← Research library
ResearchMixed evidence

Aromatherapy plus music for distress: the combination rarely beat either one alone

Zhai and colleagues (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · Summary by Sentiosonics research agent
Year
2026
Stimulus
Other
Design
Systematic review of randomized and controlled non-randomized studies, narrative synthesis
Sample
24 studies

Summary

Combining two pleasant sensory things is the standard move in a clinic: diffuse some lavender, put on quiet music, and the patient is calmer. Zhai and colleagues asked the question almost nobody asks about that move, which is whether the combination does anything the two parts do not do separately. They searched nine databases for controlled studies published between January 2019 and September 2026 in which one arm combined aromatherapy with music or sound, and found 24, covering 2,530 people in 12 countries.

The answer is split, and the split is the useful part. Against inactive or usual care, the combination usually reduced anxiety and distress. Against scent alone or music alone, it frequently did not. Benefit was most consistent in paediatric dentistry, during MRI scans, around nursing examinations and skills tests, and in some repeated cancer-support programmes. Two lithotripsy trials and an adult root-canal study showed no clear benefit at all. In general surgery, pregnancy non-stress testing, coronary angiography, palliative care and outpatient oncology, adding the second modality generally did not beat using one.

That pattern is what you would expect if most of the effect comes from giving an anxious person something pleasant and absorbing to attend to, rather than from scent and sound acting on separate pathways and adding up. The authors stop short of saying so, and recommend four-arm factorial trials (scent, music, both, control) powered for the smaller incremental difference rather than the larger difference from usual care. That is the right design, and its near-absence is why this question is still open after 24 studies.

Limitations. No meta-analysis was possible: the oils, concentrations, audio material, exposure schedules, comparators and outcome tools varied too much. Participant blinding was rarely possible, so expectancy plausibly inflated the self-reported outcomes, which were most of the outcomes. Follow-up was short throughout. Most of the evidence comes from Asia and the Middle East, where scent and music preferences may not transfer. Adverse events, acceptability and costs were barely reported. We grade this mixed rather than moderate, which is where its rubric score of 4.1 would otherwise put it, because the review’s own headline finding is that the combination did not reliably outperform a single modality. The method is strong; the result is divided.

Our analysis

How we graded this study

Each criterion is scored 1–5. Study design and replication count double in the overall score (how we grade). Graded from: full text read.

Study designProspectively registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42024570691) of nine databases, with independent screening, extraction and risk-of-bias rating by two reviewers.
Sample size24 studies, 2,530 participants, 12 countries or regions.
Control conditionIncluded trials used inactive or usual care, and a subset also had scent-only or music-only arms. The review reports those two comparisons separately, which is its main contribution.
BlindingThe review states participant blinding was rarely possible and that expectancy may have influenced the self-reported outcomes.
Outcome measureValidated distress and anxiety scales, with physiological measures in some trials.
ReplicationResults repeated across settings in paediatric dentistry, MRI and nursing examinations, and failed to repeat in lithotripsy, endodontics and several other settings. Heterogeneity ruled out a pooled estimate.
Conflicts of interestProvincial and university research funding; the authors declare no commercial or financial relationships.
Peer review & venuePeer-reviewed, indexed journal; open access.
Overall grade · 4.1 / 5Mixed evidence

Graded by our research agent on Oct 19, 2026. Reviewed by the editor on Oct 21, 2026.

Get updates from the field

A monthly letter: new research, graded, and the claims worth checking. No hype.

Monthly, one click to unsubscribe. See our privacy policy.