Evaluation of an Internet-Based Behavioral Intervention to Improve Psychosocial Health Outcomes in Children With Insomnia (Better Nights, Better Days): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Up to 25% of 1- to 10-year-old children experience insomnia (ie, resisting bedtime, trouble falling asleep, night awakenings, and waking too early in the morning). Insomnia can be associated with excessive daytime sleepiness and negative effects on daytime functioning across multiple domains (eg, behavior, mood, attention, and learning). Despite robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of behavioral treatments for insomnia in children, very few children with insomnia receive these treatments, primarily due to a shortage of available treatment resources. OBJECTIVE: The Better Nights, Better Days (BNBD) internet-based program provides a readily accessible electronic health (eHealth) intervention to support parents in providing evidence-based care for insomnia in typically developing children. The purpose of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to evaluate the effectiveness of BNBD in treating insomnia in children aged between 1 and 10 years. METHODS: BNBD is a fully automated program, developed based on evidence-based interventions previously tested by the investigators, as well as on the extant literature on this topic. We describe the 2-arm RCT in which participants (500 primary caregivers of children with insomnia residing in Canada) are assigned to intervention or usual care. RESULTS: The effects of this behavioral sleep eHealth intervention will be assessed at 4 and 8 months postrandomization. Assessment includes both sleep (actigraphy, sleep diary) and daytime functioning of the children and daytime functioning of their parents. Results will be reported using the standards set out in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. CONCLUSIONS: If the intervention is supported by the results of the RCT, we plan to commercialize this program so that it is sustainable and available at a low cost to all families with internet access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02243501; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02243501 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6x8Z5pBui).
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 | 0.051 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.017 |
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".