Providing access to cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia in cancer care: Preliminary results of an implementation study.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
61 Background: Between 30 to 60% of cancer patients display insomnia symptoms. While cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the recommended first-line treatment for cancer-related insomnia, it remains underutilized due to its limited accessibility. To date, we are unaware of any study that has investigated the implementation of CBT-I in routine clinical care. Our prior work showed that a stepped care approach, combining a web-based CBT-I and 1-3 booster therapy sessions, was not significantly inferior in producing sleep improvements than a standard 6-session CBT-I. The main goals of the IMPACT (Insomnia in Patients with Cancer – Personalized Treatment) program are to assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing this stepped care CBT-I in four cancer centers in Quebec City, Canada. Methods: The ongoing study uses a stepped wedge cluster non-randomized design implementing the stepped care CBT-I at various time intervals across cancer centers. All first-line cancer providers (e.g., nurses, oncologists, radio-oncology technologists, pharmacists) are met every 3-4 months to present/remind them of the rationale of the project and procedures to refer patients to the IMPACT program. Patients having a score ≥ 4 on the sleep item of the Edmonton System Assessment System-Revised (ESAS-R-sleep) receive a leaflet explaining the stepped care CBT-I and how to access the web-based program (first step). Patients with residual insomnia symptoms after completing this first step are offered 1-3 booster sessions with a clinical psychologist (second step). Uptake and retention rates are the main variables. Results: Across cancer centers, 11.9%-50.8% of patients having a score ≥ 4 on the ESAS-R-sleep item were referred to the IMPACT program. The most common reasons for not referring were: 1) the presence of comorbid anxiety or depression symptoms (they were referred instead to the psychosocial oncology team) and; 2) patients declining help. Registration rates were greater when a brief follow-up phone call was conducted to explain the IMPACT program in more detail (vs. giving only the leaflet). Across cancer centers, 10%-54.9% of referred patients registered with the web-based CBT-I, 83.3%-90% of them initiated it and 26%-42.3% completed it. The most common reasons for not completing the web-based CBT-I were: 1) sleep difficulties improved or remitted (36.2%); and 2) the program did not meet patients’ needs (23.4%). Among completers, 29%-56% had residual insomnia and were offered booster sessions. On average, sleep diary data collected during treatment (N=83) indicated a reduction of sleep-onset latency of 20 min and of wake after sleep onset of 45 min. Sleep efficiency increased from 70 to 85%. Conclusions: Although uptake and retention rates could be improved, these preliminary data suggest that stepped care CBT-I can be implemented in routine cancer care and is effective. Clinical trial information: NCT04817163 .
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».