4.6 Article

Individual music therapy for depression: randomised controlled trial

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Volume 199, Issue 2, Pages 132-139

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.085431

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. European Commission [FP6-2004-NEST-PATH-028570]
  2. Academy of Finland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Music therapy has previously been found to be effective in the treatment of depression but the studies have been methodologically insufficient and lacking in clarity about the clinical model employed. Aims To determine the efficacy of music therapy added to standard care compared with standard care only in the treatment of depression among working-age people. Method Participants (n=79) with an ICD-10 diagnosis of depression were randomised to receive individual music therapy plus standard care (20 bi-weekly sessions) or standard care only, and followed up at baseline, at 3 months (after intervention) and at 6 months. Clinical measures included depression, anxiety, general functioning, quality of life and alexithymia. Trial registration: ISRCTN84185937. Results Participants receiving music therapy plus standard care showed greater improvement than those receiving standard care only in depression symptoms (mean difference 4.65, 95% Cl 0.59 to 8.70), anxiety symptoms (1.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.55) and general functioning (-4.58, 95% CI -8.93 to -0.24) at 3-month follow-up. The response rate was significantly higher for the music therapy plus standard care group than for the standard care only group (odds ratio 2.96, 95% CI 1.01 to 9.02). Conclusions Individual music therapy combined with standard care is effective for depression among working-age people with depression. The results of this study along with the previous research indicate that music therapy with its specific qualities is a valuable enhancement to established treatment practices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available