Efficacy of a video-based psychological intervention for cancer-related insomnia: Results of a randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9530 Background: Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is considered the treatment of choice for insomnia but is only rarely offered to cancer patients. It is therefore important to develop treatment formats that would maximize its accessibility in routine care. This study aimed at comparing the short- and long-term efficacy of two different formats of CBT for insomnia, a professionally-administered format (PCBT-I) and a video-based format (VCBT-I), to that of a no-treatment control condition (CTL). Methods: A sample of 242 women with breast cancer was randomized to: 1) video-based CBT-I (VCBT-I; n=80), composed of a 60-min animated video + 6 booklets; 2) professionally-administered CBT-I (PCBT-I; n=81), composed of 6 weekly sessions of 50 min; and 3) no treatment (n=81). The main study variables, collected at pre- and post-treatment, as well as at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, were the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) total score and sleep parameters derived from a daily sleep diary: sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), early morning awakenings (EMA), total wake time (TWT), and sleep efficiency (SE). Results: Mixed models analyses revealed that both PCBT-I and VCBT-I were associated with significantly greater sleep improvements, assessed subjectively, as compared to CTL at post-treatment. However, compared to VCBT-I, PCBT-I was associated with significantly greater improvements of ISI scores and EMA, depression, fatigue and dysfunctional beliefs about sleep. The remission rate of insomnia was significantly greater in PCBT-I as compared to VCBT-I (71.3% vs. 44.3%, p<.005).Except for WASO, no significant differences were found between the post-treatment and follow-up assessments in PCBT-I and VCBT-I groups (time effects). Between group differences at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups revealed larger treatment effects in PCBT-I when compared to CTL alone (ISI, WASO, EMA, SE) or both VCBT-I and CTL (SOL, TWT). Conclusions: Both short-term and long-term findings show that our video-based CBT-I is a most valuable alternative but that face-to-face sessions remain the optimal format for administering efficaciously CBT for insomnia in cancer patients. Clinical trial information: 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".