Cognitive behavioural therapy for primary insomnia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper reports a systematic review of seven studies evaluating the efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for persistent primary insomnia. BACKGROUND: Insomnia is one of the most common health complaints reported in the primary care setting. Although non-pharmacological treatments such as the CBT have been suggested to be useful in combating the persistent insomnia, the efficacy and clinical utility of CBT for primary insomnia have yet to be determined. METHOD: A systematic search of Ovid, MEDLINE, psychINFO, PsycARTICLES, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases of papers published between 1993 and 2004 was conducted, using the following medical subject headings or key words: insomnia, primary insomnia, psychophysiological insomnia, sleep maintenance disorders, sleep initiation disorders, non-pharmacological treatment, and cognitive behavioural therapy. A total of seven papers was included in the review. FINDINGS: Stimulus control, sleep restriction, sleep hygiene education and cognitive restructuring were the main treatment components. Interventions were provided by psychiatrists except for one study, in which the CBT was delivered by nurses. Among beneficial outcomes, improvement of sleep efficacy, sleep onset latency and wake after sleep onset were the most frequently reported. In addition, participants significantly reduced sleep medication use. Some studies gave follow-up data which indicated that the CBT produced durable clinical changes in total sleep time and night-time wakefulness. CONCLUSIONS: These randomized controlled trial studies demonstrated that CBT was superior to any single-component treatment such as stimulus control, relaxation training, educational programmes, or other control conditions. However, heterogeneity in patient assessment, CBT protocols, and outcome indicators made determination of the relative efficacy and clinical utility of the therapy difficult. Therefore, the standard components of CBT need to be clearly defined. In addition, a comprehensive assessment of patients is essential for future studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".