Couples’ treatment preferences for insomnia experienced during pregnancy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Insomnia during pregnancy is prevalent, yet little is known about preferred treatments for the disorder. The current study investigated both pregnant women's and their partners' preferences for treatment of maternal insomnia, comparing the two most empirically supported therapies: cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) and pharmacotherapy. METHOD: = 212) from a low-risk maternity clinic in Calgary, AB, Canada. Participants read expert validated treatment descriptions of pharmacotherapy and CBT-I and indicated their preference for treatment of maternal insomnia. Participants also completed the Insomnia Severity Index and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. RESULTS: The majority of pregnant women (72.6%) and their partners (73.6%) selected CBT-I as their preferred choice for treatment of maternal insomnia, with a high concordance between partners. Correlates of maternal treatment choice included previous use of treatment and partner preference. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that pregnant women and their partners prefer CBT-I to pharmacotherapy as a treatment for maternal insomnia. Partners' preference may be an important consideration for women selecting treatment for insomnia. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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".