Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 11;12:764372. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.764372

Table 4.

Overview of results of psychological wellbeing outcomes.

Study Design outcome measure Reported results Quality (D&B)
Neuropsychiatric Inventory
Wang et al. (2018) RCT NPI Between group improvement for singing (n = 30) compared to control
Within group improvement for singing group (n = 30)
66%
Lyu et al. (2018) RCT NPI Between group improvements at immediate follow for singing (n = 97) and lyric reading (n = 96) compared to control (n = 95)
Between group improvement for singing group at 3-month follow up compared with both reading and control
85%
Chen et al. (2019) NCT CNPI Between group improvements on five domains of CNPI for singing (n = 21): depression, anxiety, irritability, aberrant motor behaviour, and eating disorders compared to control (n = 22) 80%
Satoh et al. (2015) NCT NPI Within group improvement for singing only (n = 10) 64%
Camic et al. (2011) QE NPI No significant change (n = 10) 70%
Agitation
Cooke et al. (2010a) RCT CMAI-SF No significant change—mean scores suggested consistently low instances of agitation across sample (floor effect) (n = 47) 85%
Tamplin et al. (2018) QE CMAI-SF No significant change– mean scores suggested consistently low instances of agitation (floor effect) (n = 47) 78%
Anxiety
Pongan et al. (2017) RCT STAI Within group improvement for both singing (n = 31) and painting (n = 28), with greater effect size for painting 88%
Cooke et al. (2010a) RCT RAID No significant change—mean scores indicated consistently low levels of anxiety (floor effect) (n = 47) 85%
Tamplin et al. (2018) QE RAID No pre-post change (n = 9) 78%
de la Rubia Orti et al. (2018) QE HADS Pre-post improvement (n = 25), inversely corelated with decrease in cortisol 78%
Depression
Pongan et al. (2017) RCT GDS Between group improvement for painting (n = 28) compared to singing (n = 31) 88%
Särkämö et al. (2014) RCT CBS Between group improvements for both groups (singing (n = 27) and music listening (n = 29) compared to standard care control group (n = 28) 77%
Cooke et al. (2010b) RCT GDS No significant change—mean scores indicated consistently low levels of depression (floor effect)
(n = 47)
81%
Tamplin et al. (2018) QE AES (self and proxy)
No pre-post change (n = 9)
Significant difference between self and proxy report scores at baseline and post intervention
78%
de la Rubia Orti et al. (2018) QE HADS Pre-post decrease (improvement) correlated with decreased cortisol levels (n = 25) 78%
Camic et al. (2011) QE GDS Pre-post increase (worsening) (n = 10) 70%
Immediate well-being
Pongan et al. (2019) RCT EVIBE Within group improvement for both singing (n = 31) and painting (n = 28) groups 74%
Lesta and Petocz (2006) QE MBAC Pre-post improvement in mood scale (n = 4) 69%

RCT, Randomised Control Trial; NCT, Non-Randomised Control Trial; QE, Quasi-Experimental Design; NPI, Neuropsychiatric Inventory; CNPI, Chinese Neuropsychiatric Inventory; CMAI-SF, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory- Short Form; STAI, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; RAID, Rating Anxiety in Dementia; CBS, The Cornell-Brown Scale for Quality of Life in Dementia; GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; AES, Apathy Evaluation Scale; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; EVIBE, Evaluation Instantane e du Bien-Etre; MBAC, Mood-Behaviour Assessment Chart.