Cited by 131Sleep and related disordersDigital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Internet-delivered or mailed self-help treatment for insomnia?: a randomized waiting-list controlled trial

Lancee, Jaap, van den Bout, Jan, van Straten, Annemieke, Spoormaker, Victor I.·2012·Behaviour Research and Therapy

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2011.09.012

Cites

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?

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