The Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insomnia is a common sleep disorder encountered in older adults which causes many difficulties in daily life. Given safety concerns with sedative-hypnotic pharmacotherapy, behavioural treatments including Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) are preferred in the elderly. We have provided an updated evidence review of CBT-I in this population. A rapid review of randomized controlled trials evaluating CBT-I interventions in adults aged 60+ was conducted using a search of the databases PubMed and PsycINFO, returning 21 articles for analysis. Specific CBT-I interventions including individual, group, therapist-led, and self-guided formats were evaluated. Trials for novel formats including telehealth CBT-I were also assessed for subgroup analyses involving older adults. Quantitative (total sleep time, sleep efficiency, insomnia severity, etc.) and qualitative (participant feedback, etc.) outcomes were assessed. The research showed steadfast evidence for the effectiveness of CBT-I as the preferred intervention for insomnia disorders in the elderly. It also showed the promising results of self-help, group and virtual modes of delivery of CBT-I which may help alleviate accessibility concerns to the service in the future. This represents a key area for further work to improve access to insomnia interventions in older adults.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".