Feasibility of a Cognitive-Behavioral and Environmental Intervention for Sleep-Wake Difficulties in Community-Dwelling Cancer Patients Receiving Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High rates of sleep-wake difficulties have been found in patients with cancer receiving palliative care. Pharmacotherapy is the most frequently used treatment option to manage these difficulties despite numerous adverse effects and the absence of empirical evidence of its efficacy and innocuity in palliative care. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a cognitive-behavioral and environmental intervention (CBT-E) to improve insomnia and hypersomnolence in patients with a poor functioning level and to collect preliminary data on its effects. METHODS: Six patients with cancer receiving palliative care (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score 2-3), who had insomnia and/or hypersomnolence, received 1 CBT-E individual session at home. They applied the strategies for 3 weeks. Patients completed the Insomnia Severity Index, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, a daily sleep diary, and a 24-hour actigraphic recording (7 days) at pretreatment and posttreatment, in addition to a semistructured interview (posttreatment). RESULTS: Participants found strategies easy to apply most of the time, and none was rated as impossible to use because of their health condition. However, their adherence and satisfaction toward CBT-E were highly variable. Results on the effects of CBT-E were heterogeneous, but improvements were observed in patients with a persistent insomnia disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The CBT-E protocol tested among this highly selected sample was fairly well received and suggested positive outcomes in some patients, particularly those with an insomnia complaint alone. IMPLICATIONS: Efforts should be pursued to adapt CBT-E and develop other nonpharmacological interventions, in order to provide an alternative to pharmacotherapy for sleep-wake difficulties in this population.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".