How well did web-based cognitive therapy work for insomnia?
How well did a web-based cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia intervention work in a randomized clinical trial?
A new article published in JAMA Psychiatry reports that adults assigned to receive the fully automated and interactive web-based Sleep Healthy Using the Internet (SHUTi) intervention had improved sleep compared with those adults just given access to a patient education website with information about insomnia.
Difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep is a common health problem with medical, psychiatric and financial ramifications.
The clinical trial by Lee Ritterband, PhD, of the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, USA, evaluated the efficacy of the intervention from nine weeks to one year and included 303 adults. The article includes study limitations.
"Internet-delivered CBT-I [cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia] provides a less expensive, scalable treatment option that could reach previously unimaginable numbers of people. Future studies are necessary to determine who may be best served by this type of intervention and how the next steps of dissemination should occur," the study concludes.
Note: Material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.
Ritterband LM et al. Effect of a Web-Based Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Insomnia Intervention With 1-Year Follow-up: Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry, Published Online November 30 2016. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3249
The number of young adults living in their own household has dropped dramatically in the last decades in the United States, and a growing proportion of young people will move back in with their parents at some point in time. These “boomerang” moves are associated with an increase in depressive symptoms, a recent MPIDR study suggests.
From online forums to community groups, research and experience shows people are more willing to insult and use menacing language online than in person, especially when there’s the protection of anonymity behind a computer. New research indicates that people react less strongly to malicious speech on digital platforms and see the victims as less “harmed” than if the words were said directly to a person.