The natural history of insomnia: predisposing, precipitating, coping, and perpetuating factors over the early developmental course of insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there is an extensive literature on predisposing, precipitating, coping, and perpetuating factors in those with chronic insomnia, very little work has been undertaken to evaluate these factors over the early developmental course of insomnia. The present aim was to determine whether several hypothesized factors in each domain (predisposing, precipitating, coping, and perpetuating), assessed during an episode of acute insomnia (AI), are related to its persistence or remission to normal sleep. Participants comprised n = 140 people with AI and n = 737 normal sleepers (NS) recruited from the general public. Participants completed measures assessing predisposing characteristics (personality traits, arousal predisposition, and insomnia vulnerability), precipitating events and outcomes (life events, perceived stress, anxiety, and depression), coping styles (thought control strategies and coping styles), and perpetuating factors (sleep preoccupation, pre-sleep arousal, dysfunctional beliefs, and fatigue). Additionally, insomnia status (from AI at baseline to its persistence or natural remission [NR]) was assessed 1 month later (n = 129). Baseline differences between NS and individuals with AI were observed in each domain with increasing age, lower openness to experience and conscientiousness, higher insomnia severity, levels of anxiety, and affective sleep preoccupation significantly predicting AI status. Further, a previous episode of insomnia, higher depression scores, and affective sleep preoccupation scores significantly predicted its persistence, as opposed to its NR. Results are discussed with reference to the conceptualization of insomnia and how the findings may influence the design of preventative interventions to circumvent the transition from acute to chronic insomnia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".