Cited by 45Sleep and related disordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesObstructive Sleep Apnea Research

Daytime functioning in older patients suffering from chronic insomnia: Treatment outcome in a randomized controlled trial comparing CBT with Zopiclone

Omvik, Siri, Sivertsen, Børge, Pallesen, Ståle, Bjorvatn, Bjørn, Havik, Odd E., Nordhus, Inger Hilde·2008·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

The paper presents data from a randomized controlled trial comparing treatment effects of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), hypnotic treatment (Zopiclone), and placebo in a sample of insomnia patients. Data from the same trial have already demonstrated that CBT was more efficient in improving sleep than Zopiclone. The novel outcomes that are reported here concern daytime functioning. Forty-six older patients (age >or= 55) qualifying for a diagnosis of primary insomnia were recruited to participate. Assessments were completed at baseline, post-treatment, and at a 6-months follow-up, and measures of worry, anxiety, depression, interpersonal relationships, subjective alertness, vigilance, and quality of life were used. The participants in both treatment conditions scored within the normal range on the outcome measures at baseline with the exception of reporting less alertness, relative to a group of good sleepers. One interaction effect indicated that subjective alertness improved more in the Zopiclone group than the CBT group from baseline to post-treatment, and another that CBT was more effective than Zopiclone in reducing trait anxiety from baseline to follow-up. It was concluded that the treatments yielded only minor effects on the measures of daytime functioning, and that none of them was clearly superior to the other.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2008.02.013

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Omvik, S., Sivertsen, B., Pallesen, S., Bjorvatn, B., Havik, O. E., & Nordhus, I. H.
Affiliations
University of Bergen (NO)
Corresponding author
Omvik, Siri
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-05
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
623-641
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151337261
Cited by
45
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
7.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Keywords
chronic insomnia, older adults, cognitive behavioral therapy, zopiclone, hypnotic treatment, daytime functioning, subjective alertness, sustained attention, trait anxiety, depression, quality of life, interpersonal relationships
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Male, Middle Aged, Piperazines, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Quality of Life, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Azabicyclo Compounds

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