Evaluation and Treatment of Sleep Complaints: Patients’ Subjective Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study set out to evaluate whether patients' expectations affected their responses to treatment of a sleep disorder. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients attending a sleep clinic for the first time and who had different diagnoses of sleep disorders were included in this study. The patients completed a set of 6 questionnaires on 7 occasions as they progressed through the process of a sleep clinic referral, assessment and treatment. Self-report questionnaires were used to assess their sleepiness, fatigue and alertness. Predictor measures included mental health and individual items assessing expectation regarding the seriousness of the sleep problem. A battery of questions dealt with mental health issues, patients' expectation and their commitment to the sleep investigation and treatment process. Each patient's responses were examined over a period of 6 months. RESULTS: Immediately following their interview with the sleep consultant, the patients' concern regarding their sleep problem was higher than the first measures obtained at baseline. Compared to prior to their first consultation with a sleep specialist, while on treatment they directed more attention to their sleep problem when problems associated with fatigue were reduced. Although there was a lessening in fatigue with treatment, subjectively rated sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale) did not vary over the study. Contact with a sleep center and the diagnosis and treatment of individual sleep problems also resulted in improved satisfaction with life. CONCLUSIONS: Contact with and treatment at a sleep clinic was found to be beneficial. The fatigue levels were reduced and the patients had greater life satisfaction regardless of the diagnosis and treatment of their sleep disorder, although subjective sleepiness did not change. Patient expectations were not critical in determining the outcome of the sleep clinic assessment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".