A brief intervention to discontinue inappropriate z-hypnotics use by older patients in primary care: a randomised controlled trial

Healthcare guidelines advise that z-hypnotics should not be used long-term in older patients. However, inappropriate use of these medications, characterised by prolonged use at high doses, remains common. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a brief intervention (BI) conducted by general practitioners (GPs) for terminating inappropriate use of z-hypnotics, compared to business as usual (BAU – control group). This study was a double-blind, randomised controlled trial comparing BI conducted by trained GPs to BAU at baseline and at a six-week follow-up. Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were performed, utilising t-tests and Fisher’s exact tests. The predefined primary outcome was the proportion of participants with no inappropriate z-hypnotic use (defined as use for four weeks or more, or three times per week or more). Secondary outcomes included sleep problems, measured by the Global Sleep Assessment Scale, visual analogue scale for (VAS) pain intensity, and cognitive function, measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA). Both study arms reduced inappropriate use and improved usage patterns (n = 45). No difference was found in the ITT analysis of BI (n = 23) and BAU (n = 22) at six-week follow-up (no inappropriate use BAU = 71% and BI = 57%, p = 0.51). There were no significant differences between the BI and BAU groups in cognitive function (MOCA) (mean (SD) BI: 18.12 (2.15); BAU: 17.61 (2.89); p = 0.56), and VAS pain intensity (mean (SD) BI: 1.67(1.96); BAU: 1.75(2.05); p = 0.90). There was no significant difference in insomnia symptoms at six-week follow-up (proportion of insomnia BAU = 9.1% and BI = 8.7%, p-value = 1.00). The PP analysis showed comparable results. While many patients reduced their use of z-hypnotics, there was no significant difference in inappropriate use between the BI and BAU groups. The main limitation of the study was that it became underpowered. More studies are needed with a larger sample size. NCT06032715

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Primary Care
Published
2026-02-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-026-03212-w
Primary Topic
Sleep and related disorders
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A brief intervention to discontinue inappropriate z-hypnotics use by older patients in primary care: a randomised controlled trial

Tahreem Ghazal Siddiqui, Tone Breines Simonsen, Maria Torheim Bjelkarøy, Maria Lie Selle et al.
BMC Primary Care
Sleep and related disorders
article

A brief intervention to discontinue inappropriate z-hypnotics use by older patients in primary care: a randomised controlled trial

Tahreem Ghazal Siddiqui, Tone Breines Simonsen, Maria Torheim Bjelkarøy, Maria Lie Selle, Christofer Lundqvist
article en

Abstract

Healthcare guidelines advise that z-hypnotics should not be used long-term in older patients. However, inappropriate use of these medications, characterised by prolonged use at high doses, remains common. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a brief intervention (BI) conducted by general practitioners (GPs) for terminating inappropriate use of z-hypnotics, compared to business as usual (BAU – control group). This study was a double-blind, randomised controlled trial comparing BI conducted by trained GPs to BAU at baseline and at a six-week follow-up. Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were performed, utilising t-tests and Fisher’s exact tests. The predefined primary outcome was the proportion of participants with no inappropriate z-hypnotic use (defined as use for four weeks or more, or three times per week or more). Secondary outcomes included sleep problems, measured by the Global Sleep Assessment Scale, visual analogue scale for (VAS) pain intensity, and cognitive function, measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA). Both study arms reduced inappropriate use and improved usage patterns (n = 45). No difference was found in the ITT analysis of BI (n = 23) and BAU (n = 22) at six-week follow-up (no inappropriate use BAU = 71% and BI = 57%, p = 0.51). There were no significant differences between the BI and BAU groups in cognitive function (MOCA) (mean (SD) BI: 18.12 (2.15); BAU: 17.61 (2.89); p = 0.56), and VAS pain intensity (mean (SD) BI: 1.67(1.96); BAU: 1.75(2.05); p = 0.90). There was no significant difference in insomnia symptoms at six-week follow-up (proportion of insomnia BAU = 9.1% and BI = 8.7%, p-value = 1.00). The PP analysis showed comparable results. While many patients reduced their use of z-hypnotics, there was no significant difference in inappropriate use between the BI and BAU groups. The main limitation of the study was that it became underpowered. More studies are needed with a larger sample size. NCT06032715

BMC Primary CareVol. 27(1)
University of Oslo (NO), Akershus University Hospital (NO)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Sleep and related disorders
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.