Trial reportSleep2026
USleep: efficacy of app-based audio interventions to improve sleep disturbance in working adults, a multi-arm randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Sleep, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of three categories of standalone, audio-based sleep interventions (Bedtime Stories, Sleep Sounds, Sleep Skills) delivered via mental health application (MHapp) in improving sleep among working adults with sleep disturbance.
methodsA multi-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted. Adults with self-reported sleep disturbances were recruited online and randomly allocated to Bedtime Stories, Sleep Sounds, Sleep Skills, or digital control. Participants completed self-report questionnaires on sleep disturbance and other related outcomes at baseline (t0) and after the 4-week intervention (t1). The primary analysis followed an intention-to-treat approach using mixed-effects models.
resultsA total of 495 working adults (mean age = 32.7 years; 55.8% female) were randomized. For sleep disturbance (primary outcome), the between-group Hedges' g effect sizes were very small and not statistically significant (Bedtimes stories vs. control: g = 0.12, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.37, Sleep Sounds vs. control: g = 0.14, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.39, Sleep Skills 0.07, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29), with slightly greater reductions in sleep disturbance for the intervention groups than control. The same pattern was observed for sleep-related impairment, mental health, well-being, and pre-sleep arousal.
conclusionAudio-based sleep interventions delivered via a MHapp did not demonstrate superior efficacy over a digital control condition in reducing self-reported sleep disturbance among working adults. Although safe and well-tolerated, their use as standalone treatments for sleep disturbance is not supported by these findings. Future research should explore effectiveness in real-world settings, including user content choice across categories, and use objective sleep measures. CLINICAL
trial registrationRegistered at https://www.isrctn.com/ under "Evaluating the efficacy of audio-based digital tools to improve sleep on the Unmind workplace well-being platform"; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13426045; registration number: 13426045.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.