A controlled trial investigating the effect of music therapy during an acute psychotic episode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of music therapy, as an adjunct to pharmacological therapy during an acute psychotic episode. METHOD: Sixty participants were quasi-randomised into either a treatment or control group. Standardised psychological assessments [Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Calgary Interview Guide for Depression, Nurses' Observation Scale for Inpatient Evaluation (NOSIE-30) and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS21)] were conducted before and after the sessions to determine whether there were any significant changes in outcomes. RESULTS: Statistically significant changes in BPRS scores were seen in the treatment group (n = 25) compared with the control group (n = 24). No significant differences were seen in the results of the Calgary, NOSIE-30 or DASS21 scores. Despite the treatment group, having a 9.3% decrease in their length of stay in hospital as opposed to the control group, this did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences were found when comparing the two groups in their doses of antipsychotic, benzodiazepine, mood stabilising or antidepressant medication or at the 1-month follow-up assessment. CONCLUSION: Most of the variables tested in our study but one did not point at any advances of adding music therapy to pharmacological treatment. The finding of improvement in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale could be an indicator of music therapy as a useful adjunct to pharmacotherapy during an in-patient hospital stay for the few patients amongst those suffering acute psychosis that accept to participate in music therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".