Sleep medicine reviews · 2024
An evaluation of psychosocial sleep interventions for children with chronic health conditions: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
McLay Laurie, Hunter Jolene, Ballam Kimberly, Marie Emerson Lisa, Day Andrew S, Vandeleur Moya, Dalton Samuel, Radcliffe Zoe, Woodford Emma
Аннотация
Chronic health conditions (CHC; e.g., cystic fibrosis, type 1 diabetes) in children are associated with disease-specific physical symptoms that contribute to a high prevalence of sleep problems. Sleep problems exacerbate other health-related sequelae and can impede therapeutic response to health treatments, increasing the overall complexity of symptom management. Psychosocial sleep interventions (PSI) improve sleep in children with typical development and neurodevelopmental conditions. Yet, the effectiveness of PSI for children with CHC has scarcely been investigated. This systematic review appraises the literature examining the effectiveness and acceptability of PSI for children with CHC. A search identified 20 studies that met inclusion criteria. Data related to participant characteristics, sleep targets, research design and methods, measures, sleep outcomes and collateral effects were extracted. Study rigor was then evaluated. Most studies evaluated youth-directed Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia or parent-implemented behavioral sleep interventions. Twelve studies demonstrated positive sleep treatment effects and four demonstrated mixed effects. Collateral improvements were reported in child mental health and parental health and well-being, though physical health benefits for children were not consistently reported. One, five and 14 studies were rated as having strong, adequate, and weak methodological rigor respectively. Recommendations for clinical practice and future research are made.