MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410056360 · doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2025.106551

Stepped care for insomnia in primary care using digital and face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapies: A pragmatic nonrandomized clinical trial

2025· article· en· W4410056360 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles M. Morin, Sijing Chen, Kathleen Lemieux, Hans Ivers, Janet M. Y. Cheung, Manon Lamy, Lee M. Ritterband

Bibliographic record

VenueSleep Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-AppalacheUniversité du QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPrimary careInsomniaCognitionPrimary InsomniaFace (sociological concept)MedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryFamily medicineSleep disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention for insomnia in primary care. In this non-randomized pragmatic clinical trial, patients from primary care clinics and with chronic insomnia disorder were allowed to choose between continuing their usual treatment (prescribed sleep medication) or receiving digital CBT-I (dCBT-I), either alone or in combination with medication. After the first treatment step, non-remitters were provided with the choice of receiving face-to-face CBT-I (FtFCBT-I), medication, or no additional treatment. The primary outcome was insomnia symptoms as measured by the Insomnia Severity Index. Among 154 adults with insomnia, 73 were allocated to dCBT-I, 66 to combined treatment and 15 to medication alone based on their preference. When compared to medication alone, first-step treatment with dCBT-I or combined treatment both produced significantly larger effects on reducing insomnia severity (dCBT-I vs Med, difference in the mean changes = -3.3; Comb vs Med, -3.7), and led to higher percentages of responders (dCBT-I vs Med, 54.8% vs 16.0%, OR = 6.38; Comb vs Med, 53.6% vs 16.0%, OR = 6.07) and remitters (dCBT-I vs Med, 65.8% vs 9.4%, OR = 18.61; Comb vs Med, 67.5% vs 9.4%, OR = 20.13. Adding FtFCBT-I as second-step treatment offered an added value for non-remitters after the first-step treatment. Improvements achieved at post-treatment were sustained through the 6-month follow-up for most of the treatment sequences. These findings demonstrated the feasibility and efficiency of implementing digital and in-person CBT-I within a stepped-care model in primary care practice. • Digital CBT-I applied in primary care is an effective treatment delivery modality for patients with chronic insomnia, and non-remitters could be further stepped up to a more intensive treatment (e.g., in-person CBT-I). • Implementing a stepped-care intervention for insomnia in primary care could facilitate the provision of guideline care, optimize treatment effects, and enhance accessibility of evidence-based interventions. • It is important to involve patients in the decision-making process when selecting among different treatment options within a stepped-care intervention.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSleep MedicineSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207