Group music therapy for the proactive management of stress and anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are limited supports available on Canadian campuses for individuals who are motivated to proactively manage their mental health in comparison to the supports available to students seeking supports for a crisis. Research typically evaluates mental health treatments for individuals with a diagnosis, leaving a paucity of research examining the benefits of therapy for individuals not experiencing a mental health crisis. We conducted this randomized controlled study to explore the effectiveness of group music therapy as a tool for students to proactively reduce their stress and anxiety. Interested students were randomly assigned to either six-weeks of weekly group music therapy or a campus-life-as-usual control group. Significant reductions in cortisol levels from hair samples, as well as psychometric measures of stress and anxiety were observed in the music therapy group in comparison to the control group. Further studies are needed with specific control group comparisons to determine the aspects of group music therapy that led to stress and anxiety reduction. At the end of the study 71% of students responded that they found group music therapy helpful, and 66% responded that they would continue to participate in group music therapy if offered on campus. Additionally, 61% of the students in the control group indicated that they would like to attend group music therapy. These results support the inclusion of group music therapy as an option on university campuses for students interested in proactively managing their stress and anxiety.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".