Promoting sleep in low-income older adults with disabilities: Comparing CAPABLE with a social engagement control.
Junxin Li, Safiyyah Okoye, Pallavi Dwivedi and 4 others
PMID 35944382WHAT IT FOUND
Both a multidisciplinary home program and a social engagement control improved sleep efficiency and reduced sleep onset latency in low-income older adults with disabilities.
However, the multidisciplinary program was not superior to the social engagement control.
Key findings
01Participants in the CAPABLE intervention showed significant within-group improvements in sleep efficiency and sleep onset latency.
02Participants in the social engagement control group also showed significant within-group improvements in sleep efficiency and sleep onset latency.
03There were no significant differences between the CAPABLE group and the social engagement control group in sleep outcomes.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a secondary analysis of a trial designed for functional disability, not sleep. Sleep was not a primary outcome. The sample size was small (n=73) and unbalanced between groups (26 vs 47), which likely reduced statistical power to detect differences. Only objective actigraph measures were used; there were no subjective self-reported sleep quality measures. The control group (social engagement) was itself an active intervention that improved sleep, which may have masked any superior effect of CAPABLE.
Declared interests
None reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that CAPABLE is ineffective for sleep. Both groups improved sleep metrics significantly from baseline. The null result refers only to the comparison between CAPABLE and the active social engagement control, not to CAPABLE versus no treatment.