OBJECTIVE: The present study explores the clinical utility and sensitivity of actigraphy as an outcome measure in the treatment of chronic insomnia. DESIGN: Following a screening-adaptation night, polysomnography, actigraphy, and sleep-diary data were collected in the sleep laboratory for 2 baseline nights and 2 posttreatment nights. SETTING: A university-affiliated sleep disorders center. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen participants with chronic primary insomnia. Mean age was 41.6 years. INTERVENTIONS: Participants took part in a treatment protocol investigating different sequential treatments for insomnia (these results are reported elsewhere). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Compared to polysomnography, both actigraphy and sleep-diary instruments underestimated total sleep time and sleep efficiency and overestimated total wake time. Also, actigraphy underestimated sleep-onset latency while the sleep diary overestimated it as compared to polysomnography. Actigraphy data were more accurate than sleep-diary data when compared to polysomnography. Finally, actigraphy was sensitive in detecting the effects of treatment on several sleep parameters. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that actigraphy is a useful device for measuring treatment response and that it should be used as a complement to sleep-diary evaluation.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 194 citations exist upstream.