Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 1998
Stimulus-control: nonpharmacologic treatment for insomnia.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baillargeon L, Demers M, Ladouceur R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and applicability of a behavioural treatment for insomnia that can be administered by family physicians in various clinical settings.
DESIGN: Efficacy of the treatment was evaluated by single-case experimental designs (multiple baseline across subjects). Applicability was assessed through semistructured interviews with physicians.
SETTING: Two private offices, two offices in community health centres, and one office in a family medicine unit.
PARTICIPANTS: Six general practitioners and 24 chronic insomniac patients recruited through media advertisements and from physicians' practices. Of an initial 38 subjects screened, six were excluded for sleep-onset latency less than 30 minutes, five for psychological conditions, one for physical handicaps, and two for other reasons.
INTERVENTIONS: Physicians used stimulus-control treatment during individual therapeutic sessions. Patients using hypnotics were encouraged to taper off their medications after treatment was initiated.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time it took patients to get to sleep (sleep-onset latency), amount of hypnotic use, and practitioners' evaluation of the treatment.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients completed the treatment; 80% of them reduced their sleep-onset latency. Six of the seven patients using hypnotics at the beginning of the study reduced or stopped their medications. All therapeutic gains were maintained at 3 and 6 months. Physicians thought stimulus-control treatment could be used in medical practice, but specified that it was most useful for highly motivated patients.
CONCLUSION: Family physicians can use stimulus-control treatment effectively for patients with chronic insomnia. This nonpharmacologic approach could help motivated patients reduce their use of hypnotics.
DESIGN: Efficacy of the treatment was evaluated by single-case experimental designs (multiple baseline across subjects). Applicability was assessed through semistructured interviews with physicians.
SETTING: Two private offices, two offices in community health centres, and one office in a family medicine unit.
PARTICIPANTS: Six general practitioners and 24 chronic insomniac patients recruited through media advertisements and from physicians' practices. Of an initial 38 subjects screened, six were excluded for sleep-onset latency less than 30 minutes, five for psychological conditions, one for physical handicaps, and two for other reasons.
INTERVENTIONS: Physicians used stimulus-control treatment during individual therapeutic sessions. Patients using hypnotics were encouraged to taper off their medications after treatment was initiated.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time it took patients to get to sleep (sleep-onset latency), amount of hypnotic use, and practitioners' evaluation of the treatment.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients completed the treatment; 80% of them reduced their sleep-onset latency. Six of the seven patients using hypnotics at the beginning of the study reduced or stopped their medications. All therapeutic gains were maintained at 3 and 6 months. Physicians thought stimulus-control treatment could be used in medical practice, but specified that it was most useful for highly motivated patients.
CONCLUSION: Family physicians can use stimulus-control treatment effectively for patients with chronic insomnia. This nonpharmacologic approach could help motivated patients reduce their use of hypnotics.