2013Journal of Primary Health CareOpen access

A double-blind randomised controlled study of a brief intervention of bedtime restriction for adult patients with primary insomnia

Antonio Fernando, Bruce Arroll, Karen Falloon

Open full text 23 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Bedtime restriction is effective for volunteer patients with primary insomnia. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of bedtime restriction in adult volunteers with primary insomnia. METHODS: Patients were recruited in response to articles in local newspapers. The study hypothesis was not given in the articles. Patients were assessed as to whether or not they had primary insomnia. They completed a two-week sleep diary after which they met the investigators and were randomised to either bedtime restriction and basic sleep hygiene or the control group with basic sleep hygiene only. A total of 224 potential participants applied to be in the study. Of the 52 who had primary insomnia, 45 were randomly allocated to either control or intervention group and only two did not complete the study. Randomisation was concealed and participants were blinded regarding the treatment. The primary outcome was also measured in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: The outcome evaluated was patient description of 'better' or 'much better' quality of sleep versus the 'same', 'worse' or 'much worse' quality of sleep at six weeks. Overall, 73% (16/22) of those in the intervention group were either having better or much better quality of sleep after treatment, while in the control group this was 35% (8/23). The number needed to treat was 3 [95% CI 2-11] for bedtime restriction and sleep hygiene versus sleep hygiene alone. DISCUSSION: This is the first study using bedtime restriction designed to be feasible in primary care by using a brief intervention and a patient-oriented outcome.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

INTRODUCTION: Bedtime restriction is effective for volunteer patients with primary insomnia. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of bedtime restriction in adult volunteers with primary insomnia. METHODS: Patients were recruited in response to articles in local newspapers. The study hypothesis was not given in the articles. Patients were assessed as to whether or not they had primary insomnia. They completed a two-week sleep diary after which they met the investigators and were randomised to either bedtime restriction and basic sleep hygiene or the control group with basic sleep hygiene only. A total of 224 potential participants applied to be in the study. Of the 52 who had primary insomnia, 45 were randomly allocated to either control or intervention group and only two did not complete the study. Randomisation was concealed and participants were blinded regarding the treatment. The primary outcome was also measured in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: The outcome evaluated was patient description of 'better' or 'much better' quality of sleep versus the 'same', 'worse' or 'much worse' quality of sleep at six weeks. Overall, 73% (16/22) of those in the intervention group were either having better or much better quality of sleep after treatment, while in the control group this was 35% (8/23). The number needed to treat was 3 [95% CI 2-11] for bedtime restriction and sleep hygiene versus sleep hygiene alone. DISCUSSION: This is the first study using bedtime restriction designed to be feasible in primary care by using a brief intervention and a patient-oriented outcome.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 23 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

INTRODUCTION: Bedtime restriction is effective for volunteer patients with primary insomnia. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of bedtime restriction in adult volunteers with primary insomnia. METHODS: Patients were recruited in response to articles in local newspapers. The study hypothesis was not given in the articles. Patients were assessed as to whether or not they had primary insomnia. They completed a two-week sleep diary after which they met the investigators and were randomised to either bedtime restriction and basic sleep hygiene or the control group with basic sleep hygiene only. A total of 224 potential participants applied to be in the study. Of the 52 who had primary insomnia, 45 were randomly allocated to either control or intervention group and only two did not complete the study. Randomisation was concealed and participants were blinded regarding the treatment. The primary outcome was also measured in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: The outcome evaluated was patient description of 'better' or 'much better' quality of sleep versus the 'same', 'worse' or 'much worse' quality of sleep at six weeks. Overall, 73% (16/22) of those in the intervention group were either having better or much better quality of sleep after treatment, while in the control group this was 35% (8/23). The number needed to treat was 3 [95% CI 2-11] for bedtime restriction and sleep hygiene versus sleep hygiene alone. DISCUSSION: This is the first study using bedtime restriction designed to be feasible in primary care by using a brief intervention and a patient-oriented outcome.

Key concepts: Bedtime, Insomnia, Intervention (counseling), Medicine, Primary Insomnia, Physical therapy, Double blind, Randomized controlled trial

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A double-blind randomised controlled study of a brief intervention of bedtime restriction for adult patients with primary insomnia — Research Paper | ScholarLens