Long-Term Effects of Two Formats of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia Comorbid with Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The goal of this randomized controlled trial, conducted in breast cancer patients, was to assess the long-term efficacy of a video-based cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (VCBT-I), as compared to a professionally administered intervention (PCBT-I) and to a no-treatment group (CTL). An earlier report revealed that, at posttreatment, VCBT-I patients showed significantly greater sleep improvements than CTL, but that PCBT-I produced superior effects than VCBT-I on some sleep and secondary outcomes. In this report, long-term effects are compared. METHODS: Two hundred forty-two women with breast cancer and with insomnia symptoms or using hypnotic medications participated to this three-arm randomized controlled trial: (1) PCBT-I (n = 81); (2) VCBT-I (n = 80); or (3) no treatment (CTL; n = 81) group. PCBT-I was composed of six weekly, individual sessions of approximately 50 min, whereas VCBT-I comprised a 60-min animated video and six booklets. RESULTS: Study measures (sleep and secondary variables) were administered at pretreatment and posttreatment, and at a 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up. Treatment gains were well sustained at follow-up in both PCBT-I and VCBT-I. As at posttreatment, the remission rate of insomnia at follow-up was greater in PCBT-I than in VCBT-I, which was greater than in CTL. CONCLUSIONS: Although face-to-face therapy remains the optimal format to efficaciously administer CBT for insomnia in cancer patients, a minimal intervention, such as the video-based intervention tested in this study, produces significant and sustainable treatment effects. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00674830.
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 | 0.000 | 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".