0469 Perceptions of an Education Only Control Group in the Osteoarthritis and Therapy for Sleep (OATS) Study: An Ongoing Statewide, Telephone-Delivered CBT for Insomnia (CBT-I) Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Comorbid osteoarthritis (OA) and insomnia is common in older adults. CBT-I is efficacious for improving sleep in older persons with OA but not widely accessible. We examined treatment process data from OATS, a large ongoing clinical trial of telephone-delivered CBT-I. Methods 327 Kaiser Permanente Washington members aged 60+ with OA, Insomnia Severity Index scores of 11+, and Brief Pain Inventory scores of 9+ were randomized to individual CBT-I vs. education only control (EOC). Six telephone sessions of CBT-I or EOC were offered over eight weeks. Participants rated their perceptions of treatment (credibility, acceptability, suitability, perceived effectiveness, adherence, and therapeutic relationship) on a 7-point Likert scale after session 1 and at 2-month post-test. Results Participants (mean age=70.2 years, 74.6% female) were randomized to the two treatment arms (CBT-I=163, EOC=164). Participants did not differ significantly across arms by age, gender, education, or by sleep, pain, or mood (depression, fatigue) outcome measures at baseline. CBT-I had significantly (p=.03) more white participants (90% CBT-I, 78% EOC). Study retention was 82% and 88% at post-test for CBT-I versus EOC, respectively. There was no difference in number of sessions attended (median=6). CBT-I sessions were somewhat longer than EOC (24.2 vs. 22.8 minutes; p=.005). Most participants in both groups at both time points gave high rankings (5+/7 points) on all six treatment perception ratings (CBT-I range: 75.9-99.3%; EOC range: 69.0-97.9%). Average summed treatment perception ratings improved between Session 1 and post-test for both conditions (mean=5.9 and 6.1, respectively, for CBT-I; mean=5.6 and 5.8, respectively, for EOC). Conclusion The OATS EOC group was credible and acceptable to participants, resulting in equivalently high levels of participation and retention compared to CBT-I. Findings suggest the ongoing trial has adequately controlled for nonspecific participant treatment effects that might confound interpretation of efficacy outcomes. Support This work was supported by PHS grant 5R01AG053221.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".