Implementing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (SWELL): Function QUERI 3.0

Background/Purpose. As many as two-thirds of older Veterans meet criteria for chronic insomnia disorder, defined as three or more months of subjective complaints related to difficulty falling or staying asleep or waking too early and/or poor nighttime sleep associated with daytime impairment. Left untreated, chronic insomnia can negatively impact quality-of-life and contribute to accelerated cognitive and functional decline.

CBTI is the recommended first-line treatment for chronic insomnia; however, despite several VA initiatives focused on the scale-up of CBTI, fewer than 5% of older Veterans with chronic insomnia have received this evidence-based therapy. To address this challenge, the team adapted CBTI for older Veterans. In a series of trials to evaluate the adapted program, Sleep Well, Live Well (SWELL), the team found significant improvements in nighttime sleep and daytime functioning that lasted up to one year after the end of treatment. Notably, using a comprehensive training and supervision model, these studies demonstrated that non-psychologists can effectively deliver CBTI. The investigators' evidence-based and age-friendly CBTI program, SWELL, involves five sessions delivered weekly with a trained provider. Content focuses on establishing a regular sleep-wake schedule, moving non-sleep activities out of the bedroom, establishing healthy sleep habits, relaxation near bedtime, and addressing unhealthy expectations about sleep.

Objectives. The investigators plan to develop scalable approaches to implement and sustain SWELL as well as evaluate reach when delivered through the Foundational arm compared to an enhanced implementation strategy, the REACH (Reach Equity And Collective Health) arm.

Key questions. How can the REACH arm be optimized? What are shareholder perspectives on the refinement needs for SWELL foundational arm activities, as well as strategies to enhance equitable reach via the REACH arm? To address the question "Are there differences in implementation outcomes (reach \[primary\], patient engagement, time to adoption) between arms?", the investigators will use generalized linear models to examine the effect of foundational vs. REACH on implementation outcomes of reach and patient engagement at 12 and 18 months (primary). Average time to adoption will be compared between study arms.

Methodology. To evaluate implementation, the investigators will randomize sites (n=20) 1:1 to either the foundational arm or REACH arm. The investigators will use generalized linear models to examine the effect of foundational vs. REACH on implementation outcomes of reach and patient engagement at 18 months.

• Reach [Срок оценки: 12 months]
• Patient Engagement [Срок оценки: 12 months]
• Patient Engagement [Срок оценки: 18 months]
• Time to Adoption [Срок оценки: 18 months]