Primary care is the frontline for help-seeking insomnia patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although insomnia is a very common disorder, few people seek medical help. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of people who consult a healthcare professional about insomnia and examine reasons for help seeking. METHODS: Descriptive study of 99 patients diagnosed with insomnia following a telephone survey of 466 adults assigned to a primary healthcare unit in Majorca (Spain). Data were obtained from interviews and subsequent review of electronic medical records. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients (39.8%) consulted at least once with one health care professional; 36(92.2%) consulted a general practitioner. Only 12.2% had an insomnia diagnosis registered in their medical record. Insomnia consultation was not associated with any sociodemographic variables analysed, anxiety, depression or comorbidities. Also, there was no association with sleep quality, duration, and sleep efficiency. Patients with clinical insomnia (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.03-5.94), those who were more worried (OR, 2.93; 95% CI 1.08-7.95) or felt that others noticed the impact of insomnia on their quality of life (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.02-19.08) are more likely to seek medical help. Patients taking sleep medication were 21.54 (95% CI, 7.34-63.20) times more likely to have asked for medical assistance. CONCLUSION: Insomnia is an under-reported problem for both patients and doctors. When patients decide to consult for insomnia problems, they first go to the GP, and the vast majority take medications for their sleep problem. Those who consult most are people with more severe insomnia and those who are more worried.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".