Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for insomnia with veterans: Evaluation of effectiveness and correlates of treatment outcomes.

Behaviour Research and Therapy (Impact Factor: 3.85). 12/2013; 53C:41-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2013.11.006
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This paper examines the effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in Veterans and the effects of two process measures on CBT-I outcomes: 1) therapist ratings of patient adherence and 2) patient ratings of therapeutic alliance. Data are from 316 therapists in the Department of Veterans Affairs CBT-I Training Program and 696 patients receiving CBT-I from therapists undergoing training. Mixed effects model results indicate Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased from 20.7 at baseline to 10.9 (d = 2.3) during a typical course of CBT-I. Patients with highest tercile compared to those with lowest tercile adherence achieved, on average, 4.1 points greater reduction in ISI scores (d = 0.95). The effect of therapeutic alliance on change in insomnia severity was not significant after adjusting for adherence to CBT-I. These results support the effectiveness and feasibility of large-scale training in and implementation of CBT-I and indicate that greater focus on patient adherence may lead to enhanced outcomes. The current findings suggest that CBT-I therapists and training programs place greater emphasis on attending to and increasing patient adherence.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and Objectives Clinical responsiveness to cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp) varies. Recent research has demonstrated that illness perceptions predict active engagement in therapy, and, thereby, better outcomes. In this study, we aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of a modification of the Illness Perceptions Questionnaire (M-IPQ) designed to predict response following CBTp. Methods Fifty-six participants with persistent, distressing delusions completed the M-IPQ; forty before a brief CBT intervention targeting persecutory ideation and sixteen before and after a control condition. Additional predictors of outcome (delusional conviction, symptom severity and belief inflexibility) were assessed at baseline. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at follow-up four to eight weeks later. Results The M-IPQ comprised two factors measuring problem duration and therapy-specific perceptions of Cure/Control. Associated subscales, formed by summing the relevant items for each factor, were reliable in their structure. The Cure/Control subscale was also reliable over time; showed convergent validity with other predictors of outcome; predicted therapy outcomes; and differentially predicted treatment effects. Limitations We measured outcome without an associated measure of engagement, in a small sample. Findings are consistent with hypothesis and existing research, but require replication in a larger, purposively recruited sample. Conclusions The Cure/Control subscale of the M-IPQ shows promise as a predictor of response to therapy. Specifically targeting these illness perceptions in the early stages of cognitive behavioural therapy may improve engagement and, consequently, outcomes.
    Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 12/2014; 45(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.06.003 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Chronic insomnia is highly prevalent among military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. We evaluated the effects of a military version of a brief behavioral treatment of insomnia (BBTI-MV) compared to an information only control (IC) condition in combat-exposed Veterans of Operations Enduring/Iraqi Freedom or Operation New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) on insomnia, sleep quality, and daytime symptoms of anxiety and depression. Method Forty OEF/OIF/OND Veterans (Mean age = 38.4 years old, s.d. = 11.69; 85% men; 77.5% white) were randomized to one of two conditions. BBTI-MV consisted of two in-person sessions and two telephone contacts delivered over four weeks, and included personalized recommendations to reduce insomnia. The IC condition also consisted of 2 in-person sessions two telephone contacts delivered over four weeks, and Veterans were encouraged to read written information about sleep-promoting behaviors. The Insomnia Severity Index, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, PTSD Checklist, and Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories were completed at baseline, post-treatment, and at the six-month follow-up. Results Both interventions were associated with clinically significant improvements in insomnia, although the magnitude of improvements in sleep and rates of treatment response and remission were greater for BBTI-MV compared to IC from pre- to post-treatment. Conclusion Both BBTI-MV and the provision of information were associated with clinically significant improvements in insomnia among Veterans. Despite the preliminary nature of the findings and limitations inherent to small controlled trials, the findings suggest that both approaches may provide viable options in a stepped-care approach to the treatment of insomnia in retuning combat-exposed Veterans. Larger, confirmatory effectiveness trials are required. Identifier: NCT00840255.
    Behaviour Research and Therapy 10/2014; 61. DOI:10.1016/j.brat.2014.07.016 · 3.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Replies to comments by H. Holt and L. E. Beutler (see record 2014-40532-003), M. M. Steenkamp and B. Litz (see record 2014-40532-004), and L. R. Greene (see record 2014-40532-006) on the original article by B. E. Karlin and G. Cross (see record 2013-31043-001) on the national dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychotherapies in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. Karlin and Cross comment on and clarify key issues raised in the commentaries and related aspects of the dissemination and implementation model. At the same time, several of the issues raised in the commentaries are beyond the scope of the original article, including issues related to specific research or the relative effectiveness of psychotherapies, on which there is rich discussion and debate in other contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    American Psychologist 10/2014; 69(7):709-711. DOI:10.1037/a0037384 · 6.87 Impact Factor