Cited by 31Sleep and related disordersMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Insomnia

El Rafihi-Ferreira, Renatha, Morin, Charles M, Hasan, Rosa, Brasil, Israel S, Zago Ribeiro, José Humberto, Cecília Toscanini, Andrea·2023·Behavioral Sleep Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of protocols for acceptance and commitment therapy for insomnia (ACT-I) and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in adults. METHOD: = 10.7) with chronic insomnia who were randomized to 6 weekly group sessions consisting of ACT-I (n = 19) or CBT-I (n = 18). The primary outcome measures were based on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) total score, a measure of insomnia complaints, and included the proportions of treatment responders (defined as a change in score of 8 points or more) and remitters (defined as a final score below 8). RESULTS: Both treatment modalities significantly reduced insomnia severity. Post-treatment, the proportion of treatment responders was higher in the CBT-I than the ACT-I (64.7% vs. 50.0%, respectively) group and six months later, ACT-I made further improvements whereas CBT-I had a reduced treatment response (58.8% vs. 55.6%, respectively). CBT-I was associated with a higher proportion of insomnia remission at post treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both CBT-I and ACT-I are effective, with a higher proportion of insomnia remitters in CBT-I post-treatment. The different change trajectories for the two therapy groups provide insights into behavioral change via a cognitive versus contextual approach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15402002.2022.2071272

Cites

47 of 47 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
El Rafihi-Ferreira, R., Morin, C. M., Hasan, R., Brasil, I. S., Zago Ribeiro, J. H., & Cecília Toscanini, A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychiatry, Ambulatório de Sono do Instituto de Psiquiatria do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de São Paulo, Brazil
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Venue
Behavioral Sleep Medicine
Published
2022-05-10
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
193-207
ISSN
  • 1540-2002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-2010
OpenAlex
W4280537438
Cited by
31
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
6.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Sleep Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2018/19506-5 and 2019/25537-3)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
chronic insomnia, acceptance and commitment therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, group therapy, insomnia severity, insomnia remission, treatment response, behavior change
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Male, Pilot Projects, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Acceptance and Commitment 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