失眠的阶梯式护理管理:在实用的非随机临床试验环境下,由患者决策辅助指导的治疗选择。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Janet M Y Cheung, Lee M Ritterband, Si-Jing Chen, Hans Ivers, Charles M Morin
{"title":"失眠的阶梯式护理管理:在实用的非随机临床试验环境下,由患者决策辅助指导的治疗选择。","authors":"Janet M Y Cheung, Lee M Ritterband, Si-Jing Chen, Hans Ivers, Charles M Morin","doi":"10.1111/jsr.70127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patients with insomnia face difficult decisions when choosing between treatment options with competing risk-benefit profiles. Patient treatment choices were evaluated as part of a pragmatic nonrandomized clinical trial for a two-step cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) intervention. Upon enrollment, participants were guided by a patient decision aid (PtDA), outlining the risk-benefit profiles of medication, face-to-face CBT-I (FtFCBT-I), and digital CBT-I (dCBT-I). In Step 1, participants chose between dCBT-I alone, combined dCBT-I plus medication or medication alone. Non-remitters who enrolled into Step 2 chose between FtFCBT-I, medication, or no additional treatment. A secondary analysis was conducted evaluating patient treatment choices, the presence of decisional conflict, and the acceptability of the PtDA. In Step 1, 47.4% (n = 73) of participants chose dCBT-I, followed by combined dCBT-I plus medication (42.3% n = 66) and medication alone (9.74%; n = 15). The dCBT-I group was less likely to use medications or used them less frequently compared to the other treatment groups. Men and individuals less motivated to change sleep habits were more likely to choose medication in Step 1. In Step 2, 60.9% (n = 42) of non-remitters chose FtFCBT-I, followed by no additional treatment (23.6%; n = 16) and medication (15.9%; n = 11). Non-remitters from the medication group in Step 1 were more likely to choose medication again in Step 2. Over 90% of participants across both treatment steps endorsed the PtDA as acceptable and facilitated their decision-making. This corroborated with the minimal decisional conflict observed, highlighting a potential role in further developing and integrating patient decision aids into practice. Trial Registration: NCT03633305.</p>","PeriodicalId":17057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sleep Research","volume":" ","pages":"e70127"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stepped-Care Management of Insomnia: Treatment Choices Guided by a Patient Decision Aid in a Pragmatic Nonrandomized Clinical Trial Setting.\",\"authors\":\"Janet M Y Cheung, Lee M Ritterband, Si-Jing Chen, Hans Ivers, Charles M Morin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jsr.70127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Patients with insomnia face difficult decisions when choosing between treatment options with competing risk-benefit profiles. Patient treatment choices were evaluated as part of a pragmatic nonrandomized clinical trial for a two-step cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) intervention. Upon enrollment, participants were guided by a patient decision aid (PtDA), outlining the risk-benefit profiles of medication, face-to-face CBT-I (FtFCBT-I), and digital CBT-I (dCBT-I). In Step 1, participants chose between dCBT-I alone, combined dCBT-I plus medication or medication alone. Non-remitters who enrolled into Step 2 chose between FtFCBT-I, medication, or no additional treatment. A secondary analysis was conducted evaluating patient treatment choices, the presence of decisional conflict, and the acceptability of the PtDA. In Step 1, 47.4% (n = 73) of participants chose dCBT-I, followed by combined dCBT-I plus medication (42.3% n = 66) and medication alone (9.74%; n = 15). The dCBT-I group was less likely to use medications or used them less frequently compared to the other treatment groups. Men and individuals less motivated to change sleep habits were more likely to choose medication in Step 1. In Step 2, 60.9% (n = 42) of non-remitters chose FtFCBT-I, followed by no additional treatment (23.6%; n = 16) and medication (15.9%; n = 11). Non-remitters from the medication group in Step 1 were more likely to choose medication again in Step 2. Over 90% of participants across both treatment steps endorsed the PtDA as acceptable and facilitated their decision-making. This corroborated with the minimal decisional conflict observed, highlighting a potential role in further developing and integrating patient decision aids into practice. Trial Registration: NCT03633305.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sleep Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e70127\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sleep Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.70127\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sleep Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.70127","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

失眠患者在选择具有竞争风险-收益特征的治疗方案时面临困难的决定。作为两步认知行为治疗失眠(CBT-I)干预的实用非随机临床试验的一部分,对患者的治疗选择进行评估。入组后,参与者在患者决策辅助(PtDA)的指导下,概述了药物、面对面CBT-I (FtFCBT-I)和数字CBT-I (dCBT-I)的风险-收益概况。在步骤1中,参与者在单独dCBT-I、dCBT-I联合药物或单独药物之间进行选择。参加步骤2的非汇款人在FtFCBT-I、药物治疗或不进行额外治疗之间进行选择。进行了二次分析,评估患者的治疗选择、决策冲突的存在以及PtDA的可接受性。在步骤1中,47.4% (n = 73)的参与者选择dCBT-I,其次是dCBT-I加药物治疗(42.3% n = 66)和单独药物治疗(9.74%;n = 15)。与其他治疗组相比,dCBT-I组使用药物的可能性更小,或者使用药物的频率更低。男性和没有动力改变睡眠习惯的人更有可能在第一步中选择药物治疗。在步骤2中,60.9% (n = 42)的非汇款者选择FtFCBT-I,其次是不进行额外治疗(23.6%;N = 16)和用药(15.9%;n = 11)。第1步用药组的未缓解者更有可能在第2步再次选择用药。在两个治疗步骤中,超过90%的参与者认可PtDA是可接受的,并促进了他们的决策。这与观察到的最小决策冲突相证实,突出了在进一步发展和将患者决策辅助纳入实践中的潜在作用。试验注册:NCT03633305。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stepped-Care Management of Insomnia: Treatment Choices Guided by a Patient Decision Aid in a Pragmatic Nonrandomized Clinical Trial Setting.

Patients with insomnia face difficult decisions when choosing between treatment options with competing risk-benefit profiles. Patient treatment choices were evaluated as part of a pragmatic nonrandomized clinical trial for a two-step cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) intervention. Upon enrollment, participants were guided by a patient decision aid (PtDA), outlining the risk-benefit profiles of medication, face-to-face CBT-I (FtFCBT-I), and digital CBT-I (dCBT-I). In Step 1, participants chose between dCBT-I alone, combined dCBT-I plus medication or medication alone. Non-remitters who enrolled into Step 2 chose between FtFCBT-I, medication, or no additional treatment. A secondary analysis was conducted evaluating patient treatment choices, the presence of decisional conflict, and the acceptability of the PtDA. In Step 1, 47.4% (n = 73) of participants chose dCBT-I, followed by combined dCBT-I plus medication (42.3% n = 66) and medication alone (9.74%; n = 15). The dCBT-I group was less likely to use medications or used them less frequently compared to the other treatment groups. Men and individuals less motivated to change sleep habits were more likely to choose medication in Step 1. In Step 2, 60.9% (n = 42) of non-remitters chose FtFCBT-I, followed by no additional treatment (23.6%; n = 16) and medication (15.9%; n = 11). Non-remitters from the medication group in Step 1 were more likely to choose medication again in Step 2. Over 90% of participants across both treatment steps endorsed the PtDA as acceptable and facilitated their decision-making. This corroborated with the minimal decisional conflict observed, highlighting a potential role in further developing and integrating patient decision aids into practice. Trial Registration: NCT03633305.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Sleep Research
Journal of Sleep Research 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
6.80%
发文量
234
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sleep Research is dedicated to basic and clinical sleep research. The Journal publishes original research papers and invited reviews in all areas of sleep research (including biological rhythms). The Journal aims to promote the exchange of ideas between basic and clinical sleep researchers coming from a wide range of backgrounds and disciplines. The Journal will achieve this by publishing papers which use multidisciplinary and novel approaches to answer important questions about sleep, as well as its disorders and the treatment thereof.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信