| Authors | Daniel Freeman, Bryony Sheaves, Guy M. Goodwin, Ly‐Mee Yu, Alecia Nickless, Paul J. Harrison, Richard Emsley, Annemarie I. Luik, F. Foster, Vanashree Wadekar, Christopher Hinds, Andrew Gumley, Ray Jones, Stafford L. Lightman, Steven Jones, Richard P. Bentall, Peter Kinderman, Georgina Rowse, Traolach Brugha, Mark Blagrove, Alice M. Gregory, Leanne Fleming, Elaine Walklet, Cris Glazebrook, E Bethan Davies, Chris Hollis, Gillian Haddock, Bev John, Mark Coulson, David Fowler, Katherine Pugh, John Cape, Peter Moseley, Gary Brown, Claire Hughes, Marc C. Obonsawin, Siân Coker, Edward Watkins, Matthias Schwannauer, Kenneth Macmahon, A Niroshan Siriwardena, Colin A. Espie |
| Journal | The Lancet Psychiatry |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1016/s2215-0366(17)30328-0 |
| Citations | 660 |
TL;DR
Treating insomnia with a 6-week digital cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) programme significantly reduced paranoia (Cohen's d = 0.19) and hallucinations (Cohen's d = 0.24) in university students, and the improvement in sleep directly caused the improvement in psychotic experiences — not the other way around.
The intervention was a fully automated, web-based cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) called "Sleepio." The programme consisted of six 20-minute sessions delivered over 6 weeks, plus a digital sleep diary. The comparator was "usual care" — meaning participants in the control group received no active sleep intervention and continued whatever they were already doing (which could include seeking help on their own, but no structured sleep therapy was provided).
The primary outcomes were three separate measures:
Secondary outcomes included depression, anxiety, nightmares, wellbeing, and work/social functioning.
All assessments were completed online at weeks 0 (baseline), 3 (mid-treatment), 10 (end of treatment), and 22 (follow-up, 12 weeks after treatment ended).
Design: This was a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive digital CBT-I or usual care. The research team (outcome assessors, data analysts) were blinded to treatment allocation. Participants could not be blinded because they knew whether they were receiving an active sleep programme or not — this is standard for psychological intervention trials.
Randomisation: Simple randomisation was used (no stratification). The allocation sequence was computer-generated and concealed from the research team. Participants were randomised immediately after completing baseline assessments.
Blinding: The trial was single-blind — the research team was masked to treatment allocation. Participants were not blinded. The authors note that because the primary outcomes were self-reported, the lack of participant blinding could introduce bias (participants who know they're getting treatment might report more improvement). However, they argue that the objective nature of some sleep measures (e.g., sleep efficiency calculated from diaries) partially mitigates this.
Duration: The intervention lasted 6 weeks (6 sessions). Primary outcomes were assessed at week 10 (4 weeks after the last session, to capture sustained effects). Follow-up continued to week 22 (12 weeks post-treatment).
Statistical approach: Intention-to-treat analysis (all randomised participants included, regardless of how much of the intervention they completed). Missing data were handled using multiple imputation. The primary analysis used linear regression adjusted for baseline scores and university site. Mediation analysis tested whether changes in insomnia at week 3 predicted changes in paranoia and hallucinations at week 10, controlling for baseline levels.
What this design can prove:
What this design cannot prove:
Major methodological weaknesses:
Primary outcomes (week 10, end of treatment):
Secondary outcomes (week 10):
Mediation analysis:
Sustained effects (week 22, 12 weeks post-treatment):
Adverse events: None reported in either group.
To put these numbers in plain English:
The key insight: fixing sleep produces a large effect on sleep itself, and a small-to-moderate effect on mental health symptoms. The sleep improvement is the engine; the mental health benefits are the downstream consequence.
Acknowledged by authors:
Additional critical notes: 8. The effect on paranoia and hallucinations, while statistically significant, was small — Cohen's d of 0.19–0.24 means the average person in the CBT-I group improved only slightly more than the average person in the control group. For many individuals, the change may not be noticeable in daily life. 9. The mediation analysis is correlational — while it shows that early sleep improvement predicts later mental health improvement, it doesn't definitively prove causation. There could be a third variable (e.g., reduced stress) that improves both sleep and mental health simultaneously. 10. The sample was predominantly female (71%) and white (76%) — results may not apply equally to men or ethnic minorities. 11. The intervention was highly structured and automated — results may not generalise to face-to-face CBT-I, which is more flexible but also more expensive and less scalable. 12. No objective sleep measurement — self-reported sleep is known to be unreliable, especially for sleep onset latency (people tend to overestimate how long it takes them to fall asleep) and total sleep time (people underestimate). The actual sleep improvements may be smaller than reported. 13. The "usual care" control group may have sought other treatments — 12% of the control group reported starting some form of psychological therapy during the study, which could have reduced the apparent effect of the intervention.
For someone running their own n=1 experiment:
What to test:
Related papers
The efficacy of app‐supported smartphone interventions for mental health problems: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Jake Linardon, Pim Cuijpers, Per Carlbring +2 more · 2019
Meta-analysisThe relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis
Colin A. Capaldi, Raelyne L. Dopko, John M. Zelenski · 2014
Systematic ReviewBeyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies
Trisha Greenhalgh, Joseph Wherton, Chrysanthi Papoutsi +7 more · 2017
Systematic ReviewReligion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications
Harold G. Koenig · 2012