LAUSR

BACKGROUND Single- and multiple-component therapies are recommended in professional guidelines for managing chronic insomnia. Systematic reviews point to insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of these therapies, which is required for treatment decision making. PURPOSE To compare the effectiveness of three single-component and one multiple-component therapies on short-term sleep outcomes. METHODS The data were obtained from 517 persons with chronic insomnia, enrolled in a partially randomized preference trial. They were allocated to the single-component therapies: sleep education and hygiene (SEH), stimulus control therapy (SCT), and sleep restriction therapy (SRT), or the multiple-component therapy (MCT). The outcomes, perceived insomnia severity and sleep parameters, were assessed with established measures at pre and posttest. Repeated measure analysis of variance was used to compare the outcomes across therapy groups over time. The clinical relevance of the therapies' effects was evaluated by examining the effect size and remission rate. RESULTS The four therapies differed in their effectiveness in reducing perceived insomnia severity and improving sleep outcomes. SEH was least effective. SCT, SRT, and MCT were moderately effective. SCT and SRT demonstrated slightly higher remission rates than MCT for perceived insomnia severity and some sleep parameters. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION SCT and SRT are viable single-component therapies that produce clinical benefits. Single-component insomnia treatment may be more convenient to implement in the primary care setting due to the reduced number of treatment recommendations compared to MCT.