A pilot randomized controlled trial of on-line interventions to improve sleep quality in adults after mild or moderate traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore feasibility and potential efficacy of on-line interventions for sleep quality following a traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: A two parallel-group, randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING: Community-based. SUBJECTS: In all, 24 participants (mean age: 35.9 ± 11.8 years) who reported experiencing sleep difficulties between 3 and 36 months after a mild or moderate TBI. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive either a cognitive behaviour therapy or an education intervention on-line. Both interventions were self-completed for 20-30 minutes per week over a six-week period. MAIN MEASURES: The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index assessed self-reported sleep quality with actigraphy used as an objective measure of sleep quality. The CNS Vital Signs on-line neuropsychological test assessed cognitive functioning and the Rivermead Post-concussion Symptoms and Quality of Life after Brain Injury questionnaires were completed pre and post intervention. RESULTS: Both programmes demonstrated feasibility for use post TBI, with 83.3% of participants completing the interventions. The cognitive behaviour therapy group experienced significant reductions ( F = 5.47, p = 0.04) in sleep disturbance (mean individual change = -4.00) in comparison to controls post intervention (mean individual change = -1.50) with a moderate effect size of 1.17. There were no significant group differences on objective sleep quality, cognitive functioning, post-concussion symptoms or quality of life. CONCLUSION: On-line programmes designed to improve sleep are feasible for use for adults following mild-to-moderate TBI. Based on the effect size identified in this pilot study, 128 people (64 per group) would be needed to determine clinical effectiveness.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".