Randomized controlled trial of cognitive refocusing versus stimulus control treatment for college insomnia: feasibility of a brief, electronic-based, and peer-led approach

Abstract

Objective

Performance of Cognitive Refocusing Treatment for Insomnia (CRT-I) relative to stimulus control treatment (SCT) remains unknown among college students. This pilot trial compared single-session, electronic-based, peer-led CRT-I to SCT, and as well as awareness-based (AC) and no-treatment (NTC) controls.

Participants

College students (N = 82; M_age=18.59 [SD = 0.78]; 58% female; 61% White; 16% Hispanic) with insomnia symptoms were randomly assigned to CRT-I (n = 12), SCT (n = 14), and AC (n = 14) conditions, or non-randomly recruited to NTC (n = 42).

Methods

All participants completed baseline and one-month follow-up surveys, and reported daily task enactment (except NTC).

Results

Feasibility ratings were comparable across conditions. Within-group treatment effects revealed greater improvements in (a) insomnia symptom severity among CRT-I (d = 1.13) and SCT (d = 1.66) groups relative to AC (d = 0.90) and (b) pre-sleep cognitive arousal among CRT-I (d = 0.94) and SCT (d = 1.42) groups relative to AC (d = 0.75).

Conclusions

Brief, electronic-based, peer-led CRT-I and SCT interventions appear feasible and potentially efficacious for college insomnia.

Keywords:

• Behavior therapy
• cognitive therapy
• college students
• insomnia
• sleep

Acknowledgments

None.

Conflict of interest disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of United States and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Syracuse University.

Additional information

Funding

The preparation of this article was supported by the National Institutes of Health grants R01AA027677 and F31DA050435. This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no conflicts of interest.