Internet-delivered or mailed self-help treatment for insomnia?: a randomized waiting-list controlled trial
Abstract
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is effective in reducing insomnia complaints, but the effects of self-help CBT have been inconsistent. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of self-help for insomnia delivered in either electronic or paper-and-pencil format compared to a waiting-list. Participants kept a diary and filled out questionnaires before they were randomized into electronic (n = 216), paper-and-pencil (n = 205), or waiting-list (n = 202) groups. The intervention consisted of 6 weeks of unsupported self-help CBT, and post-tests were 4, 18, and 48 weeks after intervention. At 4-week follow-up, electronic and paper-and-pencil conditions were superior (p < .01) compared to the waiting-list condition on most daily sleep measures (Δd = 0.29-0.64), global insomnia symptoms (Δd = 0.90-1.00), depression (Δd = 0.36-0.41), and anxiety symptoms (Δd = 0.33-0.40). The electronic and paper-and-pencil groups demonstrated equal effectiveness 4 weeks after treatment (Δd = 0.00-0.22; p > .05). Effects were sustained at 48-week follow-up. This large-scale unsupported self-help study shows moderate to large effects on sleep measures that were still present after 48 weeks. Unsupported self-help CBT for insomnia therefore appears to be a promising first option in a stepped care approach.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The severity of affective experiences is reduced when sleep is improved through intervention.
“There is also evidence that the severity of affective experiences is reduced when sleep is improved through intervention [29–33].”
From A structural equation model of the relationship between insomnia, negative affect, and paranoid thinking (2017) · cites this paper as [31]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 131
- Authors
- Lancee, J., van den Bout, J., van Straten, A., & Spoormaker, V. I.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lancee, Jaap
- Venue
- Behaviour Research and Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-29
- ISSN
- 0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1974167544
- Cited by
- 131
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 12.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- insomnia, self-help, cognitive behavioral therapy, online intervention, sleep quality, depression, anxiety, stepped care
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bibliotherapy, Female, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Self Care, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Waiting Lists, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Internet
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