Mediators and treatment matching in behavior therapy, cognitive therapy and cognitive behavior therapy for chronic insomnia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the mediators and the potential of treatment matching to improve outcome for cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for insomnia. METHOD: Participants were 188 adults (117 women; Mage = 47.4 years, SD = 12.6) meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; text rev.; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000) diagnostic criteria for chronic insomnia (Mduration: 14.5 years, SD: 12.8). Participants were randomized to behavior therapy (BT; n = 63), cognitive therapy (CT; n = 65), or CBT (n = 60). The outcome measure was the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Hypothesized BT mediators were sleep-incompatible behaviors, bedtime variability (BTv), risetime variability (RTv) and time in bed (TIB). Hypothesized CT mediators were worry, unhelpful beliefs, and monitoring for sleep-related threat. RESULTS: The behavioral processes mediated outcome for BT but not CT. The cognitive processes mediated outcome in both BT and CT. The subgroup scoring high on both behavioral and cognitive processes had a marginally significant better outcome if they received CBT relative to BT or CT. The subgroup scoring relatively high on behavioral but low on cognitive processes and received BT or CBT did not differ from those who received CT. The subgroup scoring relatively high on cognitive but low on behavioral processes and received CT or CBT did not differ from those who received BT. CONCLUSION: The behavioral mediators were specific to BT relative to CT. The cognitive mediators were significant for both BT and CT outcomes. Patients exhibiting high levels of both behavioral and cognitive processes achieve better outcome if they receive CBT relative to BT or CT alone. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".