A self-help book is better than sleep hygiene advice for insomnia: A randomized controlled comparative study
Abstract
The objective was to compare the effects of two types of written material for insomnia in a randomized trial with follow-up after three months. Insomniacs were recruited through newspaper advertisements to a web-based survey with validated questionnaires about sleep, anxiety, depression, and use of sleep medications. A self-help book focusing on cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia was compared to standard sleep hygiene advice; 77 and 78 participants were randomized to self-help book or sleep hygiene advice, respectively. The response rate was 81.9%. The self-help book gave significantly better scores on the sleep questionnaires compared to sleep hygiene advice. The proportion using sleep medications was reduced in the self-help book group, whereas it was increased in the sleep hygiene group. Compared to pre-treatment, the self-help book improved scores on the sleep (effect sizes 0.61-0.62) and depression (effect size 0.18) scales, whereas the sleep hygiene advice improved scores on some sleep scales (effect sizes 0.24-0.28), but worsened another (effect size -0.36). In addition, sleep hygiene advice increased the number of days per week where they took sleep medications (effect size -0.50). To conclude, in this randomized controlled trial, the self-help book improved sleep and reduced the proportion using sleep medications compared to sleep hygiene advice. The self-help book is an efficient low-threshold intervention, which is cheap and easily available for patients suffering from insomnia. Sleep hygiene advice also improved sleep at follow-up, but increased sleep medication use. Thus, caution is warranted when sleep hygiene advice are given as a single treatment.
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?
In the recent COMISA study, 22% of COMISA patients reported that they did not read the CBTi material, compared to only 5% of insomnia patients in the previous RCT.
“Indeed, 22% of the COMISA patients reported that they did not read the CBTi material, compared to only 5% of insomnia patients investigated in the previous RCT [84,85].”
From Co-morbid insomnia and sleep apnea (COMISA): Prevalence, consequences, methodological considerations, and recent randomized controlled trials (2019) · cites this paper as [85]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 26 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- BJORVATN, B., FISKE, E., & PALLESEN, S.
- Affiliations
- Haukeland University Hospital (NO)
- Corresponding author
- BJORVATN, BJØRN
- Venue
- Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-07-26
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 580-585
- ISSN
- 0036-5564 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9450
- OpenAlex
- W1902845723
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 4.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Scandinavian Journal of Psychology (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
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
- Keywords
- insomnia, self-help books, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, sleep medication use, depression, anxiety, low-threshold intervention
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Bibliotherapy, Female, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sleep, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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