An eHealth Program for Insomnia in Children With Neurodevelopmental Disorders (Better Nights, Better Days): Protocol for anEconomic Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with neurodevelopmental disorders have a high risk of sleep disturbances, with insomnia being the most common sleep disorder (ie, chronic and frequent difficulties with going and staying asleep). Insomnia adversely affects the well-being of these children and their caregivers. Pediatric sleep experts recommend behavioral interventions as the first-line treatment option for children. Better Nights, Better Days for Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders (BNBD-NDD) is a 5-session eHealth behavioral intervention delivered to parents to improve outcomes (eg, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory [PedsQL]) for their children (ages 4-12 years) with insomnia and who have a diagnosis of mild to moderate attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. If cost-effective, BNBD-NDD can be a scalable intervention that provides value to an underserved population. OBJECTIVE: This protocol outlines an economic evaluation conducted alongside the BNBD-NDD randomized controlled trial (RCT) that aims to assess its costs, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness compared to usual care. METHODS: The BNBD-NDD RCT evaluates the impacts of the intervention on children's sleep and quality of life, as well as parents' daytime functioning and psychosocial health. Parent participants were randomized to the BNBD-NDD treatment or to usual care. The economic evaluation assesses outcomes at baseline and 8 months later, which include the PedsQL as the primary measure. Quality of life outcomes facilitate the comparison of competing interventions across different populations and medical conditions. Cost items include the BNBD-NDD intervention and parent-reported usage of private and publicly funded resources for their children's insomnia. The economic evaluation involves a reference case cost-effectiveness analysis to examine the incremental cost of BNBD-NDD per units gained in the PedsQL from the family payer perspective and a cost-consequence analysis from a societal perspective. These analyses will be conducted over an 8-month time horizon. RESULTS: Research funding was obtained from the Kids Brain Health Network in 2015. Ethics were approved by the IWK Health Research Ethics Board and the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board in January 2019 and June 2022, respectively. The BNBD-NDD RCT data collection commenced in June 2019 and ended in April 2022. The RCT data are currently being analyzed, and data relevant to the economic analysis will be analyzed concurrently. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this will be the first economic evaluation of an eHealth intervention for insomnia in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. This evaluation's findings can inform users and stakeholders regarding the costs and benefits of BNBD-NDD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT02694003; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02694003. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46735.
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 | 0.054 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.018 |
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".