Cited by 56Sleep and related disordersDigital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Digital Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia for Adolescents With Mental Health Problems: Feasibility Open Trial

Open access
Cliffe, Bethany, Croker, Abigail, Denne, Megan, Smith, Jacqueline, Stallard, Paul·2020·JMIR Mental Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Insomnia in adolescents is common, persistent, and associated with poor mental health including anxiety and depression. Insomnia in adolescents attending child mental health services is seldom directly treated, and the effects of digital cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia (CBTi) on the mental health of adolescents with significant mental health problems are unknown. Objective: This open study aimed to assess the feasibility of adding supported Web-based CBT for insomnia to the usual care of young people aged 14 to 17 years attending specialist child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Methods: A total of 39 adolescents with insomnia aged 14 to 17 years attending specialist CAMHS were assessed and offered digital CBTi. The digital intervention was Sleepio, an evidence-based, self-directed, fully automated CBTi that has proven effective in multiple randomized controlled trials with adults. Self-report assessments of sleep (Sleep Condition Indicator [SCI], Insomnia Severity Scale, and Web- or app-based sleep diaries), anxiety (Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale [RCADS]), and depression (Mood and Feelings Questionnaire [MFQ]) were completed at baseline and post intervention. Postuse interviews assessed satisfaction with digital CBTi. Results: Average baseline sleep efficiency was very poor (53%), with participants spending an average of 9.6 hours in bed but only 5.1 hours asleep. All participants scored less than 17 on the SCI, with 92% (36/39) participants scoring 15 or greater on the Insomnia Severity Scale, suggesting clinical insomnia. Of the 39 participants, 36 (92%) scored 27 or greater on the MFQ for major depression and 20 (51%) had clinically elevated symptoms of anxiety. The majority of participants (38/49, 78%) were not having any treatment for their insomnia, with the remaining 25% (12/49) receiving medication. Sleepio was acceptable, with 77% (30/39) of the participants activating their account and 54% (21/39) completing the program. Satisfaction was high, with 84% (16/19) of the participants finding Sleepio helpful, 95% (18/19) indicating that they would recommend it to a friend, and 37% (7/19) expressing a definite preference for a digital intervention. Statistically significant pre-post improvements were found in weekly diaries of sleep efficiency (P=.005) and sleep quality (P=.001) and on measures of sleep (SCI: P=.001 and Insomnia Severity Index: P=.001), low mood (MFQ: P=.03), and anxiety (RCADS: P=.005). Conclusions: Our study has a number of methodological limitations, particularly the small sample size, absence of a comparison group and no follow-up assessment. Nonetheless, our findings are encouraging and suggest that digital CBTi for young people with mental health problems might offer an acceptable and an effective way to improve both sleep and mental health. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/11324

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/14842

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Fifth Edition 2013 Washington, DC American Psychiatric Publishing

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cliffe, B., Croker, A., Denne, M., Smith, J., & Stallard, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Stallard, Paul
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Published
2020-03-03
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
e14842
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2995086942
Cited by
56
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2
FWCI
5.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Bath
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
digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, adolescents, child and adolescent mental health services, insomnia, depression, anxiety, feasibility, sleep efficiency, treatment acceptability, sleep diary, Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale, Sleep Condition Indicator, digital mental health

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