0434 Brief Dyadic Sleep Interventions for Couples Coping with Cancer: Feasibility and Acceptability

Abstract Introduction Adults with cancer and their family caregivers are highly vulnerable to sleep problems and their associated health consequences. Because about 65% of adults, including patients with cancer, share a bed with a partner, and because bedpartners influence each other’s sleep, dyadic sleep interventions are particularly relevant for couples coping with cancer. However, existing psychobehavioral sleep interventions rarely address both members’ sleep simultaneously. This study examines the feasibility and acceptability of two brief dyadic sleep interventions: My Sleep Our Sleep (MSOS) and Brief Behavioral Treatment for Insomnia for Couples with Cancer (BBTI-CC) (NCT06569693). Methods Patient-caregiver dyads are randomly assigned to either intervention condition. Both programs are delivered synchronously via Zoom in four weekly sessions. Questionnaire, daily sleep logs, and actigraphy-based sleep data are collected before the intervention (T1), one week (T2) and eight weeks (T3) post-intervention. Participant satisfaction with each session is assessed immediately after each of the four sessions. Results Over 13 months, we enrolled 33 dyads (84.6% enrollment rate; 43.4% of target). Common ineligibility reasons included not sharing a bed (41.6%), absence of sleep problems (10.8%), and patient death (9.1%). Twenty-nine dyads (87.9%) completed the intervention: three dyads withdrew before session 1, and one withdrew after session 1 due to patient death. All remaining participants completed T2 and T3, except one individual at T2. Participants reported high satisfaction with the intervention sessions (m = 4.69, range 4.59 – 4.86 on a 5-point scale). Satisfaction did not differ by intervention conditions (p ≥ .711) or patient vs caregiver status (p ≥ .277), with one exception: in the MSOS condition, caregivers reported greater motivation to change their maladaptive sleep-related cognitions than patients (p = .012). Conclusion Preliminary findings indicate that brief sleep interventions for both adults with cancer and their caregivers are feasible and acceptable. As enrollment continues, we will evaluate whether both MSOS and BBTI-CC produce similar improvements in sleep disturbance, insomnia severity, and health-related quality of life. Results will inform refinement of intervention content and procedures for a future full-scale trial targeting adult patients with cancer and their bedpartner caregivers. Support (if any) R21NR021086

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
SLEEP
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsag091.0434
Primary Topic
Cancer survivorship and care
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

0434 Brief Dyadic Sleep Interventions for Couples Coping with Cancer: Feasibility and Acceptability

Jennifer Steel, Youngmee Kim, Thomas Tsai, Alberto Ramos et al.
SLEEP
Cancer survivorship and care
article

0434 Brief Dyadic Sleep Interventions for Couples Coping with Cancer: Feasibility and Acceptability

Jennifer Steel, Youngmee Kim, Thomas Tsai, Alberto Ramos, Wendy Troxel, William Wohlgemuth
article en

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Adults with cancer and their family caregivers are highly vulnerable to sleep problems and their associated health consequences. Because about 65% of adults, including patients with cancer, share a bed with a partner, and because bedpartners influence each other’s sleep, dyadic sleep interventions are particularly relevant for couples coping with cancer. However, existing psychobehavioral sleep interventions rarely address both members’ sleep simultaneously. This study examines the feasibility and acceptability of two brief dyadic sleep interventions: My Sleep Our Sleep (MSOS) and Brief Behavioral Treatment for Insomnia for Couples with Cancer (BBTI-CC) (NCT06569693). Methods Patient-caregiver dyads are randomly assigned to either intervention condition. Both programs are delivered synchronously via Zoom in four weekly sessions. Questionnaire, daily sleep logs, and actigraphy-based sleep data are collected before the intervention (T1), one week (T2) and eight weeks (T3) post-intervention. Participant satisfaction with each session is assessed immediately after each of the four sessions. Results Over 13 months, we enrolled 33 dyads (84.6% enrollment rate; 43.4% of target). Common ineligibility reasons included not sharing a bed (41.6%), absence of sleep problems (10.8%), and patient death (9.1%). Twenty-nine dyads (87.9%) completed the intervention: three dyads withdrew before session 1, and one withdrew after session 1 due to patient death. All remaining participants completed T2 and T3, except one individual at T2. Participants reported high satisfaction with the intervention sessions (m = 4.69, range 4.59 – 4.86 on a 5-point scale). Satisfaction did not differ by intervention conditions (p ≥ .711) or patient vs caregiver status (p ≥ .277), with one exception: in the MSOS condition, caregivers reported greater motivation to change their maladaptive sleep-related cognitions than patients (p = .012). Conclusion Preliminary findings indicate that brief sleep interventions for both adults with cancer and their caregivers are feasible and acceptable. As enrollment continues, we will evaluate whether both MSOS and BBTI-CC produce similar improvements in sleep disturbance, insomnia severity, and health-related quality of life. Results will inform refinement of intervention content and procedures for a future full-scale trial targeting adult patients with cancer and their bedpartner caregivers. Support (if any) R21NR021086

SLEEPVol. 49(Supplement_1)
RAND Corporation (US), University of Miami (US), University of Pittsburgh (US), Miami VA Healthcare System (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Cancer survivorship and care
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.