Cited by 85Sleep and related disordersInfant Health and DevelopmentPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Long-term efficacy of an internet-based intervention for infant and toddler sleep disturbances: one year follow-up

Open access
Mindell, Jodi A., Du Mond, Courtney E., Sadeh, Avi, Telofski, Lorena S., Kulkarni, Neema, Gunn, Euen·2011·Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine

Abstract

Objective To examine at one-year follow-up the efficacy of an internet-based intervention for infant and toddler sleep disturbances, as well as to assess any indirect benefits to maternal sleep and confidence.Methods Participants included 171 (64.8%) of 264 mothers of an infant or toddler (ages 18-48 months) who had previously participated in a 3-week study. Families had been randomly assigned to one of 2 intervention groups (algorithmic internet-based intervention alone or in combination with a prescribed bedtime routine) or a control group. After a one-week baseline, the intervention groups followed personalized sleep recommendations. The initial internet-intervention was found to be efficacious at 2 weeks post-intervention. The current study investigates a one-year follow-up, with mothers completing a short survey that included 8 questions from the Brief Infant Sleep Questionnaire and 1 question from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.Results Improvements in difficulty falling asleep, number/duration of night wakings, and longest continuous sleep period were maintained at one year follow-up in the 2 intervention groups compared to baseline and end of the initial study, p < 0.001. Children in the control group, in which limited changes were seen in the initial study, showed improvements in the duration of night wakings and longest continuous sleep period compared to the end of the initial study. Mothers in all groups were less likely to describe their child's sleep as a problem.Conclusions These results suggest that a brief internet-intervention for early childhood sleep problems is effective in improving child and maternal sleep, with improvements maintained one year later.

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 · 10.5664/jcsm.1320

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • In a one-year follow-up of that study, effects for both intervention conditions were maintained relative to controls, and 87% of mothers in the bedtime routine condition continued using the routine at least half the time.

    “effects for both intervention conditions were maintained relative to controls in a one-year follow-up study, with 87% of mothers in bedtime routine condition continuing to use this specific routine at least half of the time”

    From Benefits of a bedtime routine in young children: Sleep, development, and beyond. (2018) · cites this paper as [70]

    The Child Sleep section reports that improvements were maintained at one year in both intervention groups, and Sleep Recommendations reports that 87.3% of mothers prescribed the routine continued using it at least half the time. The paper assessed changes within groups, however, rather than establishing that the maintained effects were relative to controls; the control group also improved on some sleep measures. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mindell, J. A., Du Mond, C. E., Sadeh, A., Telofski, L. S., Kulkarni, N., & Gunn, E.
Affiliations
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Mindell, Jodi A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine
Published
2011-10-15
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
507-511
ISSN
  • 1550-9389 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9397
OpenAlex
W2042796599
Cited by
85
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Infant Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
infant sleep problems, toddler sleep, online intervention, sleep coaching, bedtime routines, nocturnal awakenings, maternal sleep, maternal confidence, long-term follow-up, algorithmic intervention
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Behavior Therapy, Child Behavior, Child, Preschool, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Mothers, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sleep, Sleep Wake Disorders, Time, Treatment Outcome, Internet, 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