This non-inferiority trial evaluates SLEEPwindow's effectiveness against CBT-I, indicating potential accessibility benefits.
Chronic insomnia disorder affects up to 10% of the general population and 30% of those with mental disorders. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) is the first-line treatment, but its implementation remains challenging. The SLEEPwindow intervention focuses on the behavioral module of CBT-I (bedtime restriction, stimulus control) and may be an effective, brief, and cost-effective standalone intervention for outpatients with chronic insomnia disorder. This study evaluates whether SLEEPwindow is non-inferior to full CBT-I. This is a non-inferiority trial comparing CBT-I and the SLEEPwindow intervention. A total of 130 patients with chronic insomnia disorder will be randomized into two groups: CBT-I (six 90-minute group sessions) and SLEEPwindow (four 60-minute group sessions). CBT-I includes sleep education, stimulus control, cognitive therapy, relaxation, and bedtime restriction. SLEEPwindow focuses on the behavioral module of CBT-I (bedtime restriction and stimulus control), as a standalone intervention. The primary outcome is the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), measured at baseline, 6 weeks (T1), 3 months (T2), and 6 months (T3). Secondary outcomes include subjective sleep quality (sleep diaries), daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale), sleep-related quality of life (Glasgow Sleep Impact Index), treatment adherence (actigraphy, sleep diaries), subjective treatment experience, and assessment of treatment costs. The primary hypothesis is that SLEEPwindow is non-inferior to CBT-I across time for improving insomnia severity. Non-inferiority will be defined as a difference of no more than 2 points on the ISI, assessed using a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The primary hypothesis of this trial is that SLEEPwindow is non-inferior to full CBT-I. If confirmed, SLEEPwindow could become a more accessible and cost-effective treatment. The study will also provide insights into treatment mechanisms and implementation challenges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Angelillo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: