Summary of findings 1. Music therapy plus standard care versus standard care alone for people with substance use disorders.
| Music therapy plus standard care versus standard care alone for people with substance use disorders | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people with substance use disorders Setting: detox and inpatient/outpatient rehabilitation settings Intervention: music therapy plus standard care Comparison: standard care alone | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with standard care | Risk with music therapy | |||||
|
Psychological symptoms (depression) Assessed with: various scales Scale: various (higher score worse) Follow‐up: end of treatment |
— | Mean depression in music therapy was 0.33 standard deviations lower (0.72 lower to 0.07 higher) |
— | 100 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea |
— |
|
Psychological symptoms (anxiety) Assessed with: Self‐report Anxiety Scale Scale: 20–80 (higher score worse) Follow‐up: end of treatment |
The mean anxiety score for standard care was 46.1 | Music therapy was 0.17 lower (4.39 lower to 4.05 higher) |
— | 60 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb |
— |
|
Substance craving Assessed with: Scale: various (higher score worse) Follow‐up: end of treatment |
— | Mean substance craving in music therapy was 0.66 standard deviations lower (1.23 lower to 0.10 lower) |
— | 254 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea |
— |
|
Motivation for treatment/change Assessed with: various scales Scale: various (higher score better) Follow‐up: end of treatment |
— | Mean motivation for treatment in music therapy was 0.41 standard deviations higher (0.21 higher to 0.61 higher) |
— | 408 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea |
— |
|
Motivation to stay sober/clean Assessed with: various scales Scale: various (higher score better) Follow‐up: end of treatment |
— | Mean motivation for sobriety in music therapy was 0.22 standard deviations higher (0.02 lower to 0.47 higher) |
— | 269 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea |
— |
|
Retention in treatment Assessed with: number participants retained at end of treatment |
Study population | RR 0.99 (0.93 to 1.05) | 199 (6 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea |
Higher retention better. | |
| 725 per 1000 | 718 per 1000 (674 to 761) | |||||
| Serious adverse events | — | — | — | — | — | No studies reported serious adverse events. |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio. | ||||||
|
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
aDowngraded one level for imprecision: optimal information size not met. bDowngraded two levels for imprecision: very low sample size.