@article{savard_efficacy_2021,

title = {Efficacy of a stepped care approach to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia in cancer patients: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial},

author = {J. Savard and H. Ivers and M. -H. Savard and C. M. Morin and A. Caplette-Gingras and S. Bouchard and G. Lacroix},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85121217599&doi=10.1093%2fsleep%2fzsab166&partnerID=40&md5=8c3390082d345b725c47465f96bb8e44},

doi = {10.1093/sleep/zsab166},

issn = {01618105 (ISSN)},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-01-01},

journal = {Sleep},

volume = {44},

number = {11},

abstract = {Study Objectives: Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the recommended first-line treatment for cancer-related insomnia, but its accessibility is very limited in routine care. A stepped care approach has been recommended as a cost-effective way to make CBT-I more widely accessible. However, no controlled study has yet been published about the efficacy of this approach. The goal of this noninferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to compare the short and long-term efficacy of a stepped care CBT-I (StepCBT-I) to a standard face-to-face CBT-I (StanCBT-I). Methods: A total of 177 cancer patients were randomized to: (1) StanCBT-I (6 face-to-face CBT-I sessions; n = 59) or (2) StepCBT-I (n = 118). In the StepCBT-I group, patients with less severe insomnia first received a web-based CBT-I (n = 65), while those with more severe insomnia received 6 face-to-face CBT-I sessions (n = 53). In both cases, patients could receive up to three booster sessions of CBT-I if they still had insomnia symptoms following this first step. Results: Results indicated that the Step-CBT-I group showed an Insomnia Severity Index score reduction and a sleep efficiency (on a sleep diary) increase that was not significantly inferior to that of StanCBT-I at all post-treatment time points. Analyses of secondary outcomes indicated significant time effects (ps <. 001) and no significant group-by-time interactions (ps from. 07 to. 91) on other sleep diary parameters, sleep medication use, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and quality of life scores. Conclusion(s): The efficacy of stepped care CBT-I is not inferior to that of a standard face-to-face intervention and is a valuable approach to making this treatment more widely accessible to cancer patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01864720 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01864720?term=Savard&draw=2&rank=6; Stepped Care Model for the Wider Dissemination of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia Among Cancer Patients). © 2021 Sleep Research Society 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Sleep Research Society.},

note = {Publisher: Oxford University Press},

keywords = {adult, Anxiety, Anxiety disorder, cancer, cancer diagnosis, cancer patient, cognitive behavioral therapy, Cognitive-behavioral therapy, comparative study, complication, controlled study, cost effectiveness analysis, Depression, disease severity, drug use, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, fatigue, female, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, human, Humans, insomnia, Insomnia Severity Index, long term care, major clinical study, male, malignant neoplasm, Middle Aged, Montreal cognitive assessment, neoplasm, Neoplasms, outcome assessment, procedures, psychotropic agent, quality of life, randomized controlled trial, remission, review, Self Care, short course therapy, sleep, sleep efficiency, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, sleep pattern, stepped care, stepped care approach, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders, therapy effect, treatment outcome, web-based intervention},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{bouchard_arguing_2021,

title = {Arguing in Favor of Revising the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire Factor Structure When Assessing Side Effects Induced by Immersions in Virtual Reality},

author = {S. Bouchard and M. Berthiaume and G. Robillard and H. Forget and C. Daudelin-Peltier and P. Renaud and C. Blais and D. Fiset},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85119514106&doi=10.3389%2ffpsyt.2021.739742&partnerID=40&md5=83c5198937636133854ac31ad7f749a5},

doi = {10.3389/fpsyt.2021.739742},

issn = {16640640 (ISSN)},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-01-01},

journal = {Frontiers in Psychiatry},

volume = {12},

abstract = {Two issues are increasingly of interest in the scientific literature regarding unwanted virtual reality (VR) induced side effects: (1) whether the latent structure of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) is comprised of two or three factors, and (2) if the SSQ measures symptoms of anxiety that can be misattributed to unwanted negative side effects induced by immersions in VR. Study 1 was conducted with a sample of 876 participants. A confirmatory factor analysis clearly supported a two-factor model composed of nausea and oculomotor symptoms instead of the 3-factor structure observed in simulators. To tease-out symptoms of anxiety from unwanted negative side effects induced by immersions in VR, Study 2 was conducted with 88 participants who were administered the Trier Stress Social Test in groups without being immersed in VR. A Spearman correlation showed that 11 out of 16 side effects correlated significantly with anxiety. A factor analysis revealed that items measuring general discomfort, difficulty concentrating, sweating, nausea, and vertigo loaded significantly on the anxiety factor comprised of items from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Finally, a multiple regression indicated that the items measuring general discomfort and difficulty concentrating significantly predicted increases in anxiety. The overall results support the notion that side effects associated with immersions in VR consist mostly of a nausea and an oculomotor latent structure and that a few items are confounding anxiety and cybersickness. The data support the suggestion to revise the scoring procedures of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire when using this instrument with immersions in VR. Copyright © 2021 Bouchard, Berthiaume, Robillard, Forget, Daudelin-Peltier, Renaud, Blais and Fiset.},

note = {Publisher: Frontiers Media S.A.},

keywords = {adult, Anxiety, Anxiety disorder, article, attention disturbance, blurred vision, confounding variable, controlled study, correlational study, cybersickness, disease association, dizziness, eye movement disorder, fatigue, female, headache, human, hypersalivation, immersion, major clinical study, male, nausea, scoring system, simulator sickness, Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, State Trait Anxiety Inventory, stomach disease, sweat gland disease, sweating, Trier Stress Social Test, vertigo, virtual reality},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{guitard_exposure_2019,

title = {Exposure to a standardized catastrophic scenario in virtual reality or a personalized scenario in imagination for Generalized Anxiety Disorder},

author = {T. Guitard and S. Bouchard and C. Bélanger and M. Berthiaume},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85073896961&doi=10.3390%2fjcm8030309&partnerID=40&md5=b80f2e6602416c35dd8e36fd8b19c803},

doi = {10.3390/jcm8030309},

issn = {20770383 (ISSN)},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-01},

journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},

volume = {8},

number = {3},

abstract = {The cognitive behavioral treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) often involves exposing patients to a catastrophic scenario depicting their most feared worry. The aim of this study was to examine whether a standardized scenario recreated in virtual reality (VR) would elicit anxiety and negative affect and how it compared to the traditional method of imagining a personalized catastrophic scenario. A sample of 28 participants were first exposed to a neutral non-catastrophic scenario and then to a personalized scenario in imagination or a standardized virtual scenario presented in a counterbalanced order. The participants completed questionnaires before and after each immersion. The results suggest that the standardized virtual scenario induced significant anxiety. No difference was found when comparing exposure to the standardized scenario in VR and exposure to the personalized scenario in imagination. These findings were specific to anxiety and not to the broader measure of negative affect. Individual differences in susceptibility to feel present in VR was a significant predictor of increase in anxiety and negative affect. Future research could use these scenarios to conduct a randomized control trial to test the efficacy and cost/benefits of using VR in the treatment of GAD. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.},

note = {Publisher: MDPI},

keywords = {adult, anxiety assessment, article, avoidance behavior, clinical article, cognitive avoidance questionnaire, cognitive behavioral therapy, Cognitive exposure, disease severity, DSM-IV, Exposure in virtual reality, fatigue, female, gatineau presence questionnaire, generalized anxiety disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), human, human experiment, imagination, immersive tendencies questionnaire, Likert scale, male, Middle Aged, mini international neuropsychiatric interview, penn state worry questionnaire, Personalized scenario, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Presence Questionnaire, psychotherapy, questionnaire, Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, Standardized scenario, task performance, test retest reliability, time series analysis, virtual reality},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}