Search

The effects of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) have consistently been shown to improve insomnia symptoms and other health-related outcomes, but the effects on QoL have been inconsistent. Many factors including the type CBT-I delivery and type of instrument used to assess QoL make the topic complex. The present systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the evidence of CBT-I efficacy on QoL outcomes across different populations, delivery modes, and methodological aspects. Following the guidelines on preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), a literature search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO using keywords from relevant MeSH terms based on PICOS (Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study) criteria. Clinical trials investigating the effect of CBT-I as an intervention on QoL with any kind of control group were eligible if they reported mean scores and variation of QoL. Meta-analysis using a random-effect model was conducted to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) in a set including all identified studies, as well as in three sub-sets: face-to-face CBT-I using randomized controlled trials (RCTs), online CBT-I using RCTs, and one-group pre- and post-treatment design. A total of 24 studies comprising 1977 participants (808 in an intervention group) from 12 countries were eligible for meta-analysis. The overall pooled estimate of SMD of QoL when all 24 studies were included was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.22; 0.72; I-2 = 84.5%; tau(2) = 0.31; p < 0.001). The overall pooled estimate of SMD of QoL was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.01-0.90; I-2 = 87.5%; tau(2) = 0.48, p < 0.001) for intervention groups with face-to-face CBT-I compared to controls; 0.47 (95% CI: 0.02-0.92; I-2 = 88.3%; tau(2) = 0.36; p = 0.04) for intervention groups with digital CBT-I compared to controls, and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.12-0.80; I-2 = 52.9%; tau(2) = 0.07; p = 0.08) for one-group pre- and post

Alexithymia, a difficulty identifying and expressing emotions experienced by oneself or others, measurably harms quality of sleep. Research has observed the association between alexithymia and sleep problems; however, the cumulative effect of this association is still unknown. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to present scientific evidence regarding the relationship between alexithymia and sleep quality. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, and using relevant keywords, we searched six databases: Scopus, PubMed Central, ProQuest, ISI Web of Knowledge, EMBASE, and Science Direct. We selected observational studies on the association between alexithymia and sleep. We conducted meta-analysis using a random-effect model to calculate the effect size (ES) with Fishers z transformation. Eligible studies (N = 26) in 24 papers included 7546 participants from 12 countries. The entire ES for the association between alexithymia and sleep was 0.44 (95 % CI: 0.31, 0.56). Additionally, patient populations had a larger ES (ES = 0.55; 95 % CI: 0.30, 0.79) than healthy populations (ES = 0.30; 95 % CI: 0.20, 0.41). The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a significant association between alexithymia and sleep problems, especially among people with any medical condition.

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed lifestyles worldwide and subsequently induced individuals? sleep problems. Sleep problems have been demonstrated by scattered evidence among the current literature on COVID-19; however, little is known regarding the synthesised prevalence of sleep problems (i.e. insomnia symptoms and poor sleep quality) for males and females separately. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to answer the important question regarding prevalence of sleep problems during the COVID-19 outbreak period between genders. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline and Newcastle?Ottawa Scale checklist, relevant studies with satisfactory methodological quality searched for in five academic databases (Scopus, PubMed Central, ProQuest, Web of Science , and EMBASE) were included and analysed. The protocol of the project was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; identification code CRD42020181644). A total of 54 papers (N = 67,722) in the female subgroup and 45 papers (N = 45,718) in the male subgroup were pooled in the meta-analysis. The corrected pooled estimated prevalence of sleep problems was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19%?29%) for female participants and 27% (95% CI 24%?30%) for male participants. Although in both gender subgroups, patients with COVID-19, health professionals and general population showed the highest prevalence of sleep problems, it did not reach statistical significance. Based on multivariable meta-regression, both gender groups had higher prevalence of sleep problems during the lockdown period. Therefore, healthcare providers should pay attention to the sleep problems and take appropriate preventive action.

Background The severity of COVID-19 remains high worldwide. Therefore, millions of individuals are likely to suffer from fear of COVID-19 and related mental health factors. Aims The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize empirical evidence to understand fear of COVID-19 and its associations with mental health-related problems during this pandemic period. Method Relevant studies were searched for on five databases (Scopus, ProQuest, EMBASE, PubMed Central, and ISI Web of Knowledge), using relevant terms (COVID-19-related fear, anxiety, depression, mental health-related factors, mental well-being and sleep problems). All studies were included for analyses irrespective of their methodological quality, and the impact of quality on pooled effect size was examined by subgroup analysis. Results The meta-analysis pooled data from 91 studies comprising 88 320 participants (mean age 38.88 years; 60.66% females) from 36 countries. The pooled estimated mean of fear of COVID-19 was 13.11 (out of 35), using the Fear of COVID-19 Scale. The associations between fear of COVID-19 and mental health-related factors were mostly moderate (Fisher's z = 0.56 for mental health-related factors; 0.54 for anxiety; 0.42 for stress; 0.40 for depression; 0.29 for sleep problems and -0.24 for mental well-being). Methodological quality did not affect these associations. Conclusions Fear of COVID-19 has associations with various mental health-related factors. Therefore, programmes for reducing fear of COVID-19 and improving mental health are needed.