Treatment preferences and help seeking experiences of Australian adults with insomnia
Résumé fourni par la source
Objective Evidence-based insomnia guidelines recommend Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for insomnia (CBTi) as the first-line treatment. However, many people with insomnia are prescribed sedative-hypnotic medications. To understand this gap between guidelines and practice, this study surveyed people seeking treatment for insomnia about their help-seeking experiences and treatment preferences.Methods Australian adults who had previously expressed interest in a clinical trial of insomnia treatments were invited to complete a detailed online survey assessing their sleep difficulties, help seeking behaviours, and treatment preferences.Results Among 745 adults responding to the survey (Mean±SD = 54 ± 13 years, 69% Female), 74.5% reported an Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) score ≥ 15 indicating clinical insomnia symptoms and only 3 people (0.4%) reported receiving CBTi which included behavioural components. Among respondents with clinical insomnia symptoms, 64% had discussed sleep with their general practitioner but only 16% saw a psychologist about their sleep. Lack of referral to a psychologist (44%) and concerns about costs associated with treatment (21%) were the main reasons for not seeing a psychologist.Conclusions These findings highlight opportunities to directly address barriers in the management of insomnia. To improve access and use of CBTi it is important to increase public awareness and availability so more people with insomnia can access effective treatment.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Treatment preferences and help seeking experiences of Australian adults with insomnia
- Date Crossref
- 17/08/2025
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.