Improving sleep after stroke: a randomised controlled trial of digital cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia

Design

This was a two-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial comparing dCBT with provision of sleep hygiene information. The study was approved by the University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee (R40803) and registered as a clinical trial prior to enrolment of the first participant (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04272892).

Participants

To be eligible, participants had to be: 1) aged >18 years; 2) > 3months post-stroke; 3) interested in improving their sleep; 4) living in the UK with reliable internet access; 5) able to understand verbal and written English (with assistance from carer if needed); and 6) able and willing to provide informed consent. Participants were excluded if they: 1) had a serious clinical condition that could affect participation in the study, including scheduled surgery in the next 5 months; 2) were currently undergoing a psychological treatment programme for insomnia; 3) were pregnant; 4) had uncontrolled seizures (contraindication to sleep restriction included as part of dCBT); 5) had untreated diagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea; or 6) did habitual shift-work.

Participants were recruited from the community between February 2020 and June 2021, by advertising through UK stroke and brain injury charities, stroke user/support groups, social media, and our research database. After receiving the information sheet and having the opportunity to discuss the study with a researcher, participants provided written informed consent online (using the Jisc platform). All participants (regardless of group allocation) received online shopping vouchers as compensation for their time (£15 per assessment time-point, max £45).

Outcomes

Outcome assessments were collected at baseline, at the end of treatment (herein termed “post-intervention”), and at a follow-up 8-weeks later. Participants completed assessments online, except the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and actigraphy which were posted to their home.

The primary outcome was insomnia symptoms post-intervention, which was assessed using the Sleep Condition Indicator (SCI-8, max score 32). The SCI-8 was developed to evaluate insomnia based on the 5^th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), with higher values indicating fewer insomnia symptoms. The initial validation study identified that scores ≤16 indicate probable insomnia (Espie et al., 2014). To our knowledge, the SCI-8 has not been specifically validated in a stroke population, but previous studies have identified significant differences in scores for people with stroke (Fleming et al., 2021) and brain injury (Fleming et al., 2020) in comparison with age- and sex-matched controls.

Secondary sleep outcomes included the SCI-8 at the 8-week follow-up, sleep onset latency (SOL; from the online sleep diary recorded during the first and last week of the intervention period), and actigraphy-derived sleep measures (estimated total sleep time, wake after sleep onset, sleep fragmentation; Supplementary Methods 1.5) at post-intervention and at the 8-week follow-up. The actigraphy device used was a Motionwatch-8 (Camntech Ltd, UK), worn on the participant’s least-affected wrist for 7-nights per time-point. As we opted to include participants whose sleep problems were not severe enough to be considered probable insomnia, which could limit the effect size observed, we also intended to assess SCI-8 score post-intervention for the sub-sample of participants who had probable insomnia (SCI-8 ≤ 16) at baseline (Espie et al., 2014).

Other secondary outcomes included mood, as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9, max score 27; Kroenke et al., 2001), and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire (GAD-7, max score 21; Spitzer et al., 2006); and self-efficacy as per the stroke self-efficacy questionnaire (SSE, max score 130; Jones et al., 2008). Quality of life was assessed with the EQ-5D-5L™ (Herdman et al., 2011), and the short form stroke impact scale (SF-SIS, max index value 100; Jenkinson et al., 2013).

Resource use and unit costs

Participants completed a bespoke version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory (Beecham & Knapp, 2001) to categorise National Health Service (NHS) resource use over the 8-weeks prior to randomisation and over the 8-week follow-up period (Supplementary Methods 1.1).

The per-patient cost to the NHS of Sleepio was £45. Unit costs were obtained from the Personal Social Services Research Unit’s publication for 2020 (Curtis & Burns, 2020) and the NHS Schedule of Reference Costs for 2020.

Randomisation

Following baseline assessment, participants were randomised to intervention (dCBT) or control (sleep hygiene information) using freely available online software (rando.la), with minimisation of factors age and baseline SCI-8 score to attempt to ensure balance across the two groups. MFK held access to the randomisation software, and upon completion of each participant’s baseline assessment, entered their SCI-8 score and age. Group allocation was then recorded onto a spreadsheet for the research assistant to access, and to inform the participant of their allocation. Thus, the study team did not know which treatment would be assigned prior to recruitment.

Due to the nature and practicalities of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants or the research team to group allocation. However, a blind-to-hypothesis approach was used whereby participants were told that the study was testing sleep improvement interventions, but not which group was anticipated to show greater effects. Those who analysed the data (MKF, RLF) had minimal interactions with participants throughout the intervention period.

Intervention Group

Participants were given access to Sleepio (www.sleepio.com), comprising of 6 weekly online sessions (each 15-20 minutes) delivering evidence-based CBT techniques for insomnia, and completion of a daily sleep diary for the intervention period (Supplementary Methods 1.2). Based on feedback received during our previous qualitative usability study of Sleepio (Smejka et al., 2022), participants were also emailed a document at the beginning of the intervention period which provided additional information to aid using the programme in the context of stroke. In instances in which participants chose not to complete all CBT sessions, they were asked to complete the post-intervention assessment as soon as possible.

Control group

Participants were emailed a sleep hygiene brochure containing suggestions on lifestyle and environmental factors associated with sleep disturbance (Supplementary Methods 1.3), and completed a daily online sleep diary for one week at the beginning and end of the intervention period.

Sample size

The sample size calculation was based on the primary outcome (SCI-8 score). We intended to collect 68 complete datasets (1:1 ratio). Based on the between-group effect size estimate of d=1.2 (Espie et al., 2012) it was initially determined that 24 participants were required (α=0.05, power 80%). However, as we opted to include people with sleep difficulties who would not meet the criteria for clinical insomnia (based on the SCI-8), and anticipated a more modest effect (Smejka et al., 2022) (d=0.7), we thus determined that 68 full datasets were required. Allowing for withdrawal, we aimed to enrol 86 participants. We anticipated this would enable a full group analysis for the primary outcome, and a secondary subgroup analysis including only participants with probable insomnia (as per the SCI-8).

When 56 participants had been recruited, it was clear that withdrawal from the dCBT group was such that maintaining a 1:1 randomisation would lead to insufficient dCBT participants for 68 complete datasets at 1:1 ratio. The remaining 30 participants were thus randomised at 2:1 (treatment:control).

Analysis

Demographics

Recruitment took place between February 2020 and June 2021, with a total of 86 participants consented as planned. The trial ended in December 2021, once all follow-up assessments were completed. Two participants withdrew without completing the baseline (no reason given). The remaining 84 participants (mean (SD) age 58.6 (13.5) years, 39 female, mean (SD) 5.5 (5) years post-stroke) were randomised (Table 1). Based on the SCI-8, 83% reported having sleep problems for >6 months.

Sixteen participants (13 dCBT, 3 control) withdrew without completing the post-intervention assessment (Figure 1; Supplementary Table S1). Comparison of characteristics between participants who withdrew and those who completed the post-intervention assessment showed that there was no difference for baseline SCI score (|t|(82)=0.16, p = 0.874) or age (|t|(82)=0.17, p = 0.869). However, participants who withdrew had significantly worse symptoms of depression (PHQ-9; |t|(82)=2.46, p = 0.016) and anxiety (GAD-7; |t|(82)=2.25, p = 0.027) at baseline than those who completed the study, and lower self-efficacy (SSE; |t|(82)=2.84, p = 0.006).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Consort diagram. For the primary outcome (SCI-8 score post-intervention), intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was with imputation of missing data. For secondary outcomes, complete case analysis was used. PIS=participant information sheet. dCBT=digital cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia. Mean (standard deviation) days between assessments did not differ between groups.

We estimated it would take 6-8 weeks for participants to complete the dCBT programme and attempted to match control group assessment timing on an ongoing basis. Although the time from baseline to post-intervention was on average longer than anticipated (Figure 1), timeframes did not differ between groups (p>0.2).

Sleep Condition Indicator

The primary outcome, SCI-8 score post-intervention (ITT dCBT n=48, control n=36) was significantly greater following dCBT than control, adjusted for baseline SCI-8 and sex, across original and imputed datasets (Table 2; Supplementary Table S2), with a medium effect size. This is indicative of fewer symptoms of insomnia following dCBT.

Our secondary objective in relation to the SCI-8 was to test for maintenance of effects. There was an effect of group (Mixed ANCOVA: F_1,64=6.35, p=0.014, η_p²=0.09, medium effect), and no group by time interaction (F_1,64=0.74 p=0.39), suggesting improved SCI-8 score for dCBT across post-intervention and the 8-week follow-up timepoints (Figure 2A).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Estimated marginal means (baseline score covaried) at post-intervention and 8-week follow-up for questionnaire and actigraphy measures, A: Sleep Condition Indicator (higher values indicate fewer symptoms of insomnia), B: Patient Health Questionnaire (lower scores indicate fewer symptoms of depression), C: Generalised Anxiety Disorder questionnaire (lower scores indicate fewer symptoms of anxiety), D: Stroke Self-Efficacy scale (higher scores indicate better self-efficacy), E: Wake after sleep onset (higher time is more wakefulness during sleep period). F: Sleep fragmentation index (higher values indicate more disrupted sleep). Error bars are standard error of the mean. * significant effect of group (adjusted means were better for dCBT than control, p<0.05).

For the secondary sub-group analyses including only participants with probable insomnia, based on the SCI-8 score at baseline (SCI-8 ≤16; dCBT n=29, control n=27), there was an effect of group (F_1,52=8.27, p=0.006, η_p²=0.14, medium effect), as adjusted SCI-8 was higher for dCBT than control. As an additional, post-hoc analysis, we also found that a larger proportion of the dCBT group (baseline ≤16) scored >16 at post-intervention, suggesting symptom resolution (71% vs 30%, χ²(1)=9.61, p=0.002). For visualisation purposes, the proportions of participants reaching the criteria for probable insomnia at each timepoint are in Supplementary Figure S1.

Secondary patient reported outcomes

Group means can be found in Supplementary Tables S3-S7. For depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) there were significant group effects (PHQ-9: F_1,64=6.754, p=0.012, η_p²=0.095, medium effect; GAD-7: F_1,64=4.109, p=0.047, η_p²=0.060, medium effect), and no group by time interactions (PHQ-9: F_1,64=0.079, p=0.780; GAD-7: F_1,64=0.405, p=0.527), suggesting improved mood following dCBT compared to control across follow-up timepoints (Figure 2B,C).

For SOL, taken from the online sleep diary, the ANCOVA (with first week as covariate) showed a significantly shorter sleep latency for dCBT than control at the end of the intervention period (F_1,63=6.406, p=0.014, η_p²=0.092, medium effect).

For self-efficacy (SSE) there was a non-significant effect of group (F_1,64=3.990, p=0.050, η_p²=0.059, medium effect; Figure 2D), and no group by time interaction (F_1,64=0.009, p=0.923).

For quality of life, there was no effect of group for SF-SIS (F_1,64=0.132, p=0.718), nor group by time interaction (F_1,64=0.827, p=0.367). Similarly, there were no between-group differences for EQ-5D utilities or visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (see Supplementary Table S5 for adjusted mean differences; p>0.05).

Costs and cost-effectiveness

Over the 8-week follow-up period, and after including the costs of Sleepio, the dCBT group had non-significantly lower NHS care costs than control (adjusted mean difference -£349, 95% CI: -1,035 to 337, p=0.31, Supplementary Table S8). After inclusion of informal care costs, the adjusted mean cost difference was -£330 (95% CI: -1,550 to 891, p=0.59).

From a health-care perspective, dCBT was dominant over sleep hygiene information (i.e. overall cost savings and associated with higher QALYs – Table 3). The probability that dCBT was cost-saving was 0.876. The probability increased to 0.885 and 0.911 at £20,000 and £100,000 per QALY gained threshold respectively.

Secondary actigraphy outcomes

There were no group effects (all F_1,54<2.6, p>0.1), nor group by time interactions (all F_1,54<2.8, p>0.09) for any of the analysed actigraphy parameters (Figure 2E, F; Supplementary Table S3).

Estimate of importance of difference

For outcomes where a significant group effect was observed, we assessed the proportion of participants meeting the reliable or minimally clinically important difference (MCID). There is no established MCID for SCI-8, but more dCBT participants experienced a reliable change at post-intervention (≥7 points (Espie et al., 2018), 49% vs 21%, χ²(1)=5.57, p=0.018) which was not statistically significant at the 8-week follow-up (50% vs 30%, χ²(1)=2.70, p=0.100).

Similarly, significantly more dCBT participants reached the MCID for PHQ-9 and GAD-7 at post-intervention (PHQ-9: ≥5 points (Kroenke et al., 2001), 40% vs 15%, χ²(1)=5.21, p=0.022; GAD-7: ≥4 points (Toussaint et al., 2020), 43% vs 12%, χ²(1)=7.97, p=0.005) but this was not significant at the 8-week follow-up (PHQ-9: 32% vs 15%, χ²(1)=2.73, p=0.099; GAD-7: 35% vs 15%, χ²(1)=3.588, p=0.058).

Exploratory mediation analyses

The effect of group on PHQ-9 at post-intervention was mediated via the SCI-8 score (Figure 3A). The average causal mediation effect (ACME) was -1.18 [95% CI: -2.25 to -0.37], p=0.002. This suggests that reductions in depression are mediated by improvements in insomnia symptoms. No mediation effects were observed for GAD-7 (ACME -0.33 [95% CI: -1.06 to 0.30], p=0.256).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Exploratory mediation analyses. A: The SCI-8 score mediates the effect of group on PHQ-9. The Average Causal Mediation Effect (ACME) was -1.18 (n=68). B: The ACME for sleep fragmentation was -1.24 (n=59).

Finally, given the (non-significant) visual tendency for lower wake after sleep onset (WASO) and sleep fragmentation for dCBT at the 8-week follow-up (see Figure 2E,F), we explored whether SCI-8 mediated apparent changes in sleep disruption from actigraphy. The ACME was -1.47 [95% CI: -5.04 to 1.26], p=0.264 for WASO and -1.24 [95% CI: -3.26 to 0.01], p=0.054 for sleep fragmentation.

Adverse Events

No related serious adverse events were reported to the research team. Other adverse effects related to study participation are in the Supplementary Results 2.5.

Limitations

Despite conducting a qualitative study to understand and address usability concerns (Smejka et al., 2022), a substantial proportion of participants still withdrew. The dropout was comparable to that found previously in people without stroke (Espie et al., 2012; Ho et al., 2015; Seyffert et al., 2016). Withdrawn participants exhibited lower mood and self-efficacy at baseline, which is consistent with studies from other populations using in-person and digital CBT (Ong et al., 2008; Yeung et al., 2015). Since active engagement is required, first addressing feelings of low mood and confidence may be beneficial. A hybrid model, whereby dCBT is combined with clinician input, may help participants to discuss options and receive support for self-managing treatment. Indeed, hybrid treatment was effective in a sample of 52 people with stroke or traumatic brain injury (Ford et al., 2022).

We used ITT analysis for the primary outcome but chose to use complete case analyses for the secondary measures. We acknowledge that this introduces bias but felt it important to examine changes in secondary outcomes specifically for stroke survivors who were able and willing to engage in the intervention to some extent. The current study therefore provides an initial assessment of outcomes which may or may not be responsive to dCBT in this population, but researchers in the future should use these results to guide study design to attempt replication.

As we did not have access to brain imaging or medical records it is unknown whether stroke lesion characteristics impacted on sleep or treatment response, or whether stroke characteristics differed between groups. The effect observed here may also be limited by undiagnosed comorbid sleep disorders, e.g. sleep apnoea, although CBT for insomnia remains effective in people with comorbid obstructive sleep apnoea (Sweetman et al., 2017). We were unable to complete in-person sleep assessments and relied on participant report for diagnoses of sleep apnoea. Though we acknowledge these are clear limitations, we nevertheless demonstrate significant sleep improvements in this cohort.

Results of the cost-effectiveness analyses should be interpreted cautiously given the relatively small sample and short follow-up duration. Nevertheless, the promising results are consistent with previous studies demonstrating cost-effectiveness (Darden et al., 2021), and should be extended in a larger trial.