MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402422840 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1450615

Effect of a prescription digital therapeutic for chronic insomnia on post-treatment insomnia severity, depression, and anxiety symptoms: results from the real-world DREAM study

2024· article· en· W4402422840 on OpenAlexaff
Frances P. Thorndike, Charles M. Morin, Joseph Ojile, Samantha Edington, Robert Gerwien, Jason C. Ong, Emerson M. Wickwire, Lee M. Ritterband, Heidi Riney

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaAnxietyDepression (economics)Medical prescriptionDreamPsychiatryMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Chronic insomnia is a substantial public health burden that often presents with co-occurring depression and anxiety. Randomized clinical trials and preliminary real-world evidence have shown that digitally delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (dCBT-I) is associated with improvements in insomnia, but real-world evidence is needed to determine the true impact of digital CBT-I. This pragmatic study aimed to evaluate the benefits of treating chronic insomnia with a tailored prescription digital therapeutic in a real-world population. Methods: ) over a 9-week intervention period. The PDT delivers cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia via six interactive treatment cores and daily sleep diaries used for tailoring treatment. Participants completed validated patient-reported instruments at baseline, before completing treatment cores, immediately post-intervention, and at 6-month and 1-year follow-ups. The Insomnia Severity Index [ISI], the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-8], and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale [GAD-7] were used to determine the effect of the PDT on insomnia, depression, and anxiety. Results: After screening, 1565 adults accessed the PDT. 58% of those who began the program completed Core 4, established as exposure to all mechanisms of action in the digital therapeutic. For those who completed assessments for all 6 cores (48.4%), the ISI was lowered from 18.8 to a mean of 9.9 (P <.001). These scores continued to be lower than baseline at immediate post (11.0), 6-month (11.6), and 1-year follow-ups (12.2) (P <.001). The results of the PHQ-8 and GAD-7 also show significant decreases at all measured timepoints from baseline (P <.001). Of the patients that began the program, 908 (58.0%) were considered adherent and 733 (46.8%) completed all 6 cores. Conclusion: Data from the DREAM study contributes to the growing body of clinical evidence of how patients are utilizing a PDT in the real world, outside of controlled settings, offering insights for clinicians who use these therapeutics in practice. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04325464.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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