006. Applying these criteria, the search yielded 593 studies, 9 of which were ultimately retained for review. These studies generally found MT to be more effective than no treatment or than standard care alone. Long-term studies were few, and results suggest no meaningful differences over time. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)
Serious mental disorders have considerable individual and societal impact, and traditional treatments may show limited effects. Music therapy may be beneficial in psychosis and depression, including treatment-resistant cases. The aim of this review was to examine the benefits of music therapy for people with serious mental disorders. All existing prospective studies were combined using mixed-effects meta-analysis models, allowing to examine the influence of study design (RCT vs. CCT vs. pre-post study), type of disorder (psychotic vs. non-psychotic), and number of sessions. Results showed that music therapy, when added to standard care, has strong and significant effects on global state, general symptoms, negative symptoms, depression, anxiety, functioning, and musical engagement. Significant dose-effect relationships were identified for general, negative, and depressive symptoms, as well as functioning, with explained variance ranging from 73% to 78%. Small effect sizes for these outcomes are achieved after 3 to 10, large effects after 16 to 51 sessions. The findings suggest that music therapy is an effective treatment which helps people with psychotic and non-psychotic severe mental disorders to improve global state, symptoms, and functioning. Slight improvements can be seen with a few therapy sessions, but longer courses or more frequent sessions are needed to achieve more substantial benefits.
Substance use disorder (SUD) is the continued use of one or more psychoactive substances, including alcohol, despite negative effects on health, functioning, and social relations. Problematic drug use has increased by 10% globally since 2013, and harmful use of alcohol is associated with 5.3% of all deaths. Direct effects of music therapy (MT) on problematic substance use are not known, but it may be helpful in alleviating associated psychological symptoms and decreasing substance craving.
OBJECTIVES:
To compare the effect of music therapy (MT) in addition to standard care versus standard care alone, or to standard care plus an active control intervention, on psychological symptoms, substance craving, motivation for treatment, and motivation to stay clean/sober.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the following databases (from inception to 1 February 2021): the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE (PubMed); eight other databases, and two trials registries. We handsearched reference lists of all retrieved studies and relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials comparing MT plus standard care to standard care alone, or MT plus standard care to active intervention plus standard care for people with SUD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 21 trials involving 1984 people. We found moderate-certainty evidence of a medium effect favouring MT plus standard care over standard care alone for substance craving (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.10; 3 studies, 254 participants), with significant subgroup differences indicating greater reduction in craving for MT intervention lasting one to three months; and small-to-medium effect favouring MT for motivation for treatment/change (SMD 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61; 5 studies, 408 participants). We found no clear evidence of a beneficial effect on depression (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.07; 3 studies, 100 participants), or motivation to stay sober/clean (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.47; 3 studies, 269 participants), though effect sizes ranged from large favourable effect to no effect, and we are uncertain about the result. There was no evidence of beneficial effect on anxiety (mean difference (MD) -0.17, 95% CI -4.39 to 4.05; 1 study, 60 participants), though we are uncertain about the result. There was no meaningful effect for retention in treatment for participants receiving MT plus standard care as compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% 0.93 to 1.05; 6 studies, 199 participants). There was a moderate effect on motivation for treatment/change when comparing MT plus standard care to another active intervention plus standard care (SMD 0.46, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.93; 5 studies, 411 participants), and certainty in the result was moderate. We found no clear evidence of an effect of MT on motivation to stay sober/clean when compared to active intervention, though effect sizes ranged from large favourable effect to no effect, and we are uncertain about the result (MD 0.34, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.78; 3 studies, 258 participants). There was no clear evidence of effect on substance craving (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.48; 3 studies, 232 participants), depression (MD -1.49, 95% CI -4.98 to 2.00; 1 study, 110 participants), or substance use (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; 1 study, 140 participants) at one-month follow-up when comparing MT plus standard care to active intervention plus standard care. There were no data on adverse effects. Unclear risk of selection bias applied to most studies due to incomplete description of processes of randomisation and allocation concealment. All studies were at unclear risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors for subjective outcomes (mostly self-report). We judged that bias arising from such lack of blinding would not differ between groups. Similarly, it is not possible to blind participants and providers to MT. We consider knowledge of receiving this type of therapy as part of the therapeutic effect itself, and thus all studies were at low risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes. We downgraded all outcomes one level for imprecision due to optimal information size not being met, and two levels for outcomes with very low sample size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Results from this review suggest that MT as 'add on' treatment to standard care can lead to moderate reductions in substance craving and can increase motivation for treatment/change for people with SUDs receiving treatment in detoxification and short-term rehabilitation settings. Greater reduction in craving is associated with MT lasting longer than a single session. We have moderate-to-low confidence in our findings as the included studies were downgraded in certainty due to imprecision, and most included studies were conducted by the same researcher in the same detoxification unit, which considerably impacts the transferability of findings.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
