Treatment Preference and Patient Satisfaction in Chronic Insomnia
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
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to examine treatment preference and satisfaction with group treatment in individual with chronic insomnia. DESIGN: Correlational. SETTING: The study was conducted in an outpatient hospital setting. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 43 adult volunteers from the community. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Prior to treatment, participants were presented with descriptions of behavioral and pharmacological treatment for the problem of insomnia and asked to rate the acceptability, presumed effectiveness, and presumed side-effects of treatment. A sub-sample of these individuals (n = 37) participated in a 6-week cognitive behavioral treatment group for insomnia. Sleep diary and questionnaire data were collected prior to and following treatment. Results showed that cognitive-behavioral therapy was significantly preferred over pharmacological therapy at pre-treatment and that more favorable assessments of cognitive-behavioral therapy at pre-treatment were associated with better adherence but not improved outcome. Of treatment techniques, participants least liked sleep restriction and most liked sleep hygiene. Results indicated that more favorable ratings of the usefulness of sleep restriction were associated with improvements in sleep efficiency, sleep-related impairment, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Implications of these findings are that patient preference is important to assess prior to treating insomnia and that more work may be needed to increase patients' awareness of the benefits of sleep restriction.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it