You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Digital Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia versus sleep hygiene education: the impact of improved sleep on functional health, quality of life and psychological well-being. Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-016-1364-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Colin A. Espie, Annemarie I. Luik, John Cape, Christopher L. Drake, A. Niroshan Siriwardena, Jason C. Ong, Christopher Gordon, Sophie Bostock, Peter Hames, Mhairi Nisbet, Bryony Sheaves, Russell G Foster, Daniel Freeman, Joan Costa-Font, Richard Emsley, Simon D. Kyle |
| Abstract |
Previous research has demonstrated that digital CBT (dCBT), delivered via the Internet, is a scalable and effective intervention for treating insomnia in otherwise healthy adults and leads to significant improvements in primary outcomes relating to sleep. The majority of people with insomnia, however, seek help because of the functional impact and daytime consequences of poor sleep, not because of sleep discontinuity per se. Although some secondary analyses suggest that dCBT may have wider health benefits, no adequately powered study has investigated these as a primary endpoint. This study specifically aims to investigate the impact of dCBT for insomnia upon health and well-being, and will investigate sleep-related changes as mediating factors. We propose a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial of 1000 community participants meeting criteria for insomnia disorder. In the DIALS trial (Digital Insomnia therapy to Assist your Life as well as your Sleep), participants will be randomised to dCBT delivered using web and/or mobile channels (in addition to treatment as usual (TAU)) or to sleep hygiene education (SHE), comprising a website plus a downloadable booklet (in addition to TAU). Online assessments will take place at 0 (baseline), 4 (mid-treatment), 8 (post-treatment), and 24 (follow-up) weeks. At week 25 all participants allocated to SHE will be offered dCBT, at which point the controlled element of the trial will be complete. Naturalistic follow-up will be invited at weeks 36 and 48. Primary outcomes are functional health and well-being at 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes are mood, fatigue, sleepiness, cognitive function, productivity and social functioning. All main analyses will be carried out at the end of the final controlled follow-up assessments and will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. Further analyses will determine whether observed changes in functional health and well-being are mediated by changes in sleep. The trial is funded by Big Health Ltd. This study will be the first large-scale, specifically designed investigation of the health and well-being benefits of CBT for insomnia, and the first examination of the association between CBT-mediated sleep improvement and health status. ISRCTN60530898 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 67% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 253 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 251 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 11% |
| Researcher | 24 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 7% |
| Other | 51 | 20% |
| Unknown | 79 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 64 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 10% |
| Unknown | 92 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,364,168
of 25,990,612 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#789
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,859
of 350,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#41
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,990,612 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,493 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.