A scoping review of self-help cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uptake of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBTI) as first-line therapy of chronic insomnia has been restricted by a shortage of trained therapists, access barriers, and limited awareness of self-help alternatives. Self-help CBTI has emerged as a practical alternative, offering ready access, convenience, and dissemination and scalability efficiency. Yet, evidence syntheses of limited data have suggested its effectiveness and acceptability may be inferior to face-to-face CBTI and others have questioned its fidelity with CBTI standards. We conducted a scoping review to map and characterize self-help CBTI research, focusing on its core components, delivery methods, use of coaching support, and growth. Our review included 174 reports of 145 unique studies, 106 of which were randomized trials, with 65 published since 2020. Findings revealed that self-help CBTI maintained the essential core components (time-in-bed restriction, stimulus control, relaxation techniques, cognitive therapy, and sleep hygiene/education) and structure of conventional CBTI with many, but not all, including different types and formats of coaching support. The expanding body of evidence suggests that self-help CBTI is an evolving field, warranting further analysis to delineate its role in filling the treatment gap for chronic insomnia.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".