Cited by 9Sleep and related disordersDigital Mental Health InterventionsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Digital Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Treatment for Insomnia, Nightmares, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms in Survivors of Wildfires: Pilot Randomized Feasibility Trial

Open access
Isaac, Fadia, Klein, Britt, Nguyen, Huy, Watson, Shaun, Kennedy, Gerard A·2025·JMIR Human Factors

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Symptoms of insomnia, nightmares, and trauma are highly prevalent. However, there are significant barriers to accessing evidence-based treatments for these conditions, leading to poor mental health outcomes. Objective: This pilot trial evaluated the feasibility of a 4-week, digital self-paced intervention combining cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia and exposure, relaxation, and rescripting therapy for nightmares in survivors of wildfires from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Methods: Study participants were recruited between May 2023 and December 2023 through social media platforms, workshops, conferences, and radio interviews. Participants had to meet at least one of the following criteria: a score of ≥8 on the Insomnia Severity Index, a score of ≥3 on the Nightmare Disorder Index, or a score of ≥31 on the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5. In total, 30 survivors of wildfires were allocated to either the treatment group (n=16, 53%) or the waitlist control group (n=14, 47%) in a sequential manner. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 79 years, with a mean age of 52.50 (SD 16.26) years. The cohort consisted of 63% (19/30) female and 37% (11/30) male participants. Participants also completed self-report secondary outcome measures, including the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, via the HealthZone digital platform. Assessments were conducted at baseline, the posttreatment time point, and the 3-month follow-up, with the waitlist group undergoing an additional assessment at the pretreatment time point, after 4 weeks of waiting and before crossing over to treatment. This study used intention-to-treat analysis as a primary analysis and per-protocol analysis as a secondary analysis. Results: Mixed-effects linear regression models and difference-in-differences analyses were used to assess the intervention’s effects. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed significant improvements over time (main effect of time), with a 1.64-point reduction (P=.001) on the Nightmare Disorder Index and 10.64-point reduction (P=.009) on the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 at the postintervention time point. No significant changes were observed in insomnia symptoms. On the secondary measures, there was an interaction effect of condition × time, with a 2.22-point reduction (P<.001) on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and a main effect of time, with a 6.48-point reduction (P<.001) on the Patient Health Questionnaire–9. No changes were detected on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7. The per-protocol analysis yielded comparable results for both the primary and secondary measures. Conclusions: The findings of this pilot trial demonstrated a reduction in nightmares and trauma symptoms. Future research studies should aim at evaluating the intervention in a more definitive trial with a larger sample size. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12623000415606; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=385054

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 · 10.2196/65228

Cites

12 of 12 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

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

Authors
Isaac, F., Klein, B., Nguyen, H., Watson, S., & Kennedy, G. A.
Affiliations
  • Federation University (AU)
  • RMIT University (AU)
Corresponding author
Isaac, Fadia
Venue
JMIR Human Factors
Published
2025-03-14
Volume
12
Pages
e65228
ISSN
2292-9495 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408424385
Cited by
9
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 2
FWCI
9.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Human Factors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
digital cognitive behavioral therapy, insomnia, nightmares, post-traumatic stress disorder, exposure therapy, relaxation training, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, feasibility, mental health interventions, sleep quality, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress symptoms, natural disasters, access to mental health care, waitlist control, intention-to-treat analysis
MeSH terms
Wildfires, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Australia, Canada, Dreams, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, United States, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Survivors, Young Adult

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