Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36917145›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2023

eHealth-Based Psychosocial Interventions for Adults With Insomnia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Wenrui Deng, Rianne M J J van der Kleij, Hongxia Shen, Junjie Wei, Evelyn A Brakema, Nick Guldemond, Xiaoyue Song, Xiaoming Li, Marie-José van Tol, André Aleman and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Wenrui DengDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4890-2930
Rianne M J J van der KleijDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8638-4978
Hongxia ShenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0601-4708
Junjie WeiDepartment of Medical Psychology, School of Mental Health and Psychological Science, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2107-6760
Evelyn A BrakemaDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7376-4648
Nick GuldemondDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4909-2220
Xiaoyue SongDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6533-6136
Xiaoming LiDepartment of Medical Psychology, School of Mental Health and Psychological Science, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5228-1372
Marie-José van TolCognitive Neuroscience Center, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Cells and Systems, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9260-5490
André AlemanCognitive Neuroscience Center, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Cells and Systems, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5372-0886
Niels H ChavannesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8607-9199
Leiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLAnhui Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorldwide, insomnia remains a highly prevalent public health problem. eHealth presents a novel opportunity to deliver effective, accessible, and affordable insomnia treatments on a population-wide scale. However, there is no quantitative integration of evidence regarding the effectiveness of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions on insomnia.

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions for insomnia and investigate the influence of specific study characteristics and intervention features on these effects.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to February 16, 2021, for publications investigating eHealth-based psychosocial interventions targeting insomnia and updated the search of PubMed to December 6, 2021. We also screened gray literature for unpublished data. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions targeting adults with insomnia. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to assess primary and secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were insomnia severity and sleep quality. Meta-analyses were performed by pooling the effects of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions on insomnia compared with inactive and in-person conditions. We performed subgroup analyses and metaregressions to explore specific factors that affected the effectiveness. Secondary outcomes included sleep diary parameters and mental health-related outcomes.

resultsOf the 19,980 identified records, 37 randomized controlled trials (13,227 participants) were included. eHealth-based psychosocial interventions significantly reduced insomnia severity (Hedges g=-1.01, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.89; P<.001) and improved sleep quality (Hedges g=-0.58, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.41; P<.001) compared with inactive control conditions, with no evidence of publication bias. We found no significant difference compared with in-person treatment in alleviating insomnia severity (Hedges g=0.41, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.85; P=.06) and a significant advantage for in-person treatment in enhancing sleep quality (Hedges g=0.56, 95% CI 0.24-0.88; P<.001). eHealth-based psychosocial interventions had significantly larger effects (P=.01) on alleviating insomnia severity in clinical samples than in subclinical samples. eHealth-based psychosocial interventions that incorporated guidance from trained therapists had a significantly greater effect on insomnia severity (P=.05) and sleep quality (P=.02) than those with guidance from animated therapists or no guidance. Higher baseline insomnia severity and longer intervention duration were associated with a larger reduction in insomnia severity (P=.004). eHealth-based psychosocial interventions significantly improved each secondary outcome.

conclusionseHealth interventions for insomnia are effective in improving sleep and mental health and can be considered a promising treatment for insomnia. Our findings support the wider dissemination of eHealth interventions and their further promotion in a stepped-care model. Offering blended care could improve treatment effectiveness. Future research needs to elucidate which specific intervention components are most important to achieve intervention effectiveness. Blended eHealth interventions may be tailored to benefit people with low socioeconomic status, limited access to health care, or lack of eHealth literacy.

Indexed as

Sleep Initiation and Maintenance DisordersTelemedicineAdultHumansMental HealthPsychosocial InterventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicadultseHealthinsomniameta-analysismobile phonepsychosocial interventions

Identifiers

PMID36917145
PMCPMC10131777
OpenAlexW4312423121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.