Home › Research › Caregiving
Clinical effectiveness of music interventions for dementia and depression in older people (MIDDEL): a multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial
Sveinsdottir V, Assmus J, Schneider J, Baker FA, Uçaner B, Kreutz G, Geretsegger M, et al.. The Lancet Healthy Longevity, 2025-12-08
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Methods Music Interventions for Dementia and Depression in Elderly care was a large, multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to examine the effects of group music therapy, recreational choir singing, or both compared with standard care. Intention-to-treat analysis of 751 residents with data at 6 months showed no significant effect on MADRS scores of either recreational choir singing versus no recreational choir singing (β 0·4 [95% CI -1·3 to 2·1]; p=0·68), group music therapy versus no group music therapy (β 0·8 [-1·0 to 2·6]; p=0·37), or the interaction between recreational choir singing and group music therapy (β -0·6 [-3·1 to 1·9], p=0·63; β represents mean difference estimated from ANCOVA).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sveinsdottir, V., Assmus, J., Schneider, J., Baker, F. A., Uçaner, B., Kreutz, G., et al. (2025). Clinical effectiveness of music interventions for dementia and depression in older people (MIDDEL): a multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Healthy Longevity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100783
Vancouver
Sveinsdottir V, Assmus J, Schneider J, Baker FA, Uçaner B, Kreutz G, et al. Clinical effectiveness of music interventions for dementia and depression in older people (MIDDEL): a multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Healthy Longevity. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100783. PMID: 41380710.
BibTeX
@article{sveinsdottir2025-41380710,
author = {Sveinsdottir, V. and Assmus, J. and Schneider, J. and Baker, F. A. and Uçaner, B. and Kreutz, G. and Geretsegger, M. and others},
title = {{Clinical effectiveness of music interventions for dementia and depression in older people (MIDDEL): a multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial}},
journal = {The Lancet Healthy Longevity},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100783},
pmid = {41380710},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100783}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Methods Music Interventions for Dementia and Depression in Elderly care was a large, multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to examine the effects of group music therapy, recreational choir singing, or both compared with standard care.
- Intention-to-treat analysis of 751 residents with data at 6 months showed no significant effect on MADRS scores of either recreational choir singing versus no recreational choir singing (β 0·4 [95% CI -1·3 to 2·1]; p=0·68), group music therapy versus no group music therapy (β 0·8 [-1·0 to 2·6]; p=0·37), or the interaction between recreational choir singing and group music therapy (β -0·6 [-3·1 to 1·9], p=0·63; β represents mean difference estimated from ANCOVA).
Why it matters
In this large trial of 751 residents, neither group music therapy nor recreational choir singing significantly improved depression scores at 6 months. The study found no significant effect of either music intervention compared with standard care.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Study designRCT
- Participants1,021
- Effect sizeMADRS β 0.4 (95% CI -1.3 to 2.1) for choir singing; β 0.8 (95% CI -1.0 to 2.6) for group music therapy; neither significant
- Evidence strengthNull-result
Limitations
Care staff and residents could not be masked; 751 of 1,021 residents had 6-month data; heterogeneity across countries may have masked context-specific effects; trial spanned the COVID-19 pandemic.
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. We have no data on free to read, so that was left out: it earned 63 of the 98 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Lancet Healthy Longevity) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | The Lancet Healthy Longevity: journal h-index 78 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “null-result” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,021 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | 2 / 7 | Cited 7 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 2.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 8.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 7 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Christian Gold: h-index 47 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | University of Groningen: institution h-index 1,383 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 13 institution(s) in 7 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41380710) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 63 / 98 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 63 of the 98 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — Unpaywall lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Caregiving
Also tagged “care”
995 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 995 tagged studies.