Comparing internet-delivered cognitive therapy and behavior therapy with telephone support for insomnia disorder: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the effects of Internet-delivered cognitive therapy (CT) and behavior therapy (BT) against a waitlist (WL) condition to better understand their unique contribution in the treatment of insomnia. METHODS: Two hundred and nineteen participants with insomnia disorder were randomized to CT (n = 72), BT (n = 73), or WL (n = 74). The treatment arms consisted of 10 weekly internet-delivered modules with 15 min of telephone support per week. At pre, post, and follow-up, participants completed measures of insomnia severity, sleep diaries, functional impairment, anxiety, depression, quality of life, adverse events, satisfaction and perception of content, workload, and activity in treatment. Measures of completed exercises, modules, therapist support, and platform logins were also measured at posttreatment. RESULTS: Moderate to large effect sizes for both CT and BT outperformed the WL on the majority of outcomes, with significant differences in favor of both therapy groups. Both treatment groups had significantly larger proportion of treatment remitters (CT: 35.8%, BT: 40%, WL: 2.7%) and responders (CT: 74.6%, BT 58.6%, WL: 10.8%) compared to the WL at posttreatment. There were no significant differences between the two therapy groups in terms of outcomes, except for sleep onset latency in favor of BT (6 min difference at posttreatment) and adverse events in favor of CT (CT 14.1% vs BT 43.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that both Internet-delivered CT and BT are effective as stand-alone therapies for insomnia disorder. Results highlight the need for examining which therapy and subcomponents that are necessary for change. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02984670.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".