Residual sleep beliefs and sleep disturbance following Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is a commonly reported residual symptom after effective depression treatment. This residual sleep impairment, as well as the presence of problem levels of certain sleep beliefs, may be important for depressive relapse prevention, and as such should be addressed in treatment. The following study examined residual sleep disturbance and residual maladaptive sleep beliefs in those treated with Cognitive Behavior Therapy for depression. METHODS: Participants (N = 24) were clinic patients seeking treatment for depression at a community clinic. Repeated measures analyses of variance tested pre- to posttreatment change on depression symptoms, general negative beliefs, sleep quality, and maladaptive sleep beliefs. RESULTS: As expected, significant time effects were found for depressive symptoms and general negative beliefs. Sleep quality scores also decreased significantly at posttreatment; however, 92% of those no longer meeting depressive criteria continued to endorse residual sleep disturbance, according to an established clinical cutoff score of > 5 on a validated measure of sleep quality (the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index). There were no significant pre- to posttreatment changes for maladaptive sleep beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that sleep disturbance and maladaptive sleep-related beliefs remain a problematic residual symptom of remitted depression. These findings are discussed with reference to improving cognitive behavioral treatments for depression in order to help reduce rates of residual sleep problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".