Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Study protocol
  • Open access
  • Published:

Enhancing behavioral sleep care with digital technology: study protocol for a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness randomized trial

Trials volume 22, Article number: 46 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Insomnia affects almost one in four military service members and veterans. The first-line recommended treatment for insomnia is cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI). CBTI is typically delivered in-person or online over one-to-four sessions (brief versions) or five-to-eight sessions (standard versions) by a licensed doctoral or masters-level clinician with extensive training in behavioral sleep medicine. Despite its effectiveness, CBTI has limited scalability. Three main factors inhibit access to and delivery of CBTI including restricted availability of clinical expertise; rigid, resource-intensive treatment formats; and limited capacities for just-in-time monitoring and treatment personalization. Digital technologies offer a unique opportunity to overcome these challenges by providing scalable, personalized, resource-sensitive, adaptive, and cost-effective approaches for evidence-based insomnia treatment.

Methods

This is a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness randomized trial using a scalable evidence-based digital health software platform, NOCTEM™’s Clinician-Operated Assistive Sleep Technology (COAST™). COAST includes a clinician portal and a patient app, and it utilizes algorithms that facilitate detection of sleep disordered patterns, support clinical decision-making, and personalize sleep interventions. The first aim is to compare three clinician- and system-centered implementation strategies on the reach, adoption, and sustainability of the COAST digital platform by offering (1) COAST only, (2) COAST plus external facilitation (EF: assistance and consultation to providers by NOCTEM’s sleep experts), or (3) COAST plus EF and internal facilitation (EF/IF: assistance/consultation to providers by NOCTEM’s sleep experts and local champions). The second aim is to quantify improvements in insomnia among patients who receive behavioral sleep care via the COAST platform. We hypothesize that reach, adoption, and sustainability and the magnitude of improvements in insomnia will be superior in the EF and EF/IF groups relative to the COAST-only group.

Discussion

Digital health technologies and machine learning-assisted clinical decision support tools have substantial potential for scaling access to insomnia treatment. This can augment the scalability and cost-effectiveness of CBTI without compromising patient outcomes. Engaging providers, stakeholders, patients, and decision-makers is key in identifying strategies to support the deployment of digital health technologies that can promote quality care and result in clinically meaningful sleep improvements, positive systemic change, and enhanced readiness and health among service members.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04366284. Registered on 28 April 2020.

Peer Review reports

Background

This implementation-effectiveness hybrid type 3 trial [1, 2] aims to implement a large-scale, cluster-randomized pragmatic demonstration to inform behavioral sleep medicine practices and policies for active duty service members (ADSMs), veterans, and other beneficiaries with chronic insomnia disorder who receive care in military treatment facilities (MTFs) and affiliated clinics and wellness centers. Chronic insomnia disorder is defined as difficulty falling or staying asleep that persists for at least 3 months and is associated with daytime impairments [3]. These impairments span a variety of domains of functioning including memory and concentration difficulties, irritability, somatic symptoms, worry, and absenteeism. Insomnia is endemic among military personnel as well as veterans. Depending on the measurement method (e.g., self-report, sleep diary, diagnostic interview), insomnia affects between 24 and 90% of ADSMs and veterans who have deployed since 2001 [4,5,6,7]. Insomnia is also prevalent among non-deployed ADSMs [8,9,10].

Insomnia not only degrades military readiness, but also hinders resilience, quality of life, mood, and overall health [4]. In fact, insomnia is a robust risk factor for poor psychological and physical health outcomes [4,5,6,7,8,9,10], and is often comorbid with psychiatric and medical conditions such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, suicidality, anxiety, alcohol use disorder, hypertension, chronic pain, obesity, and diabetes [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. In the military population, insomnia symptoms have been associated with decreased resilience [15]. In a large study which evaluated 55,201 military personnel, those with insomnia symptoms reported lower self-rated health, were less likely to deploy, had increased days of missed work and healthcare utilization, and were more likely to be discharged early from the military [15].

The first-line recommended treatment for insomnia is cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) [16,17,18,19]. CBTI is typically delivered in-person (including via tele-health) over one-to-four sessions for brief versions, or five-to-eight sessions for the standard version, by a licensed doctoral or masters-level clinician with extensive training in behavioral sleep medicine [20,21,22,23,24,25]. Both brief and standard CBTI approaches yield comparable clinically meaningful improvements in insomnia severity [21, 26,27,28,29,30], with effect sizes in the moderate-to-very large range (Cohen’s d coefficients between .50 and 2.15). Response rates are also remarkable. For example, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) national rollout of CBTI [14, 31] reported that, at post-treatment, 73% of 431 treated veterans endorsed Insomnia Severity Index [32] scores below the cutoff for moderately severe insomnia (ISI <  15), and that 35% no longer met criteria for insomnia (ISI < 8). A previous clinical trial with veterans undergoing a 4-week CBTI protocol reported response rates over 75% and remission rates of more than 50% [22]. CBTI has been shown to be effective for chronic insomnia, including insomnia that is comorbid with PTSD, anxiety, depression, alcohol and substance use disorders, suicidality, and chronic pain in both civilian and military samples [21, 33, 34]. Importantly, improvements in insomnia are maintained over time [35].

Despite its effectiveness, the limited scalability of CBTI impedes access to and delivery of evidence-based behavioral sleep medicine (EB-BSM) and contributes to the continuance of hypnotics as a common insomnia treatment. In a comprehensive study of sedative hypnotic medications in the military health system, ADSMs were significantly more likely than non-ADSMs to be prescribed this class of medications [30]. Notably, the ADSMs were markedly younger at 33.5 years of age compared to 59.1 years in the non-ADSMs. Approximately 10% of 18,000 surveyed ADSMs reported using sleep aids daily or almost daily. Their abuse potential, side effects, and link to increased risk of injurious behaviors raise serious health and safety concerns for all ADSMs due to their high-risk occupations [36,37,38,39].

Three main factors inhibit access to and delivery of CBTI to meet the needs of ADSMs. First, there is restricted availability of clinical expertise. Specialty sleep care clinics and expert behavioral sleep medicine providers are not readily available in the civilian sector [40,41,42] and across military treatment facilities (MTFs) and clinics, or in the more than 150 countries where US Armed Forces are stationed. Despite efforts to increase the number of providers trained in CBTI, shortfalls related to provider and geographic availability remain (e.g., many providers are clustered near urban, academic medical centers). Second, CBTI delivery formats (in-person or via telemedicine) are resource intensive. Even when available, the in-person delivery format of CBTI often creates barriers to receiving or adhering to treatment visit schedules due to travel distance (to and from the clinics), conflict with work and family schedules, childcare availability, and incompatibility with the demanding operational tempo of ADSMs [43]. To mitigate some of these barriers, online programs have been developed [44]. Online programs are self-administered (or unguided), and delivered without interaction with a dedicated clinician [43, 45,46,47,48]. Although these approaches are efficacious, they still require non-negligible time commitments from patients for several weeks to several months [43, 47,48,49], and attrition can be higher compared to clinician-assisted CBTI programs [43, 46, 49,50,51]. Third, there are limited capacities for just-in-time monitoring and treatment personalization. The current CBTI delivery formats (in-person or online) rely on scheduled weekly or bi-weekly appointments along with completion of homework, with no or limited capabilities for real-time (or near real-time) monitoring of adherence, intervention, and patient-clinician engagement. The available CBTI formats limit providers’ ability to prospectively monitor adherence, side effects, and improvements over time so that just-in-time recommendations can be delivered, and non-adherence or exacerbation of symptoms can be detected and addressed in a timely manner, which can enhance treatment outcomes. Furthermore, real-time patient-clinician interactions can augment patient engagement and the personalization and precision of care by allowing providers to adapt the frequency and duration of clinical engagement to best match individual patients’ needs (i.e., more complex patients may have more frequent or longer sessions compared to less complex patients). To address these challenges and effectively meet the insomnia needs of ADSMs, veterans, and beneficiaries, for evidence-based behavioral sleep medicine (EB-BSM) practices, innovative, scalable, personalized, resource-sensitive, adaptive, and cost-effective approaches are urgently needed.

Digital health (dHealth) technologies are becoming an increasingly popular means to overcome barriers related to the scalability, accessibility, and personalized delivery of evidence-based (EB) interventions. Some of the key current challenges in behavioral sleep medicine and advantages of leveraging dHealth technologies to overcome these challenges and support the delivery of EB-BSM are summarized in Table 1. Envisioned outcomes are also summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of challenges to dissemination of evidence-based behavioral sleep medicine and gap bridging solutions offered by digital technologies, and targeted outcomes
Full size table

We first iteratively developed a prototype of the dHealth sleep platform with 5 providers and research clinicians and 17 military ADSM and veterans with chronic insomnia and comorbid psychiatric symptoms and conditions including PTSD, depression, and/or anxiety. Following this prototype, we evaluated the usability of the dHealth system by research clinicians and changes in sleep and daytime psychiatric symptoms in a sample of 27 ADSM and veterans. We compared these findings with results from previous trials where brief or traditional CBTI was delivered in person to a comparable sample of ADSM and veterans. This preliminary work strongly suggests that delivering EB behavioral insomnia treatments using dHealth technology is acceptable and feasible [52], associated with clinically meaningful improvement in insomnia severity (Cohen’s d effect sizes = 1.93), as well as improvements for the daytime PTSD symptoms (Cohen’s d effect sizes = 1.19), depression (Cohen’s d effect sizes = 1.13), and anxiety (Cohen’s d effect sizes = 0.74) [27]. Furthermore, these clinically significant improvements in insomnia and daytime function were the result of an average 15 min of clinical interaction, total, over 4 weeks between each participant and their research clinician. This contrasts sharply with the two-to-eight 30–45-min sessions typically required by in-person or tele-health CBTI (total time of 90 to 360 min). A potential reduction in clinical time required per patient of 88 to 96% suggests a substantial improvement in cost-effectiveness and scalability without compromising clinical outcomes.

A subsequent process improvement project in MTFs and affiliated clinics with 19 providers and over 100 patients support the acceptability and feasibility of deploying dHealth technologies such as NOCTEM’s Clinician-Operated Assistive Sleep Technology (COAST™) in real clinical settings (unpublished data) with behavioral health providers outside of sleep specialty care clinics. However, demonstration of effective deployment and implementation strategies as well as clinical outcomes associated with of COAST in military treatment facilities across the Department of Defense remains to be determined. This is the goal of this randomized hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness trial.

Trial design

The hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness design [1, 2, 53] was selected because it primarily focuses on comparing different implementation methods. Randomization is at providers’ level, and the patient intervention is the same across the three facilitation conditions. This type of trial is uniquely suited to accelerate the transition of technology-supported EB-BSM practices tested in clinical research settings into real clinical and operational environments with ADSMs with chronic insomnia disorder and stress-related sleep disturbances. The proposed implementation-effectiveness hybrid design will yield insights into the most cost-effective strategies for implementing the COAST platform in MTFs, affiliated clinics, and wellness centers. The study can thus provide useful information to stakeholders (e.g., directors, administrators, other decision-makers) in evaluating the full potential of COAST to support access to and delivery of EB-BSM practices. Furthermore, this design maximizes the ecological validity and generalizability of findings.

The investigative team has well-established relationships with key decision-makers and leaders, whereby the results of this trial can be directly translated into policy mandates and best practice guidelines across the Defense Health Agency (DHA). We employ an implementation science framework to evaluate the reach, adoption, and sustainability of digital sleep therapeutics in MTFs and affiliated clinics, which are expected to readily translate to broader veteran and civilian healthcare settings. The overall study design is summarized in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Design of the hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness trial

Full size image

Trial status

This study received ethics review and approval from Solutions, IRB (Protocol #2019/12/10) on January 29, 2020; from the Naval Health Research Center (NHRC) on April 28, 2020 (Protocol #: NHRC.2019.0018); and from the US Army Medical Research and Development Command (USAMRDC), Office of Research Protections (ORP), Human Research Protection Office (HRPO) (HRPO Log Numbers E01442.1a [NOCTEM, LLC], E01442.1b [NHRC], E01442.1e [Naval Medical Center, San Diego], and E01442.1f [Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton]) on September 11, 2020.

NOCTEM Clinician-Operated Assistive Sleep Technology (COAST™) platform

The NOCTEM COAST platform is designed to enhance the scalability of EB-BSM practices. Briefly, COAST is a software that encompasses clinician-centered dHealth clinical decision support algorithms and tools, a patient app, and a secure text messaging system. COAST is a cross-platform system that runs on any smart device (Android, iOS, Windows, etc.). Proprietary algorithms utilize self-report data collected daily from patients to identify disordered sleep patterns, which then guide personalized recommendations for intervention to the clinician. Sleep disturbances consistent with insomnia, nightmares, racing thoughts, daytime fatigue, sleepiness, and circadian disturbances can be detected, and evidence-based recommendations for behavioral sleep modifications are suggested to the clinicians, who then push the recommendations to the patient. The COAST tools were refined through iterative development and testing with end users, providers, and other key stakeholders in the DHA. COAST leverages patients’ preference for dHealth-based treatment approaches [54, 55], promotes engagement in treatment [56], and reduces the burdensome requirements of traditional CBTI by bringing the tools and clinical expertise directly to their smart device. These drivers also align directly with the DoD’s recognition of the unique capabilities of dHealth technologies in providing healthcare to ADSMs [57].

Objective, aims, and hypotheses

The overarching objective of this investigation is to compare and evaluate three facilitation strategies for implementation (i.e., no facilitation, external facilitation only, and external plus internal facilitation) of the NOCTEM COAST™ platform in MTFs and clinics with a representative sample of ADSMs with common comorbid disorders. The specific aims are to (1) examine and compare the reach, adoption, sustainability, and magnitude of changes in a patient’s sleep for a new patient- and clinician-centered digital platform (COAST) alone, compared to COAST plus external facilitation (COAST+EF) or COAST plus EF and internal facilitation (COAST+EF/IF) in MTFs and affiliated clinics, and (2) quantify the magnitude of improvements in insomnia for patients who receive behavioral sleep care via the COAST platform.

Our first hypothesis is that providers randomized to the COAST+EF or COAST+EF/IF conditions will show greater (a) reach, (b) adoption, and (c) maintenance (sustainability) at 3- and 12-month follow-ups compared to providers randomized to the COAST-only condition. Our second hypothesis is that (a) COAST+EF and COAST+EF/IF will yield greater improvements in insomnia than COAST only over the acute 6-week intervention period, and (b) COAST+EF will not be inferior to COAST+EF/IF as measured by changes on the ISI over the acute 6-week intervention period.

To test these hypotheses, we will enroll at least 24 providers and 864 patients presenting with insomnia who are currently being seen at MTFs, affiliated clinics, and wellness centers across military branches. For an ecologically valid assessment of COAST’s potential to be implemented across facilities of the DHA, we will enroll providers who deliver services to ADSMs with comorbid PTSD, traumatic brain injury (TBI), chronic pain, and other psychiatric and medical conditions that are often comorbid with sleep disorders. The comparison of the three implementation strategies will provide insights into the advantages and disadvantages of each relative to patient- and clinician-centered outcomes. The results will inform anticipated larger implementation efforts across different clinical and operational settings within and outside the DHA.

Selection criteria and enrollment of participating providers and patients

The trial aims to recruit at least 24 providers (clinicians and health coaches) who currently provide services in behavioral health to service members, their dependents, and beneficiaries across Navy Medical Forces Pacific (NMFP). The participating military treatment facilities (MTFs) and affiliated clinics are all located in Southern California. We aim to enroll providers who already deliver cognitive-behavioral health interventions as part of their regular practices, including behavioral sleep interventions like CBTI.

Each participating provider will enroll at least 36 patients over the course of 12 months, for a total minimum patient sample of 864. Across participating sites, providers will be informed of the trial through emails, newsletters, flyers, word of mouth, notifications sent to and by clinic leaders and/or department administrators, and flyers posted around the facilities and clinics. Providers will also be invited to participate in two remote half-day training workshops for which continuing education credits will be offered. The first segment of the training will be open to all interested providers at each site and focused on principles and practices of BSM.

Among providers who complete the first segment of the training, those who wish to participate in the trial will be invited to join the second segment of the training for a hands-on workshop on how to use the COAST platform. All interested providers will be eligible to enroll in the trial as long as they completed the first half of the workshop (or similar workshop in the past 6 months), evaluate and/or treat patients with insomnia, use cognitive-behavioral treatments as part of their practice, and provide electronic informed consent to participate in the trial. Providers from various backgrounds (e.g., clinical psychology, counseling, physician assistants, social work, physicians, nurses) will be eligible. We elected to enroll all eligible and interested credentialed providers, with at least a masters’ degree and training in the cognitive-behavioral therapeutic approach, and who are currently delivering care to military service members in general or specialized behavioral health clinics (e.g., concussion care clinics, pain management clinics, depression/anxiety treatment programs, sleep medicine clinic) to enroll a representative sample of providers across MTFs. Information regarding years of experience in behavioral health, experience in behavioral sleep medicine, professional degree, and clinical certification(s), as well as expectations about the use of technology in clinical settings will be collected at the onset of the study for all participating clinicians. While the study is not powered for definitive determination of the effects of each of these variables on implementation measures or patient outcomes, planned exploratory analyses will inform future implementation trials.

Prior to the COAST training workshop, all registered providers will receive an electronic copy of the consent to read and review before the training session. They will be encouraged to reach out to the study investigators or coordinators if they have questions. The consent form will be reviewed at the beginning of the COAST training workshop and questions will be addressed. Providers who decline to participate at that time will not be able to access the clinician portal nor use the COAST platform with their patients. Providers who elect to participate in the trial will provide consent by initializing each page and electronically signing the electronic consent form. A copy of the completed consent form is stored on the portal and can be downloaded by the provider. After obtaining informed consent to participate in the trial, information about providers’ background, current title, years of experience, familiarity with BSM and CBTI, and use of and proficiency with digital health tools will be collected.

During this workshop, and after, participating providers will receive access to the COAST clinician portal. During this segment of the workshop, providers will learn how to navigate both the COAST clinician portal and the patient NOCTEM app. After completing the training, providers will engage in a familiarization period with the clinician portal and app. Specifically, providers will be asked to use the COAST portal and app for a period of 10 to 14 days to become proficient with the COAST tools and workflow. During this trial period, the NOCTEM team will supervise providers’ use of the clinician portal and app. The NOCTEM team will offer consults, as needed, on the providers’ use of COAST and algorithm-driven recommendations, as well as address or communicate any technical issue that may arise during this time.

Once participating providers are familiar with the COAST platform, they will begin enrollment of eligible participants. Patients who are deemed eligible to use the NOCTEM app by their provider to support the management of insomnia and other behavioral sleep disturbances will be informed of the study. Clinicians who are investigators on the study or the assigned research coordinator will be able to enroll patients who express interest in using the NOCTEM app. Research coordinators and investigators who obtain consent from patients will follow a written script. The script follows the same structure as the electronic consent embedded in the NOCTEM COAST app. Following the script and electronic consent, the research staff member will review the study aims, procedures, risks, and alternatives prior to obtaining consent. Electronic consent will be obtained from patients via the app. For this, a waiver for documentation of consent has been granted. The research staff will then contact the treating clinician and inform him/her/them that their patient agreed to participate in the research study, is registered onto the clinician’s NOCTEM COAST portal, and is utilizing the app.

The sleep intervention will be delivered via the COAST digital sleep health platform to all participating patients. Exclusion criteria for participants are restricted to untreated sleep apnea [including less than 4 h of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy per night]), currently pregnant or breast-feeding, parent of a newborn child, or a diagnosis of bipolar or psychotic disorders. The limited scope of exclusion criteria intends to optimize the generalizability of findings and representativeness of the sample relative to the larger population of ADSMs, veterans, and beneficiaries who receive care in MTFs and affiliated clinics of Navy Medical Forces Pacific. Participants who report clinically significant sleep disturbances despite concurrent pharmacological treatment with sedatives of hypnotics will be eligible for enrollment in the study if their provider deems it appropriate; discontinuation of medications is not required. There shall be no exclusion based on sex, minority status, or other health-related status (other than listed above). These exclusion criteria will be recommended to providers to avoid exacerbating excessive daytime sleepiness (for sleep apnea and/or pregnant women and new parents) and exacerbation of symptoms (for psychotic or bipolar disorders). Providers may also elect not to use the COAST platform, and refer a patient to primary care, psychiatry, sleep medicine, or another specialty care clinic for pharmacological sleep treatments if they deem it necessary for the patients. The ultimate decision regarding the inclusion of any patient will be left to their clinician, as s/he has the necessary clinical information to determine the best course of action for a given patient.

For patient enrollment, consent is obtained electronically via the NOCTEM app prior to activating the app. Electronic consent is an appropriate method for the present project because (1) COAST is a minimal risk care-enhancement project, (2) no protected health information (PHI) is stored on the app, and (3) no identifiable information will be collected via the portal or the app. After obtaining consent, patients will gain access to the patient app, including an orientation by the research team member provider on how to use the app and its assessment and messaging features. They will also be instructed to contact their provider via the secure text messaging system or by phone if they have any questions. No identifiable information will be visible on the patient app or clinician portal.

Randomization of providers

After completing the COAST training and 10- to 14-day familiarization period, providers will be randomized in a 1:1:1 manner to one of three implementation strategies: COAST only, COAST+EF, or COAST+EF/IF (implementation strategies are further described below). Providers will be randomized within participating sites to one of the three facilitation conditions. A computer-generated randomization schedule based on a permuted block design will be created a priori. Using a permuted block design ensures that there will be equal numbers in each arm. The allocation will follow the generated sequence and the local research point of contact will inform the providers of their assignment at the end of the familiarization period, prior to patient enrollment.

Intervention

Facilitation has been shown to enhance implementation of evidence-based treatments into practices [58, 59]. External facilitation (EF) refers to the addition of a key individual who is not embedded in the clinical setting, but who is tasked with supporting providers who are implementing new evidence-based practices, such as COAST in this trial. Because the external facilitator is not embedded in a single clinic, s/he may help in generating creative solutions for perceived and real barriers. Since an EF does not share clinical responsibilities and is not a supervisor or superior, s/he may also offer a supportive and guiding hand and be less hesitant to address difficult situations. This individual is available to troubleshoot as issues or questions arise and provide more interactive support, consultation, and feedback to providers. For the project, the NOCTEM team will provide EF via bi-weekly consult or supervision teleconference, or via telephone. The EF team will also be available by email and text messaging on an as-needed basis.

Internal facilitation (IF) refers to the presence of a champion embedded in the local system or clinic in which the evidence-based practice is being implemented, and who can serve as a more proximal facilitator in addition to the external facilitation. Compared to EF, IF has the advantage of providing a key resource who has a proximal relationship with providers and local administration, and who has in-depth knowledge of a clinic’s unique context, operational intricacies, clientele, etc. For the proposed trial, local sleep experts will provide IF; however, the IF will not be a study clinician. The comparison of the three implementation strategies will provide insights into the advantages and disadvantages of each of these three implementation interventions relative to patient-, clinician-, and system-level outcomes. The results will inform anticipated larger implementation efforts across different clinical and operational settings.

Prior to the enrollment of providers and patients, the NOCTEM team and the EFs and IFs will first complete an in-depth review of written guidelines and standard operating procedures for this project. During the trial, the EF and IF teams will meet monthly by phone and communicate via email, as needed, between scheduled monthly meetings to address any issues that arise and share newly acquired information. The EF and IF guidelines will be updated as needed to make sure both processes are documented and kept up to date during the trial.

The sleep intervention is the same for all patients enrolled by participating clinicians. When a disordered sleep pattern is detected by the NOCTEM algorithms (usually within 7 days), the provider will receive automated sleep recommendations for each patient and will be asked to review and confirm prior to forwarding it to the patient. Recommendations are consistent with stimulus control, sleep restriction, and other EB-BSM techniques, including suggested times for rise time and bedtime and exercise to minimize nightmares. Providers may elect to modify the algorithm-driven recommendations as they see fit, based on knowledge of their patients. Patients will receive their provider-approved, personalized behavioral sleep recommendations on a weekly basis. This process will be repeated for the next 4 to 6 weeks.

Participating patients will not be terminated from the study until (1) they decide to stop using the app; or (2) their provider deems that a different treatment or referral is required; or (3) the treatment course is complete, and the use of the app is no longer necessary; or (4) the end of the project. COAST is not commercially available, and patients who wish to remain in sleep treatment will be encouraged to discuss options with their provider. Because the COAST system requires that a provider monitors entries and sleep status and progress, the app will be disabled when a patient is no longer in the care of a provider. This will avoid misleading patients that they are still under the care of the provider through the app only.

Over the duration of the intervention, patients will be asked to complete daily sleep logs, measures of overall sleep quality, daytime psychiatric symptoms, perceived improvements, and side effects through the app. Symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD will be assessed weekly with the PHQ-2 [60], GAD-2 [61], and PC-PTSD-5 [62], respectively. Side effects will be evaluated weekly using adapted version of the Asberg Side Effect Scale [63], whereas sleepiness will be assessed with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale [64, 65]. The main expected side effect is a transient increase in sleepiness. Side effect ratings from the modified Asberg Side Effect Scale and Epworth Sleepiness Scale are assessed weekly and available to providers for review to inform the titration of behavioral recommendations as needed. Self-perceived improvements will be assessed with the Patient Report Global Impression Scale [66]. Providers will be asked to complete the Clinician Global Impression Scale [66] on a weekly basis after reviewing patient-reported side effects and other symptom measures, and sleep diaries.

All data gathered in this project from providers and patients will be completed electronically, and data will be saved automatically on secure the NOCTEM cloud. Data completeness is facilitated at the time of completion by participating patients or providers by not allowing participating patient to skip questions (yet, one can decline to answer a question), and by reminders to complete incomplete forms sent via the app or portal. Automated data review and report will be generated to assess completeness and upload into the main database.

Data management, monitoring of the integrity of the interventions (i.e., facilitation conditions), training of facilitators, and local research assistants will be coordinated by the NOCTEM team. A Collaborative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) is in place with site principal investigators so that data collected can be shared.

The NOCTEM cloud-based databases are protected by several procedures, including password protection of subject data and a firewall around the NOCTEM network. For the NOCTEM COAST platform, we have developed comprehensive privacy and security measures including unique activation personal identification numbers and passwords, secure socket layer (HTTPS/SSL) protocol, strong encryption, and compliance with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIG). All data are stored in a secure, HIPAA-compliant cloud server. Clinicians and participating patients will have unique research ID numbers that will be used in lieu of personally identifiable information for data collection and storage. The research ID numbers are unrelated to any potentially identifiable numerical series, such as social security number, medical record number, or date of birth. Study data will be kept strictly confidential, and participants’ identities will not be revealed in any publication.

Outcome measures

Table 2 summarizes the schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments for participating providers. Clinician-centered, implementation outcomes from the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework [67], see also re-aim.gov, include reach, adoption, and maintenance (sustainability). Provider reach is defined as the ratio of providers who provide informed consent to participate and complete the COAST training over the number of providers who received information about the trainings via emails, personal invitations, and other communication means targeting behavioral health providers. Patient reach is defined as the ratio of patients who consent to use the app relative to the number of patients deemed eligible to use the app. Adoption is defined as the ratio of newly trained providers who initiate the use of the COAST platform with patients (i.e., provide a patient with an app code) over the total number of providers who completed the COAST training (i.e., trained users + trained non-users). Sustainability is determined by comparing the frequency of COAST platform use by the trained providers across the three groups at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessments to measure potential changes on these domains over time.

Table 2 Providers’ schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments for this hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness randomized trial
Full size table

Fidelity is evaluated by quantifying the adherence (or discrepancy) between algorithm-recommended interventions relative to interventions that are sent to patients by providers. As in some cases there may be valid clinical reasons why a provider determines a patient should not receive the algorithm-recommended intervention (e.g., sickness, incompatible with assigned duties), we expect a rate of non-adherence of approximately 20%—noting we will not be accessing patients medical records to validate the potential reasons for deviations.

The primary patient-centered outcome measure of treatment effectiveness is the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI [32]). Other symptom domains to be assessed are summarized in Table 3, and include the PTSD Checklist-5 (PCL-5 [47, 48]), the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8 [49]) to assess symptoms of depression, the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale of the PHQ (GAD-7 [50]), the PEG, a 3-item validated and reliable pain measure [68], and the 4-item PROMIS Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities [69]. For patients, the total time required to complete the battery is approximately 20 min. The battery will be completed through the NOCTEM app at baseline, post-treatment, and again 3 and 12 months post-treatment.

Table 3 Self-report measures of sleep and daytime symptoms to be completed by participating patients at baseline, post-intervention, and at the follow-up assessments
Full size table

Statistical analyses plan and power calculations

Preliminary data analyses (e.g., descriptive statistics, correlations, principal component analysis) will be performed prior to hypothesis testing to check for collinearity of covariates and outcome measures, to ensure completeness and accuracy of data, and to evaluate distributions. Missing observations will be investigated to determine the underlying mechanism (missing at random, completely at random, not at random) so that appropriate methods for handling the missing data can be employed. Namely, if data are missing at random, we will use multiple imputation (MI) to ensure that any individuals with missing covariates or outcome data can be included in the analysis sample. However, if data are found to be missing not at random, we will use methods that explicitly model this type of nonrandom missingness (e.g., pattern mixture models) and perform sensitivity analyses evaluating the impact of the missingness. Power was computed using PASS statistical software and documentation. Each model will include covariates including study site, patient age and sex, military rank, and use of psychotropic medication (yes/no). Masked data will be provided to the biostatistician who will perform the analyses. Randomization will be unmasked only after analyses are finalized.

The first hypothesis is that providers randomized to one of the two COAST+ conditions will show greater reach, adoption, and sustainability at the 3- and 12-month follow-ups compared to providers randomized to the COAST only. For adoption, we will use a test for two proportions to determine whether reach and adoption differ between COAST versus COAST+EF and COAST+EF/IF at the 3- and 12-month follow-ups. With at least 8 providers in COAST and 16 in COAST+EF and COAST+EF/IF, as well as a reach and adoption between 0.50 and 0.60 in COAST, we will have 0.80 power (alpha = 0.05) to detect a difference in proportions between COAST and COAST+ of 0.39–0.46. For sustainability, each provider’s average number of interactions per patient over time and number of newly enrolled patients each month for each of the 12 months will be computed. We will then fit a generalized linear mixed effects model to regress number of interactions on group (COAST versus COAST+) and time. The group-by-time interaction will also be tested. Models will include a random intercept and time effect. With six repeated measures (autocorrelation 0.60–0.80) and 24 providers (8 COAST and 16 COAST+EF and COAST+EF/IF), we expect 0.80 power (alpha = 0.05) to detect differences of 0.99–1.11 between groups. With 12 repeated measures, we expect power to detect differences of 0.97–01.10 between groups.

The second hypothesis is that COAST+EF and COAST+EF/IF will yield greater improvements in patient insomnia symptom severity than COAST only over the acute 6-week intervention period. We will compute the change in ISI from baseline to 6 weeks (∆ISI = baseline ISI − 6-week ISI), with higher ∆ISI values indicating a greater improvement over time. We will use a mixed effects model to regress ∆ISI on group, accounting for nesting within providers through a random effect and including relevant covariates. We will extract estimates from the model to compute the standardized mean difference d [70, 71] and 95% confidence interval between COAST and COAST+ (EF; EF/IF) accounting for patients nested within providers. Second, using a mixed effects model with a random clinician effect, we will regress ISI at baseline and 6 weeks of treatment (COAST versus COAST+EF and COAST+EF/IF), time, and their interaction, controlling for relevant covariates. A significant treatment-by-time effect will indicate that the change in ISI differs between COAST and COAST+EF and COAST+EF/IF. Assuming an average of 12 providers per group (8 in COAST and 16 in COAST+EF and COAST+EF/IF) and 36 patients per clinician, we expect 0.80 power (alpha = 0.05) to detect a standardized mean difference of 0.232 between groups. We will also evaluate the extent to which COAST+EF is not inferior to COAST+EF/IF as measured by changes on the ISI over the acute 6-week intervention period. This non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested with the general form—H0: COAST+EF is inferior to COAST+EF/IF versus H1: COAST+EF is non-inferior to COAST+EF/IF. Using the methods described above, we will compute the standardized mean difference d and 95% confidence interval [d (95% CI)] for COAST+EF − COAST+EF/IF of ∆ISI. As positive values of ∆ISI indicate more improvement, a positive d is in favor of COAST+EF and a negative d is in favor of COAST+EF/IF. We will use a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of − 0.50 and declare COAST+EF to be non-inferior to COAST+EF/IF if the lower bound of the 95% CI for d is > − 0.50. We will declare COAST+EF to be inferior to COAST+EF/IF if the lower bound of the 95% CI for d is ≤ − 0.50. For example, if d (95% CI) = − 0.10 (− 0.40, 0.20), we would declare COAST+EF as non-inferior to COAST+EF/IF because − 0.40 > − 0.50. However, if d (95%CI) = − 0.40 (− 0.70, − 0.10), we will declare COAST+EF to be inferior because − 0.70 ≤ − 0.50. These one-sided decision rules equate to requiring the effect size of the COAST+EF to COAST+EF/IF comparison to have no more than moderate strength (|d| = 0. 5), in favor of COAST+EF/IF. The NIM of |d| = 0.5 set to determine non-inferiority is stringent as it represents 50% of the effect size reported in recent meta-analyses [50, 72, 73]. Assuming 8 providers per group and 36 patients per clinician, an intra-class correlation of 0.01 [74], a non-inferiority margin of 0.50, and a true difference of δ = 0, we expect > 0.99 power to reject our null hypothesis and conclude that COAST+EF is non-inferior to COAST+IF/EF.

Secondary and exploratory analyses

Secondary analyses will explore the durability of symptom improvements over time among patients who used the COAST platform with their provider over time. While the time elapsed between the post-treatment at 6 weeks and discharge may vary across patients, we will, nevertheless, explore the extent to which detectable sleep improvements after 6 weeks may persist over time. The variability in elapsed time between the post-treatment and discharge assessment will be taken into consideration in the statistical analyses. We will first summarize and compare the differences in discharge times by examining relevant baseline characteristics (e.g., symptom severity, sleepiness, daytime impairments). We will then compute the average rate of change in ISI score per month [(6-week ISI − discharge ISI)/(discharge week − 6)]. Using a mixed model, we will fit an intercept-only model for the rate of change in ISI score, accounting for nesting within clinician through a random effect. An intercept that differs significantly from zero will indicate further change in ISI score between 6 weeks and discharge. Models will also include age and sex and other baseline characteristics that may be found to impact time to discharge. Finally, we will explore whether change in psychological distress (e.g., PHQ-8, GAD-7, PCL-5) corresponds to use of COAST by computing correlations between change in ISI score, and number of interactions with their assigned coach.

While the study is not powered for definitive determination of the effects of each of the clinician characteristics on implementation measures or patient outcome data, we will complete exploratory analyses to evaluate if these variables may impact outcomes of interest to inform future implementation efforts.

Plan for dissemination of the results

We anticipate publishing the findings of the trial in at least one peer-reviewed publication and presenting primary and secondary data analyses at national scientific conferences, including the SLEEP meeting, the Military Healthcare System Research Symposium, and the American Telemedicine Association. Briefs delivered to Navy Medical leadership will also offer a path for dissemination of the study findings. Results of the trial will also be discussed with stakeholders and leadership in the DHA.

Discussion

This implementation-effectiveness hybrid type 3 trial is innovative in its combination of digital technologies and evidence-based CBTI practices using a pragmatic approach and a primary focus on ecological clinical validity. This trial design was selected because it is uniquely suited to identify and guide future implementation and dissemination efforts to increase uptake of EB-BSM and improve sustainable access to care and to assess patient-centered outcomes. If successful, the utilization of a dHealth platform to support CBTI can have significant benefits such as improving the overall health, readiness, and resilience of the US Armed Forces; decreasing reliance on hypnotics; improving military retention rates; and decreasing insomnia-related healthcare costs. Scalable and cost-effective digital sleep solutions can have substantial benefits for the Veterans Health Administration as well as civilian healthcare providers and payors.

Based on our preliminary findings and other large-scale research and clinical efforts in the VA and [75, 76], we expect that reach, adoption, and sustainability (maintenance) will be enhanced through EF and EF/IF. We also expect that the magnitude of improvements in insomnia achieved through delivery of CBTI via the dHealth platform for patients enrolled in the trial will meet stringent criteria for clinical effectiveness. Overall, we expect that COAST implemented in MTFs, affiliated clinics, and wellness centers will be an acceptable and preferred care delivery model for delivering behavioral sleep interventions to ADSMs with insomnia and other behavioral sleep disorders.

There are, of course, some challenges that are anticipated over the course of the study. Changes in clinic leadership may impact the retention of enrolled clinics over the course of the trial. To mitigate this risk, we will work closely with each clinic’s leadership and stakeholders to solidify and maintain engagement. Similarly, the retention of providers may be challenging, as attrition naturally occurs due to relocations, promotions, leaves, or other factors. If a clinician withdraws from the trial, we will recruit, train, and replace them with a new provider to maintain a minimum of 24 enrolled providers. A prior implementation pilot revealed high variability among providers in adopting technology. To optimize proficiency and confidence with digital technology, we will closely supervise newly trained providers during the 10- to 14-day familiarization period to provide timely, personalized feedback, and to promote engagement.

While this trial will be conducted in MTFs and affiliated clinics and wellness centers, there is high translation potential to VA Medical Centers and Community-Based Outpatient Clinics as well as to civilian healthcare settings. In civilians, insomnia affects as many as 30% of the general population [3, 77]. In both veterans and civilians, insomnia is also associated with poor mental and physical health outcomes, absenteeism, heightened risk of accidents, decreased productivity, and increased healthcare costs and utilization [15, 78,79,80,81,82,83,84]. The same challenges of CBTI scalability, access, and delivery are found in VA and civilian healthcare sectors, and both have called for greater use of dHealth technologies to support high-quality care and reduce rapidly growing healthcare costs.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  1. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Landes SJ, McBain SA, Curran GM. An introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs. Psychiatry Res. 2019;280:112513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112513.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. International Classification of Sleep Disorders 3rd Ed. Darien, IL USA: American Academy of Sleep Medicine. 2014.

  4. Bramoweth AD, Germain A. Deployment-related insomnia in military personnel and veterans. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15(10):401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0401-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mysliwiec V, Gill J, Lee H, et al. Sleep disorders in US military personnel: a high rate of comorbid insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea. Chest. 2013;144(2):549–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. McLay RN, Klam WP, Volkert SL. Insomnia is the most commonly reported symptom and predicts other symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in US service members returning from military deployments. Mil Med. 2010;175(10):759–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Straus LD, Drummond SP, Nappi CM, Jenkins MM, Norman SB. Sleep variability in military-related PTSD: a comparison to primary insomnia and healthy controls. J Trauma Stress. 2015;28(1):8–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Moore TM, Risbrough VB, Baker DG, et al. Effects of military service and deployment on clinical symptomatology: the role of trauma exposure and social support. J Psychiatr Res. 2017;95:121–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Caldwell JA, Knapik JJ, Shing TL, Kardouni JR, Lieberman HR. The association of insomnia and sleep apnea with deployment and combat exposure in the entire population of US army soldiers from 1997 to 2011: a retrospective cohort investigation. Sleep. 2019;42(8):zsz112. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsz112.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Gehrman P, Seelig AD, Jacobson IG, et al. Predeployment sleep duration and insomnia symptoms as risk factors for new-onset mental health disorders following military deployment. Sleep. 2013;36(7):1009–18. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.2798.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Brooks AT, Wallen GR. Sleep disturbances in individuals with alcohol-related disorders: a review of cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) and associated non-pharmacological therapies. Subst Abuse Res Treat. 2014;8:SART–S18446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wright KM, Britt TW, Bliese PD, Adler AB, Picchioni D, Moore D. Insomnia as predictor versus outcome of PTSD and depression among Iraq combat veterans. J Clin Psychol. 2011;67(12):1240–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ribeiro JD, Pease JL, Gutierrez PM, et al. Sleep problems outperform depression and hopelessness as cross-sectional and longitudinal predictors of suicidal ideation and behavior in young adults in the military. J Affect Disord. 2012;136(3):743–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Trockel M, Karlin BE, Taylor CB, Brown GK, Manber R. Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia on suicidal ideation in veterans. Sleep. 2015;38(2):259–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Seelig AD, Jacobson IG, Donoho CJ, Trone DW, Crum-Cianflone NF, Balkin TJ. Sleep and health resilience metrics in a large military cohort. Sleep. 2016;39(5):1111–20. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.5766.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Qaseem A, Kansagara D, Forciea MA, Cooke M, Denberg TD, for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Management of chronic insomnia disorder in adults: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(2):125. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-2175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Report, Morgenthaler T, Kramer M, et al. Practice parameters for the psychological and behavioral treatment of insomnia: an update. An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Report. Sleep. 2006;29(11):1415–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/29.11.1415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Riemann D, Baglioni C, Bassetti C, et al. European guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of insomnia. J Sleep Res. 2017;26(6):675–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mysliwiec V, Martin JL, Ulmer CS, et al. The management of chronic insomnia disorder and obstructive sleep apnea: synopsis of the 2019 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(5):325. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-3575.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Germain A, Richardson R, Moul DE, et al. Placebo-controlled comparison of prazosin and cognitive-behavioral treatments for sleep disturbances in US Military Veterans. J Psychosom Res. 2012;72(2):89–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Germain A, Moul DE, Franzen PL, et al. Effects of a brief behavioral treatment for late-life insomnia: preliminary findings. J Clin Sleep Med JCSM Off Publ Am Acad Sleep Med. 2006;2(4):403–6.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Germain A, Richardson R, Stocker R, et al. Treatment for insomnia in combat-exposed OEF/OIF/OND military veterans: preliminary randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther. 2014;61:78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.07.016.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ellis JG, Cushing T, Germain A. Treating acute insomnia: a randomized controlled trial of a “single-shot” of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Sleep. 2015;1. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.4752.

  24. Germain A, Shear MK, Hall M, Buysse DJ. Effects of a brief behavioral treatment for PTSD-related sleep disturbances: a pilot study. Behav Res Ther. 2007;45(3):627–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.04.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Taylor DJ, Peterson AL, Pruiksma KE, et al. Impact of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia disorder on sleep and comorbid symptoms in military personnel: a randomized clinical trial. Sleep. 2018;41(6). https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsy069.

  26. McCrae CS, Curtis AF, Williams JM, et al. Efficacy of brief behavioral treatment for insomnia in older adults: examination of sleep, mood, and cognitive outcomes. Sleep Med. 2018;51:153–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2018.05.018.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Pulantara IW, Parmanto B, Germain A. Clinical feasibility of a just-in-time adaptive intervention app (iREST) as a behavioral sleep treatment in a military population: feasibility comparative effectiveness study. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(12):e10124. https://doi.org/10.2196/10124.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Edinger JD, Wohlgemuth WK, Radtke RA, Coffman CJ, Carney CE. Dose-response effects of cognitive-behavioral insomnia therapy: a randomized clinical trial. Sleep. 2007;30(2):203–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/30.2.203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Johnson JA, Rash JA, Campbell TS, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in cancer survivors. Sleep Med Rev. 2016;27:20–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bramoweth AD, Lederer LG, Youk AO, Germain A, Chinman MJ. Brief behavioral treatment for insomnia vs. cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: results of a randomized noninferiority clinical trial among veterans. Behav Ther. 2020;51(4):535–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2020.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Trockel M, Karlin BE, Taylor CB, Manber R. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia with veterans: evaluation of effectiveness and correlates of treatment outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2014;53:41–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bastien CH, Vallières A, Morin CM. Validation of the Insomnia Severity Index as an outcome measure for insomnia research. Sleep Med. 2001;2(4):297–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gellis LA, Gehrman PR. Cognitive behavioral treatment for insomnia in veterans with long-standing posttraumatic stress disorder: a pilot study. J Aggress Maltreatment Trauma. 2011;20(8):904–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jungquist CR, O’Brien C, Matteson-Rusby S, et al. The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia in patients with chronic pain. Sleep Med. 2010;11(3):302–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2009.05.018.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. van der Zweerde T, Bisdounis L, Kyle SD, Lancee J, van Straten A. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: a meta-analysis of long-term effects in controlled studies. Sleep Med Rev. 2019;48:101208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2019.08.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Miller NL, Matsangas P, Shattuck LG. Fatigue and its effect on performance in military environments. Perform Stress. 2007;2008:231–49.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Brasure M, et al. Pharmacologic treatment of insomnia disorder: an evidence report for a clinical practice guideline by the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(2):103–12. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-1781.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Harrison C, Subhan Z, Hindmarch I. Residual effects of zopiclone and benzodiazepine hypnotics on psychomotor performance related to car driving. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1985;11(12):823–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. O’Hanlon JF, Volkerts ER. Hypnotics and actual driving performance. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1986;74(S332):95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sivertsen B, Vedaa Ø, Nordgreen T. The future of insomnia treatment--the challenge of implementation. Sleep. 2013;36(3):303-4. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.2432.

  41. Thomas A, Grandner M, Nowakowski S, Nesom G, Corbitt C, Perlis ML. Where are the behavioral sleep medicine providers and where are they needed? A geographic assessment. Behav Sleep Med. 2016;14(6):687–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15402002.2016.1173551.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Perils ML, Smith MT. How can we make CBT-I and other BSM services widely available? J Clin Sleep Med JCSM Off Publ Am Acad Sleep Med. 2008;4(1):11–3.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Taylor DJ, Peterson AL, Pruiksma KE, et al. Internet and in-person cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in military personnel: a randomized clinical trial. J Sleep Sleep Disord Res. 2017;40(6):zsx075.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Drerup ML, Ahmed-Jauregui S. Online delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy-insomnia: considerations and controversies. Sleep Med Clin. 2019;14(2):283–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ritterband LM, Bailey ET, Thorndike FP, Lord HR, Farrell-Carnahan L, Baum LD. Initial evaluation of an Internet intervention to improve the sleep of cancer survivors with insomnia. Psychooncology. 2012;21(7):695–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zachariae R, Lyby MS, Ritterband LM, O’Toole MS. Efficacy of internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia–a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sleep Med Rev. 2016;30:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Vedaa Ø, Hagatun S, Kallestad H, et al. Long-term effects of an unguided online cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic insomnia. J Clin Sleep Med. 2019;15(01):101–10. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.7580.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Espie CA, Kyle SD, Williams C, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of online cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic insomnia disorder delivered via an automated media-rich web application. Sleep. 2012;35(6):769–81. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.1872.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Cheng P, Kalmbach DA, Tallent G, Joseph CL, Espie CA, Drake CL. Depression prevention via digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: a randomized controlled trial. Sleep. 2019;42(10):zsz150. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsz150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Seyffert M, Lagisetty P, Landgraf J, et al. Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy to treat insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0149139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Cheng SK, Dizon J. Computerised cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychother Psychosom. 2012;81(4):206–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pulantara IW, Parmanto B, Germain A. Development of a just-in-time adaptive mHealth intervention for insomnia: usability study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2018;5(2):e21. https://doi.org/10.2196/humanfactors.8905.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Cully JA, Armento ME, Mott J, et al. Brief cognitive behavioral therapy in primary care: a hybrid type 2 patient-randomized effectiveness-implementation design. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Perry B, Geoghegan C, Lin L, et al. Patient preferences for using mobile technologies in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019;15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100399.

  55. Epstein DR, Babcock-Parziale JL, Haynes PL, Herb CA. Insomnia treatment acceptability and preferences of male Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans and their healthcare providers. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(6):867–78. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2011.06.0114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Cheung JMY, Bartlett DJ, Armour CL, Saini B. Treating insomnia: a review of patient perceptions toward treatment. Behav Sleep Med. 2016;14(3):235–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15402002.2014.981818.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shore JH, Aldag M, McVeigh FL, Hoover RL, Ciulla R, Fisher A. Review of mobile health technology for military mental health. Mil Med. 2014;179(8):865–78. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci IS. 2009;4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Implementation Facilitation Training Manual (Version 2). Accessed February 13, 2020. https://www.queri.research.va.gov/tools/implementation.cfm.

  60. Löwe B, Kroenke K, Gräfe K. Detecting and monitoring depression with a two-item questionnaire (PHQ-2). J Psychosom Res. 2005;58(2):163–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Prins A, Bovin MJ, Smolenski DJ, et al. The primary care PTSD screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5): development and evaluation within a veteran primary care sample. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(10):1206–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3703-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Asberg M, Cronholm B, Sjöqvist F, Tuck D. Correlation of subjective side effects with plasma concentrations of nortriptyline. Br Med J. 1970;4(5726):18–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Johns MW. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep. 1991;14(6):540–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Johns MW. Reliability and factor analysis of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Sleep. 1992;15(4):376–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Guy W, National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.). Psychopharmacology Research Branch. Division of Extramural Research Programs. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville, Md. : U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute of Mental Health, Psychopharmacology Research Branch, Division of Extramural Research Programs; 1976. Accessed December 11, 2019. http://archive.org/details/ecdeuassessmentm1933guyw.

  67. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Krebs EE, Lorenz KA, Bair MJ, et al. Development and initial validation of the PEG, a three-item scale assessing pain intensity and interference. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(6):733–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Hahn EA, Beaumont JL, Pilkonis PA, et al. The PROMIS satisfaction with social participation measures demonstrated responsiveness in diverse clinical populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:135–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.034.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Hedges LV. Effect sizes in cluster-randomized designs. J Educ Behav Stat. 2007;32(4):341–70. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998606298043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Wortmann JH, Jordan AH, Weathers FW, et al. Psychometric analysis of the PTSD Checklist-5 (PCL-5) among treatment-seeking military service members. Psychol Assess. 2016;28(11):1392.

  72. Bovin MJ, Marx BP, Weathers FW, et al. Psychometric properties of the PTSD checklist for diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders–fifth edition (PCL-5) in veterans. Psychol Assess. 2016;28(11):1379.

  73. Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2009;114(1-3):163–173.

  74. Killip S. What is an intracluster correlation coefficient? Crucial concepts for primary care researchers. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(3):204–8. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.141.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Karlin BE, Trockel M, Taylor CB, Gimeno J, Manber R. National dissemination of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in veterans: therapist-and patient-level outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013;81(5):912.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Manber R, Simpson N. Dissemination of CBT for insomnia. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2016;2(3):136–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40675-016-0048-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Roth T. Insomnia: definition, prevalence, etiology, and consequences. J Clin Sleep Med JCSM Off Publ Am Acad Sleep Med. 2007;3(5 Suppl):S7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Johnson AL, Jung L, Brown KC, Weaver MT, Richards KC. Sleep Deprivation and error in nurses who work the night shift. JONA J Nurs Adm. 2014;44(1):17–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Landrigan CP, Rothschild JM, Cronin JW, et al. Effect of reducing interns’ work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(18):1838–48. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041406.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Barger LK, Ayas NT, Cade BE, et al. Impact of extended-duration shifts on medical errors, adverse events, and attentional failures. PLoS Med. 2006;3(12):e487. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030487.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Babson KA, Wong AC, Morabito D, Kimerling R. Insomnia symptoms among female veterans: prevalence, risk factors, and the impact on psychosocial functioning and health care utilization. J Clin Sleep Med. 2018;14(06):931–9. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.7154.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Chakravorty S, Grandner MA, Mavandadi S, Perlis ML, Sturgis EB, Oslin DW. Suicidal ideation in veterans misusing alcohol: relationships with insomnia symptoms and sleep duration. Addict Behav. 2014;39(2):399–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Pigeon WR, Britton PC, Ilgen MA, Chapman B, Conner KR. Sleep disturbance preceding suicide among veterans. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(Suppl 1):S93–7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300470.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Boyko EJ, Seelig AD, Jacobson IG, et al. Sleep characteristics, mental health, and diabetes risk: a prospective study of U.S. military service members in the Millennium Cohort Study. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(10):3154–61. https://doi.org/10.2337/DC13-0042.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

N/A.

Funding

This work is partially sponsored and administered by Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium (MTEC; Award 2019-406) in partnership with the US Army Medical Research & Development Command (USAMRDC) and the Joint Program Committee - JPC -5 at Fort Detrick, MD, and US Air Force Medical Readiness Agency (AFMRA) Mental Health Policy and Program Evaluation Branch (FA8052-19C-A010.NOCTEM.001). The opinions and assertions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, or the US Department of Defense. The views and opinions expressed herein should not be construed as an official position, policy, or decision of the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, or the US Department of Defense unless so designated by other documentation. No official endorsement should be made. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the US Government.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Anne Germain and Rachel R. Markwald are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NOCTEM, LLC, 218 Oakland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Anne Germain & Megan Wolfson

  2. Warfighter Performance Department, Naval Health Research Center, 140 Sylvester Rd, San Diego, CA, 92106, USA

    Rachel R. Markwald & Erin Miggantz

  3. Mental Health Division, Air Force Medical Readiness Agency, 2261 Hughes Ave, Suite 153, JBSA Lackland AFB, TX, 78236-9853, USA

    Erika King

  4. VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Research Office Building (151RU), University Drive C, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA

    Adam D. Bramoweth

  5. Naval Medical Center San Diego, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr, San Diego, CA, 92134, USA

    Gilbert Seda, Tony Han, Lars Hungerford & Traci Sitzer

  6. Leidos, Inc., 4161 Campus Point Ct., San Diego, 92121, USA

    Erin Miggantz

  7. Madigan Army Medical Center, 9040A Jackson Ave, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, 98431, USA

    Brian O’Reilly

  8. Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, Naval Medical Center San Diego, 34800 Bob Wilson Drive, San Diego, CA, 92134, USA

    Lars Hungerford

  9. Division of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, UT Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, MC 7747, San Antonio, TX, 78229-3900, USA

    Vincent Mysliwiec

  10. Knowesis, Inc., 816 Camaron St. Suite 231, San Antonio, TX, 78212, USA

    Joseph J. Hout

  11. University of Pittsburgh, 3811 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Meredith L. Wallace

Authors
  1. Anne Germain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel R. Markwald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erika King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adam D. Bramoweth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Megan Wolfson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gilbert Seda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tony Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Erin Miggantz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Brian O’Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Lars Hungerford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Traci Sitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Vincent Mysliwiec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Joseph J. Hout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Meredith L. Wallace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The study design was conceptualized by AG, RRM, EM, ADB, LH, EK, GS, TH, BO, and MW. The statistical plan was designed by MLW, ADB, and AG. AG, RRW, MW, ADB, EK, GS, TH, EM, LH, TS, VM, BO, JJH, and MLW provided critical intellectual contributions in the writing of the manuscript. The final approval of this submitted version of the manuscript was provided by AG, RRM, EK, ADB, VM, and MLW. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Germain.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study received ethics review and approval from Solutions, IRB (Protocol #2019/12/10) on January 29, 2020; from the Naval Health Research Center (NHRC) on April 28, 2020 (Protocol #: NHRC.2019.0018); and from the US Army Medical Research and Development Command (USAMRDC), Office of Research Protections (ORP), Human Research Protection Office (HRPO) (HRPO Log Numbers E01442.1a [NOCTEM, LLC], E01442.1b [NHRC], E01442.1e [Naval Medical Center, San Diego], and E01442.1f [Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton]) on September 11, 2020. Consent will be obtained from all providers and end users interested in participating in the trial.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

AG is co-founder and CEO of NOCTEM, LLC. ADB is supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Service (IK2 HX-001548, I01 HX003096). VM is consultant for CPAP Medical, Ebb Therapeutics, and NightWare, Inc. ADB, MLW, and VM are paid consultants of NOCTEM, LLC. MW is employed by NOCTEM, LLC.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Germain, A., Markwald, R.R., King, E. et al. Enhancing behavioral sleep care with digital technology: study protocol for a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness randomized trial. Trials 22, 46 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04974-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04974-z

Keywords

Trials

ISSN: 1745-6215