MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406124780 · doi:10.3390/brainsci15010048

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapists’ Experience on Relevance of Sleep and Sleep Disorders in Training and Clinical Practice: A Survey Study from Italy

2025· article· en· W4406124780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chiara Baglioni, Andrea Galbiati, Debora Meneo, Greta Cavadini, Francesca Gelfo, Francesco Mancini, C Buonanno

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep (system call)Relevance (law)PsychologyCognitionTraining (meteorology)Clinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Based on previous data reporting the status of health professionals' training about sleep clinical psychophysiology, insomnia, and its treatment in the US and Canada, this paper aims at providing a snapshot of the Italian situation, considering health professionals qualified to offer cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Adding information on different countries is important, as national health systems differ significantly, and distinct evidence-based pathways for change may be proposed. METHODS: Two hundred and thirteen CBT professionals (180 females; 33 males) answered a 5 min survey about their training and experience in recognizing and treating behavioral sleep disorders in their practice. The questionnaire was diffused through the mailing list of the Italian Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy Society (Società Italiana di Terapia Comportamentale e Cognitiva, SITCC) throughout December 2023 and January 2024. RESULTS: A total of 213 participants completed the survey. Only a minor proportion of respondents (37.1%) reported having received training for diagnosis and treatment of insomnia or other behavioral sleep disorders. Familiarity with psychological therapeutics for sleep was mainly associated with knowledge of sleep hygiene rules, relaxation, and mindfulness techniques, but not with core CBT strategies for insomnia (i.e., sleep restriction and stimulus control) and sleep regulation. The less familiar therapeutics were those for pediatric insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight scarce knowledge and consideration of sleep problems in CBT practice in Italy. As insomnia is prevalent, an independent mental disorder, and a predictor for mental and somatic comorbid conditions, these findings underscore an urgency to enlarge and strengthen CBT professionals' training on sleep psychophysiology, sleep clinical psychology, insomnia, behavioral sleep problems, and their treatment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207