Dataset Information

Predictors of Adherence to Psychological Treatment for Insomnia and Pain: Analysis from a Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Poor adherence to psychological treatment for insomnia is common and limits treatment gains. Very little is known about predictors of adherence among patients with chronic pain, although adherence is theorized to be more critical and more challenging for these patients. This secondary data analysis examines predictors of drop-out and therapy nonattendance in an osteoarthritis population receiving psychological treatment for insomnia and pain. METHODS:Data were analyzed from the "Lifestyles" trial, a randomized controlled trial of a 6-week group cognitive behavioral pain coping skills intervention (CBT-P), group cognitive-behavioral therapy for pain and insomnia (CBT-PI), and an education only attention control group (EOC). The current analysis focuses on 122 participants randomized to CBT-PI from 6 primary care clinics. Measures of treatment acceptability, demographics, and symptoms were collected at baseline. Factor analysis was used to clarify the boundaries of these domains, and hierarchical regression was used to examine the incremental predictive power of these patient characteristics on therapy attendance. RESULTS:Ratings of treatment acceptability were distinct from demographic and medical variables and baseline symptoms. Treatment acceptability was significantly related to session attendance and drop-out (rs ranging from 0.24 to 0.32) and was also one of the strongest predictors of session attendance (?=0.20; P<0.05). DISCUSSION:Perceptions of treatment acceptability early in treatment represent a potentially modifiable target to enhance adherence to psychological treatment for insomnia and pain among patients with chronic pain. This work represents an important step towards understanding how to best maximize sleep treatments for this patient population.

SUBMITTER: Koffel E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5837899 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictors of Adherence to Psychological Treatment for Insomnia and Pain: Analysis from a Randomized Trial.

Koffel Erin E Vitiello Michael V MV McCurry Susan M SM Rybarczyk Bruce B Von Korff Michael M

The Clinical journal of pain 20180401 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>Poor adherence to psychological treatment for insomnia is common and limits treatment gains. Very little is known about predictors of adherence among patients with chronic pain, although adherence is theorized to be more critical and more challenging for these patients. This secondary data analysis examines predictors of drop-out and therapy nonattendance in an osteoarthritis population receiving psychological treatment for insomnia and pain.<h4>Methods</h4>Data were analyzed ...[more]

PMID: 28915152

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBlended face-to-face and web-based treatment is a promising way to deliver smoking cessation treatment. Since adherence has been shown to be an indicator of treatment acceptability and a determinant for effectiveness, we explored and compared adherence and predictors of adherence to blended and face-to-face alone smoking cessation treatments with similar content and intensity.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were (1) to compare adherence to a blended smoking cessation treatment with adherence to a face-to-face treatment; (2) to compare adherence within the blended treatment to its face-to-face mode and web mode; and (3) to determine baseline predictors of adherence to both treatments as well as (4) the predictors to both modes of the blended treatment.MethodsWe calculated the total duration of treatment exposure for patients (N=292) of a Dutch outpatient smoking cessation clinic who were randomly assigned either to the blended smoking cessation treatment (n=130) or to a face-to-face treatment with identical components (n=162). For both treatments (blended and face-to-face) and for the two modes of delivery within the blended treatment (face-to-face vs web mode), adherence levels (ie, treatment time) were compared and the predictors of adherence were identified within 33 demographic, smoking-related, and health-related patient characteristics.ResultsWe found no significant difference in adherence between the blended and the face-to-face treatments. Participants in the blended treatment group spent an average of 246 minutes in treatment (median 106.7% of intended treatment time, IQR 150%-355%) and participants in the face-to-face group spent 238 minutes (median 103.3% of intended treatment time, IQR 150%-330%). Within the blended group, adherence to the face-to-face mode was twice as high as that to the web mode. Participants in the blended group spent an average of 198 minutes (SD 120) in face-to-face mode (152% of the intended treatment time) and 75 minutes (SD 53) in web mode (75% of the intended treatment time). Higher age was the only characteristic consistently found to uniquely predict higher adherence in both the blended and face-to-face groups. For the face-to-face group, more social support for smoking cessation was also predictive of higher adherence. The variability in adherence explained by these predictors was rather low (blended R2=0.049; face-to-face R2=0.076). Within the blended group, living without children predicted higher adherence to the face-to-face mode (R2=0.034), independent of age. Higher adherence to the web mode of the blended treatment was predicted by a combination of an extrinsic motivation to quit, a less negative attitude toward quitting, and less health complaints (R2=0.164).ConclusionsThis study represents one of the first attempts to thoroughly compare adherence and predictors of adherence of a blended smoking cessation treatment to an equivalent face-to-face treatment. Interestingly, although the overall adherence to both treatments appeared to be high, adherence within the blended treatment was much higher for the face-to-face mode than for the web mode. This supports the idea that in blended treatment, one mode of delivery can compensate for the weaknesses of the other. Higher age was found to be a common predictor of adherence to the treatments. The low variance in adherence predicted by the characteristics examined in this study suggests that other variables such as provider-related health system factors and time-varying patient characteristics should be explored in future research.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR5113; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5113.

Project description:ImportanceDespite evidence of efficacious psychological and pharmacologic therapies for insomnia, there is little information about what first-line treatment should be and how best to proceed when initial treatment fails.ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative efficacy of 4 treatment sequences involving psychological and medication therapies for insomnia and examine the moderating effect of psychiatric disorders on insomnia outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsIn a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial, patients were assigned to first-stage therapy involving either behavioral therapy (BT; n = 104) or zolpidem (zolpidem; n = 107), and patients who did not remit received a second treatment involving either medication (zolpidem or trazodone) or psychological therapy (BT or cognitive therapy [CT]). The study took place at Institut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada, and at National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado, and enrollment of patients took place from August 2012 through July 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end points were the treatment response and remission rates, defined by the Insomnia Severity Index total score.ResultsPatients included 211 adults (132 women; mean [SD] age, 45.6 [14.9] years) with a chronic insomnia disorder, including 74 patients with a comorbid anxiety or mood disorder. First-stage therapy with BT or zolpidem produced equivalent weighted percentages of responders (BT, 45.5%; zolpidem, 49.7%; OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.60-2.33) and remitters (BT, 38.03%; zolpidem, 30.3%; OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.75-2.65). Second-stage therapy produced significant increases in responders for the 2 conditions, starting with BT (BT to zolpidem, 40.6% to 62.7%; OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.14-5.30; BT to CT, 50.1% to 68.2%; OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.01-4.35) but no significant change following zolpidem treatment. Significant increase in percentage of remitters was observed in 2 of 4 therapy sequences (BT to zolpidem, 38.1% to 55.9%; OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.11; zolpidem to trazodone, 31.4% to 49.4%; OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.91-5.00). Although response/remission rates were lower among patients with psychiatric comorbidity, treatment sequences that involved BT followed by CT or zolpidem followed by trazodone yielded better outcomes for patients with comorbid insomnia. Response and remission rates were well sustained through the 12-month follow-up.Conclusions and relevanceBehavioral therapy and zolpidem medication produced equivalent response and remission rates. Adding a second treatment produced an added value for those whose insomnia failed to remit with initial therapies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01651442.

Project description:ImportanceInsomnia is highly prevalent in patients with nonspecific chronic spinal pain (nCSP). Given the close interaction between insomnia and pain, targeting sleep problems during therapy could improve treatment outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTi) integrated in best-evidence pain management (BEPM) vs BEPM only in patients with nCSP and insomnia.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter randomized clinical trial with 1-year follow-up was conducted between April 10, 2018, and April 30, 2022. Data and statistical analysis were performed between May 1, 2022, and April 24, 2023. Patients with nCSP and insomnia were evaluated using self-report and at-home polysomnography, to exclude underlying sleep pathologic factors. Participants were treated at the University Hospital Brussels or University Hospital Ghent, Belgium. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to either CBTi-BEPM or BEPM only. Both groups received 18 treatment sessions over 14 weeks. The CBTi-BEPM treatment included 6 CBTi sessions and 12 BEPM sessions. The BEPM treatment included pain neuroscience education (3 sessions) and exercise therapy (9 sessions in the CBTi-BEPM group, 15 sessions in the BEPM-only group).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in mean pain intensity (assessed with Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]) at 12 months after the intervention. Exploratory secondary outcomes included several pain- and sleep-related outcomes. Blinded outcome assessment took place at baseline, posttreatment, and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up.ResultsA total of 123 patients (mean [SD] age, 40.2 [11.18] years; 84 women [68.3%]) were included in the trial. In 99 participants (80.5%) with 12-month BPI data, the mean pain intensity at 12 months decreased by 1.976 points (reduction of 40%) in the CBTi-BEPM group and 1.006 points (reduction of 24%) points in the BEPM-only group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in pain intensity change between groups (mean group difference, 0.970 points; 95% CI, -0.051 to 1.992; Cohen d, 2.665). Treatment with CBTi-BEPM resulted in a response for BPI average pain with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 4 observed during 12 months. On a preliminary basis, CBTi-BEPM was, consistently over time and analyses, more effective than BEPM only for improving insomnia severity (Cohen d, 4.319-8.961; NNT for response ranging from 2 to 4, and NNT for remission ranging from 5 to 12), sleep quality (Cohen d, 3.654-6.066), beliefs about sleep (Cohen d, 5.324-6.657), depressive symptoms (Cohen d, 2.935-3.361), and physical fatigue (Cohen d, 2.818-3.770). No serious adverse effects were reported.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, adding CBTi to BEPM did not further improve pain intensity reduction for patients with nCSP and comorbid insomnia more than BEPM alone. Yet, as CBTi-BEPM led to significant and clinically important changes in insomnia severity and sleep quality, CBTi integrated in BEPM should be considered in the treatment of patients with nCSP and comorbid insomnia. Further research can investigate the patient characteristics that moderate the response to CBTi-BEPM in terms of pain-related outcomes, as understanding of these moderators may be of utmost clinical importance.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03482856.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic pain often experience insomnia symptoms. Pain initiates, maintains, and exacerbates insomnia symptoms, and vice versa, indicating a complex situation with an additional burden for these patients. Hence, the evaluation of insomnia-related interventions for patients with chronic pain is important.ObjectiveThis randomized controlled trial examined the effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (ICBT-i) for reducing insomnia severity and other sleep- and pain-related parameters in patients with chronic pain. Participants were recruited from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation.MethodsWe included 54 patients (mean age 49.3, SD 12.3 years) who were randomly assigned to the ICBT-i condition and 24 to an active control condition (applied relaxation). Both treatment conditions were delivered via the internet. The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), a sleep diary, and a battery of anxiety, depression, and pain-related parameter measurements were assessed at baseline, after treatment, and at a 6-month follow-up (only ISI, anxiety, depression, and pain-related parameters). For the ISI and sleep diary, we also recorded weekly measurements during the 5-week treatment. Negative effects were also monitored and reported.ResultsResults showed a significant immediate interaction effect (time by treatment) on the ISI and other sleep parameters, namely, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency, early morning awakenings, and wake time after sleep onset. Participants in the applied relaxation group reported no significant immediate improvements, but both groups exhibited a time effect for anxiety and depression at the 6-month follow-up. No significant improvements on pain-related parameters were found. At the 6-month follow-up, both the ICBT-i and applied relaxation groups had similar sleep parameters. For both treatment arms, increased stress was the most frequently reported negative effect.ConclusionsIn patients with chronic pain, brief ICBT-i leads to a more rapid decline in insomnia symptoms than does applied relaxation. As these results are unique, further research is needed to investigate the effect of ICBT-i on a larger sample size of people with chronic pain. Using both treatments might lead to an even better outcome in patients with comorbid insomnia and chronic pain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03425942; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03425942.

Dataset Information

Predictors of Adherence to Psychological Treatment for Insomnia and Pain: Analysis from a Randomized Trial.

Publications

Predictors of Adherence to Psychological Treatment for Insomnia and Pain: Analysis from a Randomized Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets