Cited by 242Sleep and related disordersObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Adolescent Cognitive–Behavioral Sleep Interventions

Open access
Blake, Matthew J., Sheeber, Lisa B., Youssef, George J., Raniti, Monika B., Allen, Nicholas B.·2017·Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of adolescent cognitive-behavioral sleep interventions. Searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were performed from inception to May 1, 2016, supplemented with manual screening. Nine trials were selected (n = 357, mean age = 14.97 years; female = 61.74%). Main outcomes were subjective (sleep diary/questionnaire) and objective (actigraphy) total sleep time (TST), sleep onset latency (SOL), sleep efficiency (SE), and wake after sleep onset (WASO). There were a small number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 4) and a high risk of bias across the RCTs; therefore, within sleep condition meta-analyses were examined (n = 221). At post-intervention, subjective TST improved by 29.47 min (95% CI 17.18, 41.75), SOL by 21.44 min (95% CI -30.78, -12.11), SE by 5.34% (95% CI 2.64, 8.04), and WASO by a medium effect size [d = 0.59 (95% CI 0.36, 0.82)]. Objective SOL improved by 16.15 min (95% CI -26.13, -6.17) and SE by 2.82% (95% CI 0.58, 5.07). Global sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, depression, and anxiety also improved. Gains were generally maintained over time. Preliminary evidence suggests that adolescent cognitive-behavioral sleep interventions are effective, but further high-quality RCTs are needed. Suggestions for further research are provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10567-017-0234-5

Cites

162 of 162 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 164 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blake, M. J., Sheeber, L. B., Youssef, G. J., Raniti, M. B., & Allen, N. B.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Oregon Research Institute (US)
  • Royal Children's Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Allen, Nicholas B.
Venue
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Published
2017-03-22
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
227-249
ISSN
  • 1096-4037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2827
OpenAlex
W2603508099
Cited by
242
References
164
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 3
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
adolescents, sleep disorders, total sleep time, sleep latency, sleep efficiency, wake after sleep onset, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, depression, anxiety, maintenance therapy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Anxiety, Depression, Humans, Sleep Wake Disorders, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review