Monday, October 26, 2026

Music Therapy After Lung Transplant: What Our New Research Found

Exploring the role of live music during some of the most challenging moments of medical recovery.

I'm excited to share the publication of a research study that has been several years in the making!

Our article, "Music-Based Intervention in Postoperative Lung Transplant Care: A Feasibility Study," has been published in the Journal of Music Therapy. Even better, the entire article is available open access, meaning anyone can read the research without a subscription.

As a music therapist, educator, and researcher, I have spent much of my career exploring how music can support health, learning, and well-being. This project provided a unique opportunity to investigate how music-based interventions might be integrated into one of the most medically complex environments: recovery following lung transplantation.

Why Study Music Therapy After Lung Transplantation?

A lung transplant can offer a new opportunity for life, but the immediate recovery period is demanding.

Patients may experience pain, anxiety, disrupted sleep, and the challenges of transitioning from mechanical ventilation to breathing independently. Healthcare teams must carefully balance medication, comfort, and medical stability.

We wanted to explore a practical question: Could a structured music-based intervention delivered by board-certified music therapists become part of care during these critical recovery periods?

And if so, could we begin identifying possible effects on pain, anxiety, and other recovery outcomes?

What Did We Do?

Working with an interdisciplinary research team involving UT Southwestern Medical Center and collaborating institutions, we conducted a randomized feasibility study involving 29 lung transplant recipients.

Seventeen participants were assigned to receive structured music-based interventions alongside standard medical care, while 12 received standard care alone.

The intervention was delivered at three important recovery milestones:

Emerging from sedation: During spontaneous awakening trials, while patients were still intubated and beginning the process of awakening.
Early recovery after extubation: Approximately 24–48 hours after removal of the breathing tube.
Transitioning out of intensive care: Within 72 hours after transfer to a step-down unit, with an emphasis on relaxation and preparation for sleep.

Music therapists used patient-preferred live music, music-assisted relaxation, and opportunities for musical engagement appropriate to each patient's medical condition and ability to participate.

One important feature was the individualized nature of the intervention. The music therapists adapted the music and their therapeutic approach to patients' levels of alertness, preferences, and immediate clinical needs.

What Did We Learn?

Our most important finding was that delivering structured music-based interventions during these different stages of lung transplant recovery was feasible.

This is especially meaningful in intensive care, where medical procedures, changing patient conditions, and unpredictable schedules can make research and therapeutic interventions challenging.

We also observed some interesting preliminary trends.

Patients receiving the music-based intervention had lower observed pain scores and lower median acetaminophen use compared with those receiving standard care. However, these differences were not statistically significant, and the study was not large enough to establish treatment effectiveness.

We did not find a significant difference in anxiety outcomes between the groups. We also learned that consumer wearable devices were not reliable enough for measuring sleep in this particular postoperative environment.

These findings are important because feasibility studies are designed to determine whether an intervention and its research procedures can work in practice, identify challenges, and inform larger studies.

Sometimes, learning what needs to change is just as valuable as learning what works.

Why This Research Matters

For me, one of the most interesting aspects of this project was exploring how music therapy could be incorporated into moments when patients have limited ability to communicate or participate actively.

Music therapy in a medical setting is not simply playing pleasant music in the background.

It involves clinical assessment, individualized music selection, therapeutic responsiveness, and deliberate use of musical experiences to address identified needs.

In this study, board-certified music therapists worked within a structured protocol while adapting their approach to the changing realities of postoperative recovery.

Our findings suggest that this type of intervention can be integrated into highly specialized medical care, providing a foundation for future research examining its potential clinical benefits.

Looking Ahead

There is much more to investigate.

Future studies will need larger samples, more refined measurements, and strategies for coordinating music-based interventions with important clinical milestones.

I am grateful to my coauthors—Emily Pickett, Christina Stock, Deshonna Taylor, Teresa Phan, Linda Denke, and Folefac Atem—and to the clinicians, music therapists, research staff, and patients who contributed to this project.

Research of this kind is only possible through interdisciplinary collaboration.

I'm particularly pleased that our article is freely available to patients, families, healthcare professionals, fellow music therapists, and anyone interested in the growing science of music and health.

Read the full study here:

Music-Based Intervention in Postoperative Lung Transplant Care: A Feasibility Study — Journal of Music Therapy

~Daniel

Music Makes Sense — Exploring the connections between music, health, learning, and everyday life.

Saturday, June 20, 2026

A Decade of Change: What the 2025 Global Music Therapy Survey Reveals About the Future of the Profession

Ten years ago, Petra Kern and I asked a basic but important question:

What does music therapy practice look like around the world?

Our original international survey offered one of the first large-scale portraits of the global music therapy workforce. Nearly a decade later, we returned to that question.

The profession we found in 2025 was more confident, more entrepreneurial, more technologically connected, and active across a wider range of healthcare and community settings.

But it was also still confronting many of the same structural problems identified in the original study: limited public recognition, uneven regulation, inadequate compensation, and fragile employment systems.

Here’s the short version:

Music therapy has clearly grown.

The systems needed to support music therapists have not always grown with it.

That tension between professional progress and structural vulnerability is one of the most important findings of the new study.

Why Repeat a Global Survey?

Workforce surveys do more than count people.

They help us understand:

Who is entering and remaining in a profession
Where professionals work
Who receives services
How services are delivered
What barriers affect access and sustainability
What education, advocacy, and policy priorities should come next

Our first survey, conducted in 2016 and published in 2017, included responses from 2,495 music therapists associated with 19 World Federation of Music Therapy organizations across six world regions.

The 2025 follow-up study replicated and expanded that work. It included 1,183 practicing music therapists representing all eight WFMT regions and 25 professional organizations, with an overall response rate of 67.6%.

To update the questionnaire while preserving meaningful comparisons, we worked with an international focus group of experts representing seven world regions. The revised survey was pilot tested for clarity, accessibility, cultural relevance, and usability before its global launch.

This was not simply a new survey.

It was an opportunity to examine how an entire profession had changed over nearly a decade.

Five Changes That Stood Out

1. Music Therapists Are Increasingly Creating Their Own Opportunities

In 2016, approximately 16% of respondents reported creating their own positions.

By 2025, that figure had grown to 31%.

That increase reflects creativity, determination, and professional adaptability. Music therapists are identifying unmet needs, developing programs, opening private practices, and building roles that did not previously exist.

But entrepreneurship can tell two stories at once.

Creating new opportunities may indicate professional innovation. It may also mean that established healthcare, education, and community systems are still not creating enough sustainable positions.

The profession’s entrepreneurial growth should therefore be celebrated, but it should also prompt questions about job security, benefits, compensation, and institutional support.

2. Practice Is Shifting Toward Healthcare and Private Practice

Healthcare settings became increasingly prominent, rising from approximately 35% in 2016 to 46% in 2025.

Private practice also increased, from 21% to 31%.

These changes suggest expanding recognition of music therapy’s relevance to health, rehabilitation, mental health, wellness, and person-centered care.

At the same time, music therapists continue to work across educational and community programs. The profession is not moving into one single setting. It is becoming more flexible and distributed across systems.

That flexibility is a strength, but it can also make professional identity, regulation, funding, and workforce planning more complicated.

3. Music Therapy Is Reaching More People Across the Lifespan

The 2025 findings showed increased work with several age groups:

Early childhood involvement increased from 38% to 47%
Services for school-aged children increased from 51% to 57%
Services for adults ages 18–64 increased from 53% to 59%

Music therapists reported serving people with developmental disabilities, mental health needs, neurological conditions, medical concerns, and many other needs across the lifespan.

Access pathways also appear to be changing.

Self-referrals increased from 35% to 48%, while caregiver-initiated access increased from 36% to 49%.

These changes may reflect greater awareness among individuals and families, as well as growing interest in directly seeking supportive, nonpharmacological, and relationship-centered forms of care.

4. Technology Is Now Part of the Professional Landscape

Telepractice was largely absent from the original survey.

In 2025, approximately 18% of respondents reported using it as part of service delivery.

In-person care remains dominant with the relational nature of music therapy remains central, but digital tools and remote formats have become meaningful supplements to practice.

Interest in further education is also strong. Approximately two-thirds of respondents expressed interest in learning more about areas such as artificial intelligence and telepractice.

This does not mean technology should replace human interaction.

It means the profession must learn how to use technology thoughtfully, ethically, and responsibly to support access, documentation, education, communication, and continuity of care.

The next generation of music therapy training will need to prepare professionals for in-person, remote, and hybrid environments.

5. Clinical Confidence Has Grown—But Systemic Support Still Lags

One of the most encouraging findings was the increase in clinical confidence.

In the original study, approximately 49% of respondents indicated a high level of confidence in their professional skills. In 2025, that figure rose to approximately 70%.

Music therapists increasingly see themselves as capable, adaptable, and prepared to contribute to complex healthcare, educational, and community needs.

However, respondents continued to report low public awareness, inadequate funding, inconsistent regulation, and concerns about equitable compensation.

In other words:

Music therapists may be increasingly confident in what they can contribute, while remaining uncertain that the systems around them fully understand or support that contribution.

What Has Not Changed Enough

The original study identified several persistent concerns:

Limited governmental and regulatory recognition
Inconsistent employment opportunities
Inadequate or inequitable compensation
Uneven access to professional education
Insufficient research visibility
Vulnerable funding structures

Nearly a decade later, many of these concerns remain.

That does not mean advocacy and professional development efforts have failed. Progress has occurred in many countries and regions.

It does mean that professional growth alone does not automatically produce structural change.

A field can become more skilled, innovative, and visible while still lacking the policies, funding systems, employment protections, and public understanding required for long-term sustainability.

What the Findings Suggest We Should Do Next

The 2025 survey points toward several priorities for the coming decade.

Strengthen recognition and regulation

Music therapy organizations need coordinated strategies supporting public education, professional recognition, appropriate regulation, licensure where applicable, and clearer integration into healthcare, education, and community systems.

Improve employment and compensation

Professional growth is difficult to sustain when highly trained clinicians remain underpaid, lack benefits, or must continually create their own positions.

Global and regional conversations about compensation benchmarks, labor protections, and sustainable funding are overdue.

Expand access to education

Training and continuing education must be accessible, culturally responsive, and relevant to regional needs.

Curricula should also prepare music therapists for evolving practice areas, including telepractice, trauma-informed care, global health, interdisciplinary collaboration, and ethical uses of emerging technology.

Build cross-sector partnerships

The profession’s future will depend partly on stronger relationships with healthcare leaders, educators, researchers, policymakers, community organizations, technology specialists, and service users.

Music therapy cannot build its future in isolation.

Continue collecting workforce data

One survey cannot answer every question.

Regular workforce research helps organizations identify trends, evaluate progress, support advocacy, and make decisions based on evidence rather than assumptions.

A Broader Lesson About Professional Growth

Although this research focuses on music therapy, its findings reflect a challenge faced by many helping professions.

Professionals are often asked to become more innovative, entrepreneurial, technologically fluent, evidence-based, and responsive to growing community needs.

But innovation without infrastructure has limits.

A sustainable profession requires more than talented individuals. It requires:

Supportive policies
Accessible education
Fair compensation
Clear professional standards
Reliable funding
Effective leadership
Strong partnerships
Public understanding

The 2025 survey shows a music therapy profession with growing confidence, adaptability, and global relevance.

It also shows that the next decade cannot depend only on individual professionals working harder or creating their own opportunities.

The future must be built collectively.

Read the Research

Kern, P., & Tague, D. B. (2026). Global music therapy survey 2025: Developments and trends a decade later. Journal of Music Therapy, 63(1), 1–36. DOI: 10.1093/jmt/thag001

Kern, P., & Tague, D. B. (2017). Music therapy practice status and trends worldwide: An international survey study. Journal of Music Therapy. DOI: 10.1093/jmt/thx011

What changes have you observed in music therapy during the past decade?

Where do you see genuine progress? And where does the profession still need stronger systems, partnerships, and support?

I would be interested in hearing your perspective.

Thursday, April 16, 2026

A Clarification on Professional Standards, Public Statements, and Pluralism in AMTA

*Author’s Note

Earlier this year, I published an open letter reflecting on the American Music Therapy Association’s public advocacy role and the importance of representing a diverse membership. That post prompted a thoughtful written response and broader discussion among colleagues.

The essay below is not a point-by-point rebuttal. Rather, it is a clarification of my core concern: how professional organizations can communicate ethically, inclusively, and responsibly in politically polarized times.

A Clarification on Professional Standards, Public Statements, and Pluralism in AMTA

Dear Colleagues,

I appreciate the time and care that went into the detailed response to my original open letter. Engagement at this level reflects a shared investment in the integrity of our field, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify my position in a more focused and constructive way.

My purpose here is not to continue a prolonged debate or to revisit every point raised. Rather, I want to clarify what I am, and am not, arguing, and to propose a path forward that I believe better serves both our clients and the full diversity of our professional community. This response comes after a period of reflection and careful consideration following the original statement, with the aim of contributing a thoughtful and constructive perspective.

Clarifying the Core Concern

My original letter has been interpreted as advocating for an “apolitical” professional organization. That is not my position.

Professional organizations inevitably operate within social, cultural, and political realities. The question is not whether AMTA ever speaks on public issues. The question is how and when it does so, and whether those decisions are guided by clear, consistent, and professionally grounded standards.

My concern is that recent statements, including the “Stand With Minnesota” post, appear to move beyond those boundaries by:

Adopting a specific public narrative about a complex civic event
Directing members toward external advocacy actions
Doing so without clearly articulating how this aligns with AMTA’s core mission or represents the full diversity of its membership

This is not a concern about compassion or ethics. It is a concern about institutional scope, representational responsibility, and consistency.

What I Am Arguing For

If I had to summarize my position in one sentence, it would be this:

AMTA should adopt clear, publicly stated criteria for when it issues public statements, how those statements are framed, and when it directs members toward civic or legislative action.

One possible starting point for such criteria could include:

Mission Linkage
Public statements are strongest when they maintain a clear and direct connection to music therapy practice, client access to services, clinician well-being, or professional standards.
Representational Integrity
As a membership organization, AMTA would benefit from taking particular care when speaking in ways that could reasonably be interpreted as endorsing a specific political framing of contested events.
Viewpoint Pluralism
Inclusivity is best understood as including ideological diversity within the profession. Members should not feel that holding a minority viewpoint places them outside the bounds of professional legitimacy.
Consistency
Similar types of events can be evaluated through consistent principles, not selectively based on alignment with a particular interpretive lens.

This is not a call for silence. It is a call for discipline in institutional voice.

On Compassion and Professional Ethics

I want to state this clearly, because it has been a point of misunderstanding:

Nothing in my original letter was intended to diminish the reality of harm, invalidate lived experiences, or oppose efforts to support vulnerable communities.

Compassion, dignity, and ethical care are foundational to our work.

The question, however, is whether a professional association can express those commitments without appearing to adopt a single, contested public narrative as the primary or exclusively ethical framing of complex events. In my view, it can and should strive to do so. A professional organization can affirm human dignity, support those affected by harm, and encourage ethical, trauma-informed care while also leaving room for members to hold differing political or interpretive perspectives on complex public events.

Why This Matters for the Profession

This issue is not abstract for me.

As an educator, clinician, and researcher, I have become increasingly aware that some professionals and students perceive certain viewpoints as difficult to express openly within our field because of potential social or professional repercussions.

That perception, whether fully accurate or not, has real consequences:

It affects willingness to participate in professional organizations
It impacts how educators advise students about engagement with AMTA
It shapes whether members feel represented or alienated

AMTA’s own materials emphasize dignity and respect across differences, including political differences. If that principle is to have meaning, it must extend not only to clients, but to members of the profession itself.

On Professional Discourse

I want to briefly address the tone of the broader discussion surrounding this exchange.

First, I want to be clear that the written response itself was substantive and professionally presented. While we clearly approached several issues from different assumptions and interpretive frameworks, and at times focused on different questions than those I intended to raise, the response did not read as a personal attack, and I appreciate the level of engagement reflected in it.

My concern arises more from the surrounding discussion in informal spaces, where some of the commentary became dismissive or personal in tone. I recognize that these spaces are not formally moderated, but they still shape the professional climate in which ideas are received and debated.

I raise this not to revisit specific comments, but to underscore a broader point: the way we engage with colleagues who hold differing perspectives matters. If we aim to model inclusivity and ethical practice, that commitment should extend to how we conduct professional disagreement, especially when those perspectives fall outside the prevailing consensus.

A Path Forward

Rather than continuing to debate individual statements, I believe a more productive step would be for AMTA to:

Develop and publish clear guidelines for public statements and advocacy
Define thresholds for when member-directed civic action is appropriate
Create space for good-faith disagreement without professional marginalization

These steps would not eliminate disagreement. But they would provide a shared framework that strengthens trust, transparency, and cohesion within the organization.

Final Thoughts

Reasonable professionals can and will disagree on these issues.

My aim is not to resolve those disagreements, but to ensure that the structure within which they occur remains fair, principled, and inclusive of diverse viewpoints.

If this response contributes in any way to a more thoughtful and balanced conversation about AMTA’s role and responsibilities, then it has served its purpose.

Respectfully,
Daniel Tague

For readers interested in the earlier exchange, links to prior posts are available below.

Pages