Providing access to cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia in cancer care: Preliminary results of an implementation study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
61 Background: Between 30 to 60% of cancer patients display insomnia symptoms. While cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the recommended first-line treatment for cancer-related insomnia, it remains underutilized due to its limited accessibility. To date, we are unaware of any study that has investigated the implementation of CBT-I in routine clinical care. Our prior work showed that a stepped care approach, combining a web-based CBT-I and 1-3 booster therapy sessions, was not significantly inferior in producing sleep improvements than a standard 6-session CBT-I. The main goals of the IMPACT (Insomnia in Patients with Cancer – Personalized Treatment) program are to assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing this stepped care CBT-I in four cancer centers in Quebec City, Canada. Methods: The ongoing study uses a stepped wedge cluster non-randomized design implementing the stepped care CBT-I at various time intervals across cancer centers. All first-line cancer providers (e.g., nurses, oncologists, radio-oncology technologists, pharmacists) are met every 3-4 months to present/remind them of the rationale of the project and procedures to refer patients to the IMPACT program. Patients having a score ≥ 4 on the sleep item of the Edmonton System Assessment System-Revised (ESAS-R-sleep) receive a leaflet explaining the stepped care CBT-I and how to access the web-based program (first step). Patients with residual insomnia symptoms after completing this first step are offered 1-3 booster sessions with a clinical psychologist (second step). Uptake and retention rates are the main variables. Results: Across cancer centers, 11.9%-50.8% of patients having a score ≥ 4 on the ESAS-R-sleep item were referred to the IMPACT program. The most common reasons for not referring were: 1) the presence of comorbid anxiety or depression symptoms (they were referred instead to the psychosocial oncology team) and; 2) patients declining help. Registration rates were greater when a brief follow-up phone call was conducted to explain the IMPACT program in more detail (vs. giving only the leaflet). Across cancer centers, 10%-54.9% of referred patients registered with the web-based CBT-I, 83.3%-90% of them initiated it and 26%-42.3% completed it. The most common reasons for not completing the web-based CBT-I were: 1) sleep difficulties improved or remitted (36.2%); and 2) the program did not meet patients’ needs (23.4%). Among completers, 29%-56% had residual insomnia and were offered booster sessions. On average, sleep diary data collected during treatment (N=83) indicated a reduction of sleep-onset latency of 20 min and of wake after sleep onset of 45 min. Sleep efficiency increased from 70 to 85%. Conclusions: Although uptake and retention rates could be improved, these preliminary data suggest that stepped care CBT-I can be implemented in routine cancer care and is effective. Clinical trial information: NCT04817163 .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".