Assessment and management of chronic insomnia disorder: an algorithm for primary care physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians often lack resources and training to correctly diagnose and manage chronic insomnia disorder. Tools supporting chronic insomnia diagnosis and management could fill this critical gap. A survey was conducted to understand insomnia disorder diagnosis and treatment practices among primary care physicians, and to evaluate a diagnosis and treatment algorithm on its use, to identify ways to optimize it specifically for these providers. METHODS: A panel of experts developed an algorithm for diagnosing and treating chronic insomnia disorder, based on current guidelines and experience in clinical practice. An online survey was conducted with primary care physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, who treat chronic insomnia patients, between January and February 2023. A sub-sample of participants provided open-ended feedback on the algorithm and gave suggestions for improvements. RESULTS: Overall, 106 primary care physicians completed the survey. Half (52%, 55/106) reported they did not regularly screen for insomnia and half (51%, 54/106) felt they did not have enough time to address patients' needs in relation to insomnia or trouble sleeping. The majority (87%,92/106) agreed the algorithm would help diagnose chronic insomnia patients and 82% (87/106) agreed the algorithm would help improve their clinical practice in relation to managing chronic insomnia. Suggestions for improvements were making the algorithm easier to read and use. CONCLUSION: The algorithm developed for, and tested by, primary care physicians to diagnose and treat chronic insomnia disorder may offer significant benefits to providers and their patients through ensuring standardization of insomnia diagnosis and management.
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 | 0.023 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".