MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183047821 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsab166

Efficacy of a stepped care approach to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia in cancer patients: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W3183047821 on OpenAlexafffund
Josée Savard, Hans Ivers, Marie‐Hélène Savard, Charles M. Morin, Aude Caplette‐Gingras, Stéphane Bouchard, Guy Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialInsomniaCognitive behavioral therapy for insomniaMedicineCognitive behavioral therapyAnxietyPhysical therapySleep diaryCognitive therapyActigraphyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the recommended first-line treatment for cancer-related insomnia, but its accessibility is very limited in routine care. A stepped care approach has been recommended as a cost-effective way to make CBT-I more widely accessible. However, no controlled study has yet been published about the efficacy of this approach. The goal of this noninferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to compare the short and long-term efficacy of a stepped care CBT-I (StepCBT-I) to a standard face-to-face CBT-I (StanCBT-I). METHODS: A total of 177 cancer patients were randomized to: (1) StanCBT-I (6 face-to-face CBT-I sessions; n = 59) or (2) StepCBT-I (n = 118). In the StepCBT-I group, patients with less severe insomnia first received a web-based CBT-I (n = 65), while those with more severe insomnia received 6 face-to-face CBT-I sessions (n = 53). In both cases, patients could receive up to three booster sessions of CBT-I if they still had insomnia symptoms following this first step. RESULTS: Results indicated that the Step-CBT-I group showed an Insomnia Severity Index score reduction and a sleep efficiency (on a sleep diary) increase that was not significantly inferior to that of StanCBT-I at all post-treatment time points. Analyses of secondary outcomes indicated significant time effects (ps < .001) and no significant group-by-time interactions (ps from .07 to .91) on other sleep diary parameters, sleep medication use, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and quality of life scores. CONCLUSION(S): The efficacy of stepped care CBT-I is not inferior to that of a standard face-to-face intervention and is a valuable approach to making this treatment more widely accessible to cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01864720 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01864720?term=Savard&draw=2&rank=6; Stepped Care Model for the Wider Dissemination of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia Among Cancer Patients).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.347
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations67
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207