Recommendations to bolster adherence in cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: a self-efficacy approach
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
Lay Summary The safest and most effective treatment for chronic insomnia is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I). People sometimes struggle to adhere to, or follow the steps, involved in CBT-I because they are challenging (i.e., restricting time in bed to induce sleepiness, getting out of bed when not sleeping). These steps are based on sleep science and research shows that more closely adhering to them relates to better sleep improvements. One way that clinicians can help patients completing CBT-I improve their adherence to the difficult treatment steps is to promote their self-efficacy, or belief that they can effectively complete the treatment steps. Inspired by tried-and-true health promotion techniques rooted in Social Cognitive Theory, this paper describes concrete recommendations that clinicians can use to improve their patients’ self-efficacy when completing CBT-I. These recommendations include suggestions such as setting positive treatment expectations, discussing with patients how to set up for success when completing the treatment steps at home, and how to work with potential barriers to treatment. If clinicians can help boost patients’ self-efficacy, they may be able to carry out the treatment steps of CBT-I more effectively, and ultimately experience more benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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