Cognitive-behavioral, behavioural and mindfulness-based therapies for insomnia in menopause
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Insomnia is frequently reported by women during menopause due to physiological changes and environmental factors and is associated with negative daytime sequelae. Due to medication side effects and patient preferences, there is increased interest in the use of psychological treatments for menopausal insomnia. The primary objective of this review is to review the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral, behavioral, and mindfulness-based (CBBMB) therapies in treating insomnia in peri- and post-menopausal women. The secondary objective is to review the effect of CBBMB therapies on relevant secondary outcomes to gain a comprehensive understanding of their impacts. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of the literature. A search of PubMed and Google Scholar was conducted between January 2020 and March 2021. RESULTS: Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia is efficacious, with corollary improvements in mood, functional outcomes and potential mechanistic factors (e.g., unhelpful beliefs). Sleep restriction therapy is also efficacious, with somewhat poorer effects on secondary outcomes relative to CBT. Mindfulness meditation and relaxation for insomnia demonstrated promise, but its long-term effects remain unknown. CONCLUSIONS: Research with more diverse samples and head-to-head comparisons is needed. Dissemination of CBBMBs for insomnia in clinics where menopausal women seek care is an important next step.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it