MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386291749 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1233201

Mapping the insomnia patient journey in Europe and Canada

2023· article· en· W4386291749 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David O’Regan, Diego Garcı́a-Borreguero, Fenna Gloggner, Imane Wild, Chrysoula Leontiou, Luigi Ferini‐Strambi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIdorsia Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsInsomniaMedicinePsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Insomnia affects daily functioning and overall health, and is thus associated with significant individual, societal, and economic burden. The experience of patients living with insomnia, their perception of the condition, and its impact on their quality of life is not well documented. The objective of this study was to map the patient journey in insomnia and identify unmet needs. Methods: Participants were individuals with insomnia, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) who treat insomnia, in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada. Qualitative interviews (50 patients, 70 HCPs) and a quantitative survey (700 patients, 723 HCPs) were conducted to inform the patient-journey mapping and obtain information on the emotions, perceptions, and experiences of patients and HCPs. Results: The patient journey comprises seven phases. The first defines the onset of insomnia symptoms. Phase 2 represents self-initiated behavior change to improve sleep (e.g., sleep hygiene, reducing caffeine, exercise). The next phase is characterized by use of over-the-counter (OTC) treatments, which generally fail to provide lasting relief. Phase 4 describes the first HCP consultation (occurring several months to several years after onset) and typically occurs at a crisis point for the patient; patients may be looking for an immediate solution (e.g., medication), which may not align with their HCP's recommendation. The following stage comprises sleep hygiene/behavioral changes (±OTC treatment) under HCP guidance for many patients, although offering prescription treatments without a sleep hygiene stage under supervision is more common in some countries. Phase 6 describes prescription medication initiation, where patients fluctuate between relief/hopefulness and a sense of failure, while HCPs try to balance the need to provide relief for the patient while maintaining best medical practice and minimizing adverse effects. The final phase (living with long-term insomnia) represents an indefinite period during which sleep issues remain unresolved for many patients, with most of them continuing to use prescription treatments for longer than indicated and creating their own variable, self-managed regimens combining multiple modalities. Conclusion: This patient journey analysis for insomnia revealed seven distinct phases, highlighting different touchpoints where insomnia management could be optimized.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207