. 2017 Nov 15;12(11):e0187363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187363

Table 3. Characteristics and results of studies examining effects of single music therapy session on patients with substance use disorders.

Study	Outcome	EG	CG	Type of intervention	Frequency/ duration	Measurement tools	Population	Results
Baker et al.[16] Dingle et al.[56]	Perceived enjoyment Engagement Motivation Mood-related experiences	N = 24 48.5% m Age: 17–52 (M = 34.4) 54% alcohol 30% polydrug/ injecting 13% cannabis	-	MT CBMT (lyric analysis, songwriting, parody, improvisation, singing, listening)	1 session for analysis, 90 min, 7 sessions per week	5-point Likert scale yes-no questions open-ended questions	In- and outpatient rehabilitation unit (detoxification and day patients) Australia	• 75% attendance • 70.8% were at least often motivated to take part in the session • 87.5% mood regulation ^a • 65% positive mood change ^a • 20% music allowed contact with feelings, relaxing ^a • 10% feelings of sadness, depression ^a • 83.5% found sessions (extremely) enjoyable ^a • 83% would take part in another session • 5.7 ± 2.8 emotions per session; positive: happy, vibrant, comfortable, relieved, inspired, proud; negative: sad, upset, self-conscious, confused ^a • Correlation between “use of music to regulate mood” and “help me do something enjoyable without using substances”, r = .509 ^*. • No differences between people with alcohol and drug use disorders for engagement, enjoyment, motivation • No differences between people up to/ over the age of 25 for engagement, enjoyment, motivation
Gardstrom et al.[51]	Anxiety Sadness Anger	N = 49 Age: early 20s to late 60s Dually diagnosed with MI and SUD	-	MT composition, listening, improvisation, performance	1 session for analysis 20 sessions, 45min	7-point visual analogue scale	Inpatient dual diagnosis treatment unit USA	• 51% decrease in anxiety, 38.8% no change, 10.2% increase ^a • 42.9% decrease in anger, 55.1% no change, 2% increase ^a • 65.2% decrease in sadness, 28.6% no change, 6.1% increase ^a • 32.7% decrease in all three scales, 20.4% no change in all scales, 0.2% increase in all scales ^a
Gardstrom & Diestelkamp[19]	Anxiety	N = 53 fm N = 39 with pre-session anxiety included Alcohol or other drugs, many polydrugs	-	MT composition, listening, improvisation, performance	1 session for analysis 18 sessions, 45min, twice a week, 9 weeks	7-point Likert scale	Females Inpatient gender-specific residential program USA	• 26.4% of the initial sample showed no pre-test anxiety (excluded) ^a • 84.6% decrease of anxiety from pre- to posttest ^a • 5.1% increase of anxiety ^a • 10.3% no change ^a • Decrease of anxiety from pre- to posttest ^***
Jones[46]	Mood (11 areas) Importance of MT	N = 26 (88.5% m) Age: 21–69 (M = 39.9) 85% alcohol 58% cocaine 19% cannabis 19% other drugs	Comparison between two MT groups	MT lyric analysis or songwriting	4 days per week	Visual analogue mood scale (100mm) with combined emotions	Inpatient non-medical detoxification facility USA	• Increased feelings of acceptance, joy/happiness/enjoyment ^b • Decreased feelings of guilty/regretful/blame, fearful/ distrustful ^b • No significant reduction in anxiety/ nervousness/ anticipation, shame/ humiliation/ embarrassment/ disgrace, sadness/ depression, sorrowful/ suffering • No differences between methods • 75% rated MT as significant tool in their recovery (increasing significance with increasing session number). ^a
Silverman[29]	Motivation (Treatment Eagerness) Working alliance Enjoyment	N = 29 Whole sample: N = 66 (43.9% m) Age: M = 40.8 58% alcohol 12% polydrug 12% pd	Group verbal therapy N = 37	MT lyric analysis	1 session 45 min, once a week	SOCRATES (short version) Revised Helping Alliance Questionnaire for therapist and client (HAQ) 7-point Likert scale	Inpatient detoxification unit USA	• No differences in motivation, client-rated working alliance, and perceived enjoyment between EG and CG • Higher therapist-rated working alliance ^*** for EG vs. CG • All participants noted they would attend another session. ^a
Silverman[30]	Withdrawal Locus of control	N = 64 Whole sample: N = 118 (48.3% m) Age: M = 40.2	Group verbal therapy N = 54	MT lyric analysis	1 session 45 min, once a week	Adjective Rating Scale for Withdrawal (ARSW) Drinking-Related Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (DRIE)	Inpatient detoxification unit USA	• No differences for withdrawal and locus of control between EG and CG • All participants except one noted they would attend another session ^a
Silverman[31]	Change readiness Depression Enjoyment Helpfulness Comfort Content Being clean	N = 69 Whole sample: N = 140 (50% m) Age: M = 43.2	Group verbal therapy N = 71	MT songwriting	1 session 45 min, once a week	University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) BDI-II 7-point Likert scales and follow-up interview after 1 month Lyric analysis	Inpatient detoxification unit USA	• No differences in change readiness (η² = .02) and depression for CG vs. EG • More perceived helpfulness ^* (η² = .10), enjoyment ^(η² = .13), and comfort ^ (η² = .03) for EG vs. CG • No differences in follow-up measures(enjoyment, helpfulness, depression, being clean) between EG and CG (η² = .10) • EG more comments regarding enjoyment, thanks, continuation, positive cognitive changes than CG ^a • Lyrics concerning consequences of using drugs, insight/change
Silverman[32]	Readiness to change Craving Helpfulness Enjoyment Motivation	N = 42 (EG1; Rockumentary MT) N = 43 (EG2; Recreational MT) Whole sample: N = 141 (58.2% m) Age: M = 38.4 55% alcohol 23% heroine 9% pd	Group verbal therapy N = 56	MT lyric analysis (EG1) or music bingo (EG2)	1 session 45 min, once a week	Readiness to Change Questionnaire Treatment Version (RTCQ-TV) Brief substance craving scale (BSCS) 7-point Likert scales	Inpatient detoxification unit USA	• RTCQ-TV: Higher scores for Contemplation^*** (η² = .122) and Action^* (η² = .052) for EG vs. CG • No differences in craving, helpfulness, enjoyment, and motivation between EG and CG • Correlations between motivation, enjoyment, and helpfulness across all participants^** • No differences between EG1 and EG2
Silverman[33]	Motivation and readiness for treatment Content	Posttest N = 48 Whole sample: N = 99 (48.5% m) Age: M = 43.9 64% alcohol 17% heroin 14% pd 3% cocaine	Pretest (wait-list CG) N = 51	MT songwriting	1 session 45 min, once a week	Circumstances, Motivation, and Readiness Scales for Substance Abuse Treatment (CMR) Lyric Analysis	Inpatient detoxification unit USA	• Higher scores for motivation ^* ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .068) and readiness for treatment ^*** ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .128) for EG vs. CG • Contents: “action”(n = 44), “emotions and feelings”(n = 28), “change“ (n = 26), “reflection”(n = 21), “admission”(n = 20), “responsibility” (n = 7) ^a
Silverman[34]	Drug avoidance self-efficacy Motivation for sobriety Treatment eagerness	Posttest N = 43 Whole sample: N = 131^b (53.4% m) Age: M = 38.6 57% alcohol 24% pd 17% heroin 2% cocaine	Active CG: group verbal therapy N = 41 Wait-list CG: Pretest (with group music bingo) N = 47	MT lyric analysis	1 session 45 min, once a week	Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale (DASES) 7-point Likert scales	Inpatient detoxification unit USA	• No differences for motivation ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001), treatment eagerness ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .019), or drug avoidance self-efficacy ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .034) between EG and CGs
Silverman[35]	Motivation	Posttest N = 49 (EG1 and EG2 with different songs) Whole sample: N = 104^c (54.8% m) Age: M = 41.6 62% alcohol 21% pd 14% heroin 1% cocaine 1% cannabis	Pretest (wait-list CG) N = 53	MT lyric analysis	1 session 45 min, once a week	Texas Christian University Treatment Motivation Scale- Client Evaluation of Self at Intake (CESI)	Inpatient detoxification unit USA	• Higher means for problem recognition ^* ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .053), desire for help ^* ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .0.044, treatment readiness ^( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .089), and total motivation ^ ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .074) for EG vs. CG • No differences between EG1 and EG2
Silverman[36]	Motivation to reach and maintain sobriety Treatment eagerness Knowledge of triggers and coping skills	N = 21 Whole sample: N = 69 (58% m) Age: M = 38.5 58% alcohol 21% heroin 21% pd 1% cocaine	Education without music N = 21 Recreational MT (music bingo) N = 25	MT educational MT (songwriting)	1 session, 45 min, once a week	7-point Likert scales lists of triggers and coping skills	Inpatient detoxification unit USA	EG with higher motivation than CG1 ^ and CG2 ^ ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .177) • No between-group differences after adjustment for multiple comparisons regarding treatment eagerness, knowledge of triggers and coping skills
Silverman[37]	Withdrawal Current craving	N = 60 Whole sample: N = 144 (54% m) Age: M = 36.8 81% alcohol 42% heroine 10% pd 1% cocaine 1% other	Pretest (wait-list CG) N = 84	MT lyric analysis	1 session, 45 min, once a week	Adjective Rating Scale for Withdrawal (ARSW) Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS)	Inpatient detoxification unit USA	No differences between the groups regarding withdrawal ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .026) or craving ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .022). • No relationship between familiarity and withdrawal or craving.

All studies included one session only for data analysis. Effect sizes are only listed when reported in the articles. amp = amphetamines; CBMT = cognitive behavioral music therapy; CG = control group; DARTNA = Drum-Assisted Recovery Therapy for Native Americans; EG = experimental group; fm = females; GIM = Guided Imagery and Music therapy; m = males; MBI = music based intervention; MI = mental illness; MT = music therapy; pd = prescription drugs; SOCRATES = The Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale; SUD = substance use disorders

^a Frequency counts

^b N = 121 completed all measures

^c N = 100 completed all measures

*p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001