English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Comorbid osteoarthritis (OA) and insomnia is common in older adults. CBT-I is efficacious for improving sleep in older persons with OA but not widely accessible. We examined treatment process data from OATS, a large ongoing clinical trial of telephone-delivered CBT-I. Methods 327 Kaiser Permanente Washington members aged 60+ with OA, Insomnia Severity Index scores of 11+, and Brief Pain Inventory scores of 9+ were randomized to individual CBT-I vs. education only control (EOC). Six telephone sessions of CBT-I or EOC were offered over eight weeks. Participants rated their perceptions of treatment (credibility, acceptability, suitability, perceived effectiveness, adherence, and therapeutic relationship) on a 7-point Likert scale after session 1 and at 2-month post-test. Results Participants (mean age=70.2 years, 74.6% female) were randomized to the two treatment arms (CBT-I=163, EOC=164). Participants did not differ significantly across arms by age, gender, education, or by sleep, pain, or mood (depression, fatigue) outcome measures at baseline. CBT-I had significantly (p=.03) more white participants (90% CBT-I, 78% EOC). Study retention was 82% and 88% at post-test for CBT-I versus EOC, respectively. There was no difference in number of sessions attended (median=6). CBT-I sessions were somewhat longer than EOC (24.2 vs. 22.8 minutes; p=.005). Most participants in both groups at both time points gave high rankings (5+/7 points) on all six treatment perception ratings (CBT-I range: 75.9-99.3%; EOC range: 69.0-97.9%). Average summed treatment perception ratings improved between Session 1 and post-test for both conditions (mean=5.9 and 6.1, respectively, for CBT-I; mean=5.6 and 5.8, respectively, for EOC). Conclusion The OATS EOC group was credible and acceptable to participants, resulting in equivalently high levels of participation and retention compared to CBT-I. Findings suggest the ongoing trial has adequately controlled for nonspecific participant treatment effects that might confound interpretation of efficacy outcomes. Support This work was supported by PHS grant 5R01AG053221.

sleep

0469 Perceptions of an Education Only Control Group in the Osteoarthritis and Therapy for Sleep (OATS) Study: An Ongoing Statewide, Telephone-Delivered CBT for Insomnia (CBT-I) Randomized Trial