General practitioners' preferences for managing insomnia and opportunities for reducing hypnotic prescribing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Insomnia and sleep problems are common with many sufferers seeking medical help from general practitioners (GPs) whose clinical response is limited, often involving prescription of hypnotic drugs. The case for improving the quality of care for patients with insomnia is compelling but there is little evidence about how better care could be achieved in a primary care setting. The aim of this study was to investigate GPs' management preferences for sleep problems and their awareness and perception of opportunities for improving care as well as reducing the use of benzodiazepines and Z drugs. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of GPs using a self-administered postal questionnaire in 2005 to all GPs in West Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust Lincolnshire, UK. RESULTS: A total of 84 of 107 (78.5%) questionnaires sent to GP principals were returned after one reminder. Respondents favoured Z drugs over benzodiazepines for the majority of indications. Respondent attitudes to benzodiazepines and Z drugs were generally negative whereas they were positive towards initiatives to reduce hypnotic prescribing through personal guidance, awareness-raising strategies and organizational interventions. CONCLUSIONS: GPs were negative in attitude towards hypnotics and positive towards reducing prescribing for sleep problems. They need to develop resources and better strategies for assessment and non-pharmacological management of patients presenting with insomnia for the first time as well as those on long-term hypnotics. The feasibility and effectiveness of psychosocial interventions tailored to patient and service needs in primary care setting should be evaluated systematically seeking to understand potential clinical benefits as well as potential undesirable effects of service changes.
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.
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 | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it