MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159859076 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsab072.354

355 Predictors of Longitudinal Sleep Outcomes in a Statewide Randomized Trial of Telephone Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia

2021· article· en· W3159859076 on OpenAlexaff
Susan M. McCurry, Kenneth C. Pike, Michael Von Korff, Charles M. Morin, Michael V. Vitiello

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialCognitive behavioral therapy for insomniaPhysical therapyInsomniaMedicineCognitive therapySleep hygieneCognitive behavioral therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction We examined the relationship between treatment process measures and 12-month insomnia outcomes from a large clinical trial of telephone-delivered CBT-I. Methods A statewide sample of 327 Kaiser Permanente Washington members aged 60+ with OA, Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) scores of 11+ and Brief Pain Inventory scores of 9+ were randomized to six sessions of individual telephone-delivered cognitive-behavior therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) vs. education-only control. Participants rated their perceptions of treatment credibility and perceived effectiveness on a 7-point Likert scale after session 1 and at 2-month post-test. They also completed the Sleep Hygiene Index (SHI), the 8-item Sleep Problem Acceptance Questionnaire (SPAQ), and the 8-item Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) at baseline, post-treatment, and 12 months. Insomnia outcome was measured using the ISI. Results Participants (mean age=70.2 years [SD=6.81], 74.6% female, 87.8% with sleep problems for over 1 year) were randomized to the two treatment arms. Regression analyses controlling for baseline age, opioid use, depression, pain, and ISI showed that lower 12-month ISI scores were associated with CBT-I group membership and lower baseline ISI (both p<.001), higher session 1 ratings of treatment credibility (p=.004), higher baseline CPAQ activity engagement (AE) subscale scores (p=.04), and lower baseline SPAQ AE scores (p=.016) when predictors were simultaneously entered. Lower 12-month ISI scores were also associated with post-test ratings of treatment perceived effectiveness (p=.004) and higher SPAQ AE (p=.038) scores. Improvements on the SHI at post-test were significantly associated with lower 12-month ISI scores when variables were entered singly into regression models, but not when all predictors were entered simultaneously. SPAQ and CPAQ sleep and pain willingness subscale scores were not significantly related to ISI outcomes in any model. Conclusion People with less severe baseline insomnia levels who received telephone-delivered CBT-I were more likely to have lower 12-month ISI scores. Participant perceptions of treatment credibility and effectiveness, and engagement in life activities despite pain and sleep symptoms were also associated with long-term improvements in insomnia, but willingness to experience sleep and pain symptoms were not contributing factors. Support (if any) 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207