PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue is a prevalent, debilitating symptom that contributes to increased health care utilization among hospitalized patients. Music therapy is a nonpharmacological intervention that uses active (eg, singing, selecting songs) and passive (eg, listening) techniques. Preliminary evidence from small trials suggests a potential benefit for cancer-related fatigue in the inpatient setting; however, it remains unclear which techniques are most effective. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study was performed to compare cancer-related fatigue before and after active or passive music therapy. Cancer-related fatigue was captured via the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale fatigue item. Patients were asked to provide postsession free-text comments. RESULTS: A total of 436 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 62.2 [13.4] years; n = 284 [65.1%] women; n = 294 [67.4%] white; active music therapy n = 360 [82.6%]; passive music therapy n = 76 [17.4%]) with a range of primary malignancies participated. Active music therapy was associated with a 0.88-point greater reduction in cancer-related fatigue (95% CI, 0.26 to 1.51; P = .006; Cohen's D, 0.52) at postsession as compared with passive music therapy when restricting the analysis to patients who rated their baseline cancer-related fatigue as moderate to severe (ie, ≥ 4; n = 236 [54.1%]). Free-text responses confirmed higher frequencies of words describing positive affect/emotion among active music therapy participants. CONCLUSIONS: In a large sample of inpatient adults with diverse cancer disease types, active music therapy was associated with greater reduction in cancer-related fatigue and increased reporting of positive affect/emotions compared with passive music therapy. Additional research is warranted to determine the specific efficacy and underlying mechanisms of music therapy on cancer-related fatigue.
PURPOSE:Cancer-related fatigue is a prevalent, debilitating symptom that contributes to increased health care utilization among hospitalized patients. Music therapy is a nonpharmacological intervention that uses active (eg, singing, selecting songs) and passive (eg, listening) techniques. Preliminary evidence from small trials suggests a potential benefit for cancer-related fatigue in the inpatient setting; however, it remains unclear which techniques are most effective. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study was performed to compare cancer-related fatigue before and after active or passive music therapy. Cancer-related fatigue was captured via the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale fatigue item. Patients were asked to provide postsession free-text comments. RESULTS: A total of 436 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 62.2 [13.4] years; n = 284 [65.1%] women; n = 294 [67.4%] white; active music therapy n = 360 [82.6%]; passive music therapy n = 76 [17.4%]) with a range of primary malignancies participated. Active music therapy was associated with a 0.88-point greater reduction in cancer-related fatigue (95% CI, 0.26 to 1.51; P = .006; Cohen's D, 0.52) at postsession as compared with passive music therapy when restricting the analysis to patients who rated their baseline cancer-related fatigue as moderate to severe (ie, ≥ 4; n = 236 [54.1%]). Free-text responses confirmed higher frequencies of words describing positive affect/emotion among active music therapy participants. CONCLUSIONS: In a large sample of inpatient adults with diverse cancer disease types, active music therapy was associated with greater reduction in cancer-related fatigue and increased reporting of positive affect/emotions compared with passive music therapy. Additional research is warranted to determine the specific efficacy and underlying mechanisms of music therapy on cancer-related fatigue.
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Heather Greenlee; Kari Bohlke; Ting Bao; Angela M DeMichele; Gary E Deng; Judith M Fouladbakhsh; Brigitte Gil; Dawn L Hershman; Sami Mansfield; Dawn M Mussallem; Karen M Mustian; Erin Price; Susan Rafte; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tenbroeck G Smith; Alyssa N Troeschel; Kathleen M Castro; Neeraj K Arora; Kevin Stein; Joseph Lipscomb; Otis W Brawley; Ryan M McCabe; Steven B Clauser; Elizabeth Ward Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G A Curt; W Breitbart; D Cella; J E Groopman; S J Horning; L M Itri; D H Johnson; C Miaskowski; S L Scherr; R K Portenoy; N J Vogelzang Journal: Oncologist Date: 2000
Authors: Ann M Berger; Kathi Mooney; Amy Alvarez-Perez; William S Breitbart; Kristen M Carpenter; David Cella; Charles Cleeland; Efrat Dotan; Mario A Eisenberger; Carmen P Escalante; Paul B Jacobsen; Catherine Jankowski; Thomas LeBlanc; Jennifer A Ligibel; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Belinda Mandrell; Barbara A Murphy; Oxana Palesh; William F Pirl; Steven C Plaxe; Michelle B Riba; Hope S Rugo; Carolina Salvador; Lynne I Wagner; Nina D Wagner-Johnston; Finly J Zachariah; Mary Anne Bergman; Courtney Smith Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Julienne E Bower; Kate Bak; Ann Berger; William Breitbart; Carmelita P Escalante; Patricia A Ganz; Hester Hill Schnipper; Christina Lacchetti; Jennifer A Ligibel; Gary H Lyman; Mohammed S Ogaily; William F Pirl; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathleen A Lynch; Nicholas Emard; Kevin T Liou; Karen Popkin; Michael Borten; Ogechi Nwodim; Thomas M Atkinson; Jun J Mao Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Kevin T Liou; Kathleen A Lynch; Ogechi Nwodim; Karen Popkin; Jane S Greene; Thomas M Atkinson; Joke Bradt; Jun J Mao Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 3.612