MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378611424 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsad077.0861

0861 Does Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia Reduce Productivity Loss in Cancer Survivors with Cognitive Impairment?

2023· article· en· W4378611424 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joshua Tulk, Sondria Browne, Harsha Ajith, Sheila N. Garland

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresenteeismAbsenteeismInsomniaMedicineRandomized controlled trialProductivityCognitive behavioral therapy for insomniaCognitionPhysical therapyCognitive behavioral therapyGerontologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Insomnia and perceived cognitive impairments (PCI) affect 1 in 4 cancer survivors and negatively affects work productivity. This study explores the impact of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) on work presenteeism and absenteeism in cancer survivors with comorbid insomnia and PCI. Methods A sub-sample of 42 Atlantic Canadian survivors with insomnia disorder and PCI who were currently working for pay were analyzed as part of a larger randomized clinical trial. Participants completed 7 virtual sessions of CBT-I. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Index Specific Health Problem Questionnaire (WPAI: SHP) was administered pre-and post-treatment. Absenteeism was defined as the percentage of time absent from work, while presenteeism was defined as the extent to which health problems affected productivity at work in the past 7 days. Costs were calculated by the human capital method. Significant changes in productivity loss were defined at ≥15% or 20% change in absenteeism and presenteeism, respectively. Descriptive statistics and paired samples t-tests were used to measure changes in productivity following treatment. Average net benefit was calculated by subtracting the average treatment cost from average treatment benefits after 1 year to reflect cost savings after CBT-I. The cost of treatment was estimated in terms of average cost per session and lost time at work. Results Participants (76% Female) were, on average, 50.4 years old with 16.6 years of education. Breast cancer was the most reported cancer type (43%). Overall rates of presenteeism were significantly lower at post-treatment (p=<.001, d=0.55), with 52.4% reporting significant reductions. Absenteeism rates from pre- to post-treatment were not significant (p=.11, d=0.20). Reduced productivity loss post-treatment was associated with an average savings of CAD$10,979/person/year. Average net benefits for the first-year post-treatment equaled CAD$9348/person. Conclusion CBT-I can improve work productivity in cancer survivors. Investments to increase and provide access to evidence-based treatment may lead to significant savings for individuals and businesses. Support (if any) Dr. Sheila Garland is supported by a Canadian Cancer Society Emerging Scholar Award (Survivorship) (grant #707146). This project was funded through a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (grant number: PJT 162428) and the Beatrice Hunter Cancer Research Institute.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207