Cited by 60Sleep and related disordersObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Who Benefits From CBT for Insomnia in Primary Care? Important Patient Selection and Trial Design Lessons from Longitudinal Results of the Lifestyles Trial

Open access
McCurry, Susan M., Shortreed, Susan M., Von Korff, Michael, Balderson, Benjamin H., Baker, Laura D., Rybarczyk, Bruce D., Vitiello, Michael V.·2014·Sleep

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Evaluate long-term effects of group interventions on sleep and pain outcomes in a primary care population of older adults with osteoarthritis pain and sleep disturbance. DESIGN: Double-blind, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 18-mo follow-up. SETTING: Group Health and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, from 2009 to 2011. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred sixty-seven adults age 60 y and older, with osteoarthritis pain and insomnia symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: Six weekly sessions of group cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia and pain (CBT-PI), pain alone (CBT-P), and education-only control (EOC) delivered in patients' primary care clinics. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: There were no significant differences between treatment groups in sleep outcomes at 18 mo. This is a change from published significant 9-mo follow-up results for insomnia severity (Insomnia Severity Index) and sleep efficiency. There were no significant treatment differences in pain at either follow-up. Post hoc analyses of participants with greater insomnia and pain severity at baseline (n = 98) showed significant (P = 0.01) 18-mo reductions in pain comparing CBT-PI versus CBT-P (adjusted mean difference [AMD] = -1.29 [95% confidence interval (CI): -2.24,-0.33]). Moderate, albeit nonsignificant, CBT-PI versus EOC treatment effects for insomnia severity (AMD = -1.43 [95% CI: -4.71, 1.86]) and sleep efficiency (AMD = 2.50 [95% CI: -5.04, 10.05]) were also observed. Possible trial design and methodological considerations that may have affected results are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest patients with higher levels of comorbid pain and insomnia may be most likely to experience sustained benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy interventions over time, and inclusion of insomnia treatment may yield more clinically meaningful improvements than cognitive behavioral therapy for pain alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01142349.

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 · 10.5665/sleep.3402

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • McCurry et al. (2014) found that at 18-month follow-up, benefits in pain, insomnia severity, and sleep efficiency were larger after CBT-IP than in CBT-P and education intervention groups.

    “The long-term (18 months) evaluation of a subgroup of patients with severe pain and insomnia revealed that the benefits gained in pain, insomnia severity and sleep efficiency were larger after CBT-IP than in CBT-P and the education intervention groups (McCurry et al. 2014).”

    From Efficacy of Combined Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia and Pain in Patients with Fibromyalgia: A Randomized Controlled Trial (2018) · cites this paper as McCurry et al. 2014

    Table 3 (Longitudinal Effects; page unavailable) shows point estimates favoring CBT-PI over CBT-P and education-only control for pain and insomnia severity in the high-pain, high-insomnia subgroup. Its sleep-efficiency estimate also slightly favors CBT-PI, but sleep efficiency declined from baseline in that arm, and group differences in sleep efficiency and insomnia severity were not statistically significant. The claim presents these uncertain comparisons as benefits gained across all three outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • McCurry et al. (2014) found that patients with high severity of insomnia and pain at baseline showed greater improvements in pain after CBT-IP (compared to CBT-P) at 18 months of follow-up.

    “Similarly, McCurry et al. (2014) found that patients with a high severity of insomnia and pain at baseline showed greater improvements in pain after CBT-IP (compared to CBT-P) at 18 months of followup.”
  • McCurry et al. (2014) found no differences among the three treatment conditions in sleep variables at 18 months of follow-up, though participants with higher baseline insomnia and pain showed greater (but not significant) improvements in insomnia severity and sleep efficiency in the CBT-IP group than in the education intervention group.

    “By contrast, no differences among the three treatment conditions in sleep variables were observed at 18 months of follow-up, though participants with higher levels of insomnia and pain at baseline showed greater (but not significant) improvements in insomnia severity and sleep efficiency in the CBT-IP group than in the education intervention group (McCurry et al. 2014).”

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. Guillemin F, Coste J, Pouchot J, Ghézail M, Bregeon C, Sany J. The AIMS2-SF: A short form of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2. French Quality of Life in Rheumatology Group. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1267-74.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCurry, S. M., Shortreed, S. M., Von Korff, M., Balderson, B. H., Baker, L. D., Rybarczyk, B. D., & Vitiello, M. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
  • Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
McCurry, Susan M.
Venue
Sleep
Published
2014-02-01
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
299-308
ISSN
  • 0161-8105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9109
OpenAlex
W1965979686
Cited by
60
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5
FWCI
8.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SLEEP (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG031126)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, group intervention, insomnia, osteoarthritis pain, sleep disorders, older adults, primary care, long-term treatment outcomes, patient selection, trial design, sleep efficiency, pain outcomes
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Life Style, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Osteoarthritis, Pain, Primary Health Care, Research Design, Sleep, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Patient Selection, Pain Management

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