MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4224979872 · doi:10.2196/37874

Impact of Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia on Stress, Health, Mood, Cognitive, Inflammatory, and Neurodegenerative Outcomes in Rural Dementia Caregivers: Protocol for the NiteCAPP CARES and NiteCAPP SHARES Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4224979872 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christina S. McCrae, Ashley Curtis, Amelia Cottle, David Q. Beversdorf, Joel I. Shenker, Brian Mooney, Mihail Popescu, Marilyn Rantz, Maureen Groër, Phyllis K. Stein, Mojgan Golzy, Melanie Stearns, Angelynn Simenson, Neetu Nair, Meredeth A. Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDementiaMoodRandomized controlled trialCognitionInsomniaMedicineCognitive behavioral therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychologyGerontologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic insomnia affects up to 63% of family dementia caregivers. Research suggests that chronic insomnia prompts changes in central stress processing that have downstream negative effects on health and mood, as well as on cognitive, inflammatory, and neurodegenerative functioning. We hypothesize that cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) will reverse those downstream effects by improving insomnia and restoring healthy central stress processing. Rural caregivers are particularly vulnerable, but they have limited access to CBT-I; therefore, we developed an accessible digital version using community input (NiteCAPP CARES). OBJECTIVE: This trial will evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and short-term and long-term effects of NiteCAPP CARES on the sleep and stress mechanisms underlying poor caregiver health and functioning. METHODS: Dyads (n=100) consisting of caregivers with chronic insomnia and their coresiding persons with dementia will be recruited from Columbia and surrounding areas in Missouri, United States. Participant dyads will be randomized to 4 weeks (plus 4 bimonthly booster sessions) of NiteCAPP CARES or a web-based sleep hygiene control (NiteCAPP SHARES). Participants will be assessed at baseline, after treatment, and 6- and 12-month follow-ups. The following assessments will be completed by caregivers: 1 week of actigraphy and daily diaries measuring sleep, Insomnia Severity Index, arousal (heart rate variability), inflammation (blood-derived biomarkers: interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein), neurodegeneration (blood-derived biomarkers: plasma amyloid beta [Aβ40 and Aβ42], total tau, and phosphorylated tau [p-tau181 and p-tau217]), cognition (Joggle battery, NIH Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function, and Cognitive Failures Questionnaire), stress and burden, health, and mood (depression and anxiety). Persons with dementia will complete 1 week of actigraphy at each time point. RESULTS: Recruitment procedures started in February 2022. All data are expected to be collected by 2026. Full trial results are planned to be published by 2027. Secondary analyses of baseline data will be subsequently published. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial tests NiteCAPP CARES, a web-based CBT-I for rural caregivers. The knowledge obtained will address not only what outcomes improve but also how and why they improve and for how long, which will help us to modify NiteCAPP CARES to optimize treatment potency and support future pragmatic testing and dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04896775; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04896775. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/37874.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.007

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.411 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→