Investigating non-inferiority of internet-delivered versus face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I): a randomised controlled trial (iSleep well)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insomnia is a highly prevalent disorder associated with numerous adverse health outcomes. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is recommended as first-line treatment by clinical guidelines but is accessible to only a minority of patients suffering from insomnia. Internet-delivered CBT-I (iCBT-I) could contribute to the widespread dissemination of this first-line treatment. As there is insufficient evidence regarding non-inferiority, this study directly aims to compare therapist-guided internet-delivered versus face-to-face CBT-I in terms of insomnia severity post-treatment. Furthermore, a health-economic evaluation will be conducted, and potential benefits and disadvantages of therapist-guided iCBT-I will be examined. METHODS: This study protocol describes a randomised controlled two-arm parallel-group non-inferiority trial comparing therapist-guided iCBT-I with face-to-face CBT-I in routine clinical care. A total of 422 patients with insomnia disorder will be randomised and treated at 16 study centres throughout Germany. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 10 weeks after randomisation (post), and 6 months after randomisation (follow-up). The primary outcome is insomnia severity measured using the Insomnia Severity Index. Secondary outcomes include depression-related symptoms, quality of life, fatigue, physical activity, daylight exposure, adverse events related to treatment, and a health-economic evaluation. Finally, potential moderator variables and several descriptive and exploratory outcomes will be assessed (e.g. benefits and disadvantages of internet-delivered treatment). DISCUSSION: The widespread implementation of CBT-I is a significant healthcare challenge. The non-inferiority of therapist-guided iCBT-I versus face-to-face CBT-I will be investigated in an adequately powered sample in routine clinical care, with the same therapeutic content and same level of therapist qualifications provided with both interventions. If this trial demonstrates the non-inferiority of therapist-guided iCBT-I, healthcare providers may be more confident recommending this treatment to their patients, contributing to the wider dissemination of CBT-I. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number in the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00028153 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00028153 ). Registered on 16th May 2023.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".