The Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy on Sleep Problems and Pain Experience in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The present study aimed to examine the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on sleep problems and pain experience in the elderly. Methodology: This research employed an experimental design with a pretest-posttest and control group, including a follow-up phase. The statistical population consisted of all elderly individuals in Mashhad in 2024, from which 30 participants were selected using a simple random sampling method and assigned to experimental and control groups. The experimental group received CBT intervention, while the control group did not receive any treatment. The research instruments included the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. CBT was administered based on the protocol by Wright et al. (2006) in eight 90-minute weekly sessions. After the intervention, participants completed the questionnaires again, and a three-month follow-up was conducted. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Findings: The findings indicated that CBT was effective in reducing sleep problems and pain among the elderly, and these effects remained stable at the three-month follow-up (p < .05). Conclusion: This study highlights the positive impact of CBT on improving sleep quality and reducing pain in elderly individuals and recommends the application of this therapeutic approach in geriatric interventions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".