Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the most effective delivery format of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) on insomnia in cancer patients. Methods: We searched five databases up to February 2021 for randomized clinical trials that compared CBT-I with inactive or active controls for insomnia in cancer patients. Outcomes were insomnia severity, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and total sleep time (TST). Pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model were applied for data analyses. Results: Sixteen unique trials including 1523 participants met inclusion criteria. Compared with inactive control, CBT-I could significantly reduce insomnia severity (mean differences [MD] = -4.98 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.82 to -4.14), SOL (MD = -12.29 min, 95%CI: -16.48 to -8.09), and WASO (MD = -16.58 min, 95%CI: -22.00 to -11.15), while increasing sleep efficiency (MD = 7.62%, 95%CI: 5.82% to 9.41%) at postintervention. Compared with active control, CBT-I could significantly reduce insomnia severity (MD = -2.75 points, 95%CI: -4.28 to -1.21), SOL (MD = -13.56 min, 95%CI: -18.93 to -8.18), and WASO (MD = -6.99 min, 95%CI: -11.65 to -2.32) at postintervention. These effects diminished in short-term follow-up and almost disappeared in long-term follow-up. Most of the results were rated as "moderate" to "low" certainty of evidence. Network meta-analysis showed that group CBT-I had an increase in sleep efficiency of 10.61%, an increase in TST of 21.98 min, a reduction in SOL of 14.65 min, and a reduction in WASO of 24.30 min, compared with inactive control at postintervention, with effects sustained at short-term follow-up. Conclusions: CBT-I is effective for the management of insomnia in cancer patients postintervention, with diminished effects in short-term follow-up. Group CBT-I is the preferred choice based on postintervention and short-term effects. The low quality of evidence and limited sample size demonstrate the need for robust evidence from high-quality, large-scale trials providing long-term follow-up data.

This review compared the efficacy and acceptability of different delivery formats for cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in insomnia. We searched five databases for randomized clinical trials that compared one CBT-I delivery format against another format or control conditions for insomnia in adults. We used pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model to synthesize data. A total of 61 unique trials including 11,571 participants compared six CBT-I delivery formats with four control conditions. At post-intervention, with low to high certainty evidence, individual, group, guided self-help, digital assisted, and unguided self-help CBT-I could significantly increase sleep efficiency and total sleep time (TST) and reduce sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and insomnia severity compared with treatment as usual (MD range for sleep efficiency: 7.81%-12.45%; MD range for TST: 16.14-33.96 min; MD range for SOL:-22.42 to-13.81 min; MD range for WASO:-40.84 to-19.48 min; MD range for insomnia severity:-6.40 to-3.93) and waitlist (MD range for sleep efficiency: 7.68%-12.32%; MD range for TST: 12.67-30.49 min; MD range for SOL:-19.07 to-10.46 min; MD range for WASO:-47.10 to-19.15 min; MD range for insomnia severity:-7.59 to-5.07). The effects of different CBT-I formats per-sisted at short-term follow-up (4 wk-6 mo). Individual, group, and digital assisted CBT-I delivery formats would be the more appropriate choices for insomnia in adults, based on post-intervention and short-term effects. Further trials are needed to investigate the long-term effects of different CBT-I formats. (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: Optimal cancer care entails coordination among multiple providers and continued follow-up and surveillance over time. The patient-centered care brings opportunities to improve the delivery of cancer care. The adoption of patient-centered oncology care (PCOC) is in its infancy. Evidence synthesis on the model's effectiveness is scant. PURPOSES: This is the first systemic review and meta-analysis on associations of PCOC with cancer patients' adverse health care utilization, cost, patient satisfaction, and quality of care. METHODS: Our study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) framework. Quality appraisal was performed using Downs and Black's quality checklist. Study-level effect sizes of adverse health care utilization were computed using Cohen's d and summarized using forest plots. Funnel plots were constructed to examine publication bias. RESULTS: Of 334 studies that were reviewed, 10 met eligibility criteria and were included into the final analysis. Many included studies implemented almost all six of patient-centered care core attributes, plus three additional attributes that specifically addressed cancer patients' needs, including triage pathways, standardized and evidence-based symptom management, as well as support patient navigation. PCOC patients had lower utilization of inpatient care (standardized means difference [SMD] = -0.027, p = .049). Overall positive effect of PCOC on emergency department use was small and not significant (SMD = -0.023, p = .103). With regard to cost and quality of care, our narrative summaries showed an overall positive direction, though we found limitations in individual study quality that precluded a meta-analysis. PUBLIC IMPLICATION: The results showed that it is possible to utilize patient-centered model to support best practice of cancer care. Early evidence shows that the PCOC model has potential to improve health care utilization, cost, and quality of care, but limited numbers of included articles and heterogeneity of those studies implied that more rigorous research is expected to further investigate the model's effects.