813 Patient and Provider Experiences with CBT-I Administered In-Person or via Telemedicine

• Published in: Sleep (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 44; no. Supplement_2; p. A317
• Main Authors: Gunter, Paul, Gehrman, Philip, Findley, James, Kayser, Matthew, Kuna, Samuel, Frasso, Rosemary
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Westchester Oxford University Press 03.05.2021
• Subjects: B. Clinical Sleep Science and Practice; Cognitive therapy; Insomnia; Patients; Qualitative research; Telemedicine
• ISSN: 0161-8105; 1550-9109
• DOI: 10.1093/sleep/zsab072.810

Abstract Introduction CBT-I is the gold standard treatment for insomnia, but access to in-person care is limited, which has worsened due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic. While providers across spheres of care have rapidly pivoted to telehealth there have been few systematic comparisons of in-person treatments to telemedicine approaches. The current study, launched pre-COVID, aimed to examine the perspectives of patients who were randomly assigned to receive CBT-I in-person or via telemedicine. Additionally, provider reflections were collected. Methods Individuals with DSM5 Insomnia Disorder (n=60) were randomized to in-person CBT-I, telemedicine CBT-I or a wait-list control group. CBT-I was delivered over 6–8 weekly sessions by video telemedicine or in-person. This nested qualitative study addressed patient and provider perspectives on treatment approaches. A sample of participants from each group (n=36) were interviewed 3 months post-treatment. Phone interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. Results were organized into thematic categories including 1) participant experience with CBT-I, 2) access issues and 3) accountability issues related to delivery approach. Additionally, participating providers (n=7) were interviewed and shared their reflections on delivering CBT-I in-person vs. telemedicine. Results Patients reflected positively on CBT-I, and this did not vary across treatment groups. Patients and providers noted telemedicine benefits related to access that included, but were not limited to, reducing transportation barriers to treatment and improved continuity of care (e.g. not having to cancel an appointment if a patient was traveling). Patients and providers shared concerns they had anticipated pre-treatment about possible telemedicine related technological hurdles and barriers to establishing meaningful rapport on-line. However, they reported that these concerns did not prove to be barriers to effective telemedicine visits. Conclusion This qualitative study allowed patients and their providers to reflect on their experience delivering in-person vs telemedicine CBT-I. CBT-I was accepted well regardless of delivery approach. Telemedicine is currently being deployed widely and this study provides a systematic comparison between approaches. Support (if any) This study was supported by the American Sleep Medicine Foundation.