OBJECTIVES To test a new cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) program designed for use by nonclinicians. DESIGN Randomized controlled trial. SETTING Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS Community-dwelling veterans aged 60 and older who met diagnostic criteria for insomnia of 3 months duration or longer (N = 159). INTERVENTION Nonclinician “sleep coaches” delivered a five-session manual-based CBT-I program including stimulus control, sleep restriction, sleep hygiene, and cognitive therapy (individually or in small groups), with weekly telephone behavioral sleep medicine supervision. Controls received five sessions of general sleep education. MEASUREMENTS Primary outcomes, including self-reported (7-day sleep diary) sleep onset latency (SOL-D), wake after sleep onset (WASO-D), total wake time (TWT-D), and sleep efficiency (SE-D); Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); and objective sleep efficiency (7-day wrist actigraphy, SE-A) were measured at baseline, at the posttreatment assessment, and at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Additional measures included the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)), and quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short-form Survey version 2 (SF-12v2)). RESULTS Intervention subjects had greater improvement than controls between the baseline and posttreatment assessments, the baseline and 6-month assessments, and the baseline and 12-month assessments in SOL-D (−23.4, −15.8, and −17.3 minutes, respectively), TWT-D (−68.4, −37.0, and −30.9 minutes, respectively), SE-D (10.5%, 6.7%, and 5.4%, respectively), PSQI (−3.4, −2.4, and −2.1 in total score, respectively), and ISI (−4.5, −3.9, and −2.8 in total score, respectively) (all P < .05). There were no significant differences in SE-A, PHQ-9, or SF-12v2. CONCLUSION Manual-based CBT-I delivered by nonclinician sleep coaches improves sleep in older adults with chronic insomnia.

Objectives This study compared subjective (questionnaire) and objective (actigraphy) sleep assessments, and examined agreement between these methods, in vulnerable older adults participating in a Veterans Administration Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) program. Methods 59 ADHC participants (95% male, mean age = 78 years) completed sleep questionnaires and 72 continuous hours of wrist actigraphy. Linear regression was used to examine agreement between methods and explore discrepancies in subjective/objective measures. Results Disturbed sleep was common, yet there was no agreement between subjective and objective sleep assessment methods. Compared with objective measures, one-half of participants reported worse sleep efficiency (SE) on questionnaires while one-quarter over-estimated SE. Participants reporting worse pain had a greater discrepancy between subjective and objective SE. Conclusions Vulnerable older adults demonstrated unique patterns of reporting sleep quality when comparing subjective and objective methods. Additional research is needed to better understand how vulnerable older adults evaluate sleep problems. Clinical Implications Objective and subjective sleep measures may represent unique and equally important constructs in this population. Clinicians should consider utilizing both objective and subjective sleep measures to identify individuals who may benefit from behavioral sleep treatments, and future research is needed to develop and validate appropriate sleep assessments for vulnerable older adults.

Poorer self-reported sleep quality, but not objectively estimated sleep parameters, during post-acute rehabilitation was associated with shorter survival among older adults. This suggests self-reported poor sleep may be an important and potentially modifiable risk factor for negative outcomes in these vulnerable older adults. Studies of interventions to improve sleep quality during inpatient rehabilitation should therefore be undertaken, and the long-term health benefits of improved sleep should be explored.