Cited by 185Sleep and related disordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health Interventions

Self-help therapy for insomnia: a meta-analysis

van Straten, Annemieke, Cuijpers, Pim·2009·Sleep Medicine Reviews

Abstract

Background Insomnia is a prevalent problem which often leads to a reduced quality of life and diminished work productivity. Only a minority of patients are treated with effective non-pharmacological therapies. A self-help intervention might offer an inexpensive and more accessible alternative to face-to-face treatment.Methods We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies examining the effects of self-help interventions for insomnia, identified through extensive searches of bibliographical databases. We examined the effects of self-help on different sleep outcomes, in comparison with both waiting lists controls and face-to-face treatments.Results Ten studies with a total of 1000 subjects were included. The intervention did improve sleep efficiency (d=0.42; p<0.05), sleep onset latency (d=0.29; p<0.05), wake after sleep onset (d=0.44; p<0.05) and sleep quality (d=0.33; p<0.05) but not total sleep time (d=0.02; p>0.05). The sleep improvements were maintained over the longer term. Symptoms of anxiety and depression also decreased after self-help (d=0.28; p<0.05 and d=0.51; p<0.05, respectively). Although based on a very limited number of studies, the face-to-face treatments did not show statistically significant superiority to the self-help treatments. The effect sizes associated with self-help treatments might be overestimated due to publication bias.Conclusions The effects of self-help treatments are small to moderate. Nevertheless, they might constitute a useful addition to existing treatment options especially when integrated in a stepped care approach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.smrv.2008.04.006

Cites

51 of 51 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
van Straten, A., & Cuijpers, P.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Sleep Medicine Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-02
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
61-71
ISSN
1087-0792 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085833142
Cited by
185
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sleep Medicine Reviews (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 › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
insomnia, self-help intervention, non-pharmacological treatment, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset, sleep quality, anxiety, depression, stepped care, long-term treatment outcomes
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Combined Modality Therapy, Depression, Humans, Disorders of Excessive Somnolence, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Physician-Patient Relations, Self Care, Comorbidity, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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