Randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive–behavioural interventions for insomnia in recovering alcoholics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioural approach to treating disturbed sleep in abstinent alcoholics. DESIGN: Sixty recovering alcoholics with insomnia were assigned randomly to individual therapy, self-help with telephone support or waiting-list control. SETTING: Participants were volunteers recruited from out-patient treatment programs and through the media. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were assessed at post-treatment, 3-month and 6-month follow-ups using sleep diaries, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, wrist actigraphs and time-line follow-back interviews. INTERVENTION: Five sessions of out-patient cognitive-behavioural therapy for insomnia or a self-help manual with five telephone support calls. Treatment duration was 7 weeks. FINDINGS: Treated participants were significantly more improved than control participants on diary measures of sleep quality, sleep efficiency, awakenings and time to fall asleep. No significant differences between the individual therapy and self-help treatment conditions on measures of insomnia severity were evident at post-treatment. Self-reported improvement in sleep was corroborated by clinician and spousal ratings of insomnia severity, but not by actigraph recordings of nocturnal activity. At 3- and 6-month follow-up assessments treatment gains were reasonably maintained in both treatment groups, although individual therapy was associated with a higher rate of clinically significant improvement. At the 6-month follow-up, 60% participants who were regular users of sedative medication at baseline discontinued the use of their medication. Treatment appeared to have little impact in preventing relapses to alcohol. CONCLUSIONS: Recovering alcoholics with insomnia can achieve better sleep by applying cognitive-behavioural strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".