| Literature DB >> 35448028 |
Naomi Thompson1, Jodie Bloska1, Alison Abington2, Amber Masterson2, David Whitten2, Alexander Street1.
Abstract
Music interventions support functional outcomes, improve mood, and reduce symptoms of depression in neurorehabilitation. Neurologic music therapy (NMT) has been reported as feasible and helpful in stroke rehabilitation but is not commonly part of multidisciplinary services in acute or subacute settings. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of delivering NMT one-day-per-week in a subacute neurorehabilitation centre over 15 months. Data were collected on the number of referrals, who referred, sessions offered, attended, and declined, and reasons why. Staff, patients, and their relatives completed questionnaires rating the interventions. Patients completed the Visual Analog Mood Scales (VAMS) pre and post a single session. Forty-nine patients received 318 NMT sessions (83% of sessions offered). NMT was rated as helpful or very helpful as part of the multidisciplinary team (n = 36). The highest ratings were for concentration, arm and hand rehabilitation, and motivation and mood. VAMS scores (n = 24) showed a reduction in 'confused' (-8.6, p = 0.035, effect size 0.49) and an increase in 'happy' (6.5, p = 0.021, effect size = 0.12) post NMT. The data suggest that a one-day-per-week NMT post in subacute neurorehabilitation was feasible, acceptable, and helpful, supporting patient engagement in rehabilitation exercises, mood, and motivation.Entities:
Keywords: acceptability; feasibility; mood; neurologic music therapy; subacute neurorehabilitation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35448028 PMCID: PMC9029413 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12040497
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Figure 1Patient participation in Visual Analog Mood Scale (VAMS) and questionnaire feedback.
Patient demographic and diagnostic data, and referral reason and attendance at Neurologic Music Therapy (NMT).
|
| Male | 25 (51%) |
| Female | 24 (49%) | |
|
| Stroke | 32 (65%) |
| Haematoma | 3 (6%) | |
| Leukoencephalopathy | 2 (4%) | |
| Spinal cord injury | 3 (6%) | |
| Brain or spinal cord tumour | 3 (6%) | |
| Other * | 6 (12%) | |
|
| Group | 25 (51%) |
| Individual | 14 (29%) | |
| Both | 10 (20%) | |
|
| Offered | 382 |
| Attended | 318 (83%) | |
| Declined | 29 (8%) | |
| Unable | 35 (9%) | |
|
| PT | 9 (18%) |
| OT | 7 (14%) | |
| SLT | 5 (10%) | |
| PT/OT | 20 (41%) | |
| OT/SLT | 1 (2%) | |
| PT/OT/SLT | 3 (6%) | |
| TA/OT | 1 (2%) | |
| Psychologist | 0 (0%) | |
| MT | 0 (0%) | |
| Patient request | 1 (2%) | |
| Not stated | 2 (4%) | |
|
| Cognition | 9 (18%) |
| Communication | 11 (22%) | |
| Emotional expression | 7 (14%) | |
| Gait | 4 (8%) | |
| Lower limb | 28 (57%) | |
| Upper limb | 38 (78%) | |
| Mood | 2 (4%) | |
|
| TIMP | 35 (71%) |
| Other | 2 (4%) | |
| TIMP + other | 7 (14%) | |
| Not stated | 5 (10%) |
* Diagnoses in ‘other’ category include: pneumococcal meningitis, brain aneurysm, hydrocephalus, skull fracture, and subsequent stroke, duodenal ulcer, and heart attack. ** Most referrals were for more than one reason, and so percentage is shown as % of total no. of patients. PT—physiotherapy; OT—occupational therapy; SLT—speech and language therapy; TA—therapy assistant; MT—music therapist; NMT—neurologic music therapy; TIMP—therapeutic instrumental music performance.
Responses to the question ‘What do you think of music therapy?’.
| Participants | Questions | Not Helpful (%) | Quite Helpful (%) | Helpful (%) | Very Helpful (%) | Not Applicable (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients ( | What did you think of the MT session | 0 | 13.6 | 40.9 | 45.5 | 0 |
| Staff ( | What do you think about MT for patients? | 0 | 0 | 22.2 | 77.8 | 0 |
| What do you think of MT as part of MDT? | 0 | 0 | 44.4 | 55.6 | 0 | |
| Relatives ( | What did you think of MT in stroke rehab? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
Responses to the questions ‘What did music therapy help with?’.
| Did MT Help with: | Speech and Communication | Walking and Mobility | Concentrating | Arm and Hand | Motivation and Mood |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients ( | |||||
| Not helpful (%) | 4.5 | 4.5 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 |
| Quite Helpful (%) | 9.1 | 4.5 | 9.1 | 18.2 | 18.2 |
| Helpful (%) | 27.3 | 36.4 | 31.8 | 22.7 | 27.3 |
| Very Helpful (%) | 27.3 | 18.2 | 54.5 | 45.5 | 40.9 |
| Not applicable (%) | 31.8 | 36.4 | 4.5 | 9.1 | 4.5 |
| No data (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.1 |
| Staff ( | |||||
| Not helpful (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quite Helpful (%) | 0 | 11.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Helpful (%) | 66.7 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 22.2 | 22.2 |
| Very Helpful (%) | 11.1 | 44.4 | 66.7 | 77.8 | 66.5 |
| Not applicable (%) | 22.2 | 11.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| No data (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.1 |
| Relatives ( | |||||
| Not helpful (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quite Helpful (%) | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Helpful (%) | 40 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| Very Helpful (%) | 60 | 40 | 100 | 80 | 100 |
| Not applicable (%) | 0 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Patients’ qualitative response to feedback questionnaires (n = 18).
| Did Music Therapy Help with Anything Else? | Theme |
|---|---|
| The way I move things, controlling, concentrating, listening | Movement/cognition |
| Music helped aid my activity, social | Social/movement |
| Movement in my hands | movement |
| Re mood: To start with it was down but then it came up, the social side | Mood/social |
| I enjoyed the guitar music | Mood |
| It’s helped raise my mood | Mood |
| Meeting people | Social |
| Just your mood, really/It’s what you bring to it | Mood |
| Hand to eye coordination | Movement |
| I loved all of it | Mood |
| Lots of arm movements | Movement |
| If gives me something to look forward to | Motivation/mood |
| Relaxation | Mood |
| I liked it because they were very helpful; It is helpful because we have enjoyed it. | Mood |
| Feeling of goodness; makes you feel very good during and afterwards | Mood |
| Co-ordination | Movement |
| Improving confidence to communicate; I really enjoyed the session and gave me a sense of belonging. (Name of therapist) was very encouraging and led with music that I liked, as well as the rest of the group. Really looking forward to next week’s session. | Mood/social/communication/motivation |
| Keeping sane | Mood |
|
|
|
| Too long | Length of activity |
| Mark Bolan wasn’t there | Music Selection |
|
|
|
| Stretching exercises | Movement |
| Maybe streamed music (records, YouTube) | Music selection |
| Lyrics from songs/more singing, that’s when I get most fun from it; singing/drumming together | Social |
| Current chart music please | Music selection |
Staff members’ qualitative responses to feedback questionnaire (n = 7).
| Was Music Therapy Helpful in Any Other Ways? | Themes |
|---|---|
| Social interaction | Social |
| Group interaction. Including therapy in a way patients don’t recognise—good way to get foundation work done. | Social/tolerance and motivation |
| Yes very emotive and engaging, promoted speech—asked to use piano | Mood/speech |
| Peer support in group, balance work/moving away from midline | Social/movement |
| Enjoyment and additional activity, social engagement | Mood/social |
| Group sessions are good for social interaction. Enjoyable for residents. | Mood/social |
| Engagement with other residents; social interaction | Social |
|
|
|
| 10 min at a time possibly too long for some patients to remain focussed | Length of activity |
Relatives’ qualitative responses to feedback questionnaire (n = 3).
| Did Music Therapy Help with Anything Else? | Theme |
|---|---|
| Mood—extremely obvious my father was happy, not in a low mood, full of fun and animated; self-esteem and being involved with others. | Mood/social |
| Lifiting spirits; helping levels of anxiety, increased relaxation; encouraging social interaction with other patients; encouraging creativity, musicality and expression | Mood/social |
| Balance | Movement |
|
|
|
| Perhaps they could get involved in vocalising, make sounds with voice as well as rhythm (body) this would aid the patients who need help to speak communicate through sound. Generally this is amazing, such a blessing having music therapy class | Speech |
Responses to the Visual Analog Mood Scale (n = 24).
| Pre-Mean (SD) | Post-Mean (SD) | Difference (95% CI) | Cohen’s d | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Afraid | 56.3 (19.9) | 51.1 (17.6) | −5.2 (4.4, −14.8) | 0.27 | |
| Confused | 59.1 (20.6) | 50.5 (14.0) | −8.6 (−0.2, −17.0) | 0.49 | |
| Sad | 53.1 (15.4) | 52.7 (19.6) | −0.4 (8.2, −9.0) | 0.02 | |
| Angry | 52.6 (14.3) | 51.0 (17.8) | −1.6 (6.9, −10.0) | 0.10 | |
| Energetic | 44.1 (13.7) | 51.0 (17.8) | 7 (15.6, −1.7) | 0.44 | |
| Tired | 56.0 (11.5) | 56.9 (14.2) | 0.9 (7.1, −5.3) | 0.07 | |
| Happy | 43.3 (11.4) | 49.8 (10.7) | 6.5 (12.3, 0.7) | 0.59 | |
| Tense | 53.0 (16.0) | 54.3 (20.2) | 1.4 (7.9, −5.1) | 0.12 |
Figure 2VAMS scores pre and post a single NMT session. Mood states marked with * show a statistically significant change.