Barriers to engagement in sleep restriction and stimulus control in chronic insomnia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep restriction (SRT) and stimulus control (SC) have been found to be effective interventions for chronic insomnia (Morgenthaler et al., 2006), and yet adherence to SRT and SC varies widely. The objective of this study was to investigate correlates to adherence to SC/SRT among 40 outpatients with primary or comorbid insomnia using a correlational design. Participants completed a self-report measure of sleepiness prior to completion of a 6-week cognitive behavioral treatment group for insomnia. At the posttreatment period, they rated their ability to engage in SC/SRT using a survey. Results from standard multiple regression analyses showed that perceiving fewer barriers (i.e., less boredom, annoyance) to engaging in SC/SRT and experiencing less pretreatment sleepiness were each associated with better adherence to SC/SRT. Adherence to SC/SRT was associated with outcome. Implications of these findings are that more work is needed to make SC/SRT less uncomfortable, possibly by augmenting energy levels prior to introducing these approaches.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".