The effects of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) have consistently been shown to improve insomnia symptoms and other health-related outcomes, but the effects on QoL have been inconsistent. Many factors including the type CBT-I delivery and type of instrument used to assess QoL make the topic complex. The present systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the evidence of CBT-I efficacy on QoL outcomes across different populations, delivery modes, and methodological aspects. Following the guidelines on preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), a literature search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO using keywords from relevant MeSH terms based on PICOS (Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study) criteria. Clinical trials investigating the effect of CBT-I as an intervention on QoL with any kind of control group were eligible if they reported mean scores and variation of QoL. Meta-analysis using a random-effect model was conducted to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) in a set including all identified studies, as well as in three sub-sets: face-to-face CBT-I using randomized controlled trials (RCTs), online CBT-I using RCTs, and one-group pre- and post-treatment design. A total of 24 studies comprising 1977 participants (808 in an intervention group) from 12 countries were eligible for meta-analysis. The overall pooled estimate of SMD of QoL when all 24 studies were included was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.22; 0.72; I² = 84.5%; tau² = 0.31; p < 0.001). The overall pooled estimate of SMD of QoL was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.01-0.90; I² = 87.5%; tau² = 0.48, p < 0.001) for intervention groups with face-to-face CBT-I compared to controls; 0.47 (95% CI: 0.02-0.92; I² = 88.3%; tau² = 0.36; p = 0.04) for intervention groups with digital CBT-I compared to controls, and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.12-0.80; I² = 52.9%; tau² = 0.07; p = 0.08) for one-group pre- and post-comparison using CBT-I intervention compared to baseline. Moreover, effects of CBT-I on QoL were different across populations (pooled SMD = 0.59 for patients with insomnia; 0.29 for patients with insomnia comorbid with another major disorder; and 0.48 for other conditions) and types of QoL instruments (pooled SMD = 0.36 for disease-specific QoL instrument not on insomnia, 0.43 for generic QoL instrument, and 0.67 for a single-QoL-item instrument). The probability of publication bias was ruled out in overall and design specific sub-group analysis based on funnel plot and Egger's test. In conclusion, this meta-analysis confirmed a moderate, overall effect of CBT-I in improving QoL. However, due to small power and heterogeneity, future studies are needed to better explore the impact of moderating factors such as mode of delivery and type of QoL measure for assessment used.

Summary: This systematic review, meta‐analysis and meta‐regression assessed the prevalence of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in the general adult population. Studies identified in Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycInfo between January 2000 and February 2022 were included if they used a case–control or cross‐sectional design and reported data regarding the prevalence of RLS. The protocol was pre‐registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42022300709). A total of 97 studies including 483,079 participants from 33 different countries met the eligibility criteria. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality, and the fill‐and‐trim method was used to correct probable publication bias, while the jack‐knife method was performed to assess small study effect. The corrected overall pooled prevalence of RLS was 3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4%–3.8%). The pooled prevalence of RLS syndrome was affected by methodological quality (no data from non‐respondents in the included studies), gender (higher among women), study design (lower prevalence in case–control versus cohort and cross‐sectional studies). The figures for corrected pooled prevalence among men, women, alcohol consumers and smokers were 2.8% (95% CI 2%–3.7%); 4.7% (95% CI 3.2%–6.3%); 1.4% (95% CI 0%–4.2%); and 2.7% (95% CI 0%–5.3%), respectively. The prevalence among male and female participants was lower in community‐based versus non‐community‐based studies. Moreover, the prevalence was higher in developed versus developing countries and among elders versus adults. In conclusion, RLS is a common disorder in the general adult population, with a higher prevalence in women; however, prevalence data are affected by study design and quality.

Summary: The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) changed lifestyles worldwide and subsequently induced individuals’ sleep problems. Sleep problems have been demonstrated by scattered evidence among the current literature on COVID‐19; however, little is known regarding the synthesised prevalence of sleep problems (i.e. insomnia symptoms and poor sleep quality) for males and females separately. The present systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to answer the important question regarding prevalence of sleep problems during the COVID‐19 outbreak period between genders. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guideline and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale checklist, relevant studies with satisfactory methodological quality searched for in five academic databases (Scopus, PubMed Central, ProQuest, Web of Science , and EMBASE) were included and analysed. The protocol of the project was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; identification code CRD42020181644). A total of 54 papers (N = 67,722) in the female subgroup and 45 papers (N = 45,718) in the male subgroup were pooled in the meta‐analysis. The corrected pooled estimated prevalence of sleep problems was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19%–29%) for female participants and 27% (95% CI 24%–30%) for male participants. Although in both gender subgroups, patients with COVID‐19, health professionals and general population showed the highest prevalence of sleep problems, it did not reach statistical significance. Based on multivariable meta‐regression, both gender groups had higher prevalence of sleep problems during the lockdown period. Therefore, healthcare providers should pay attention to the sleep problems and take appropriate preventive action.

(1) Background: Temporal relationships between nomophobia (anxiety related to ‘no mobile phone phobia’), addictive use of social media, and insomnia are understudied. The present study aimed to use a longitudinal design to investigate temporal relationships between nomophobia, addictive use of social media, and insomnia among Iranian adolescents; (2) Methods: A total of 1098 adolescents (600 males; 54.6%; age range = 13 to 19) were recruited from 40 randomly selected classes in Qazvin, Iran. They completed baseline assessments. The same cohort was invited to complete three follow-up assessments one month apart. Among the 1098 adolescents, 812 (400 males; 49.3%; age range = 13 to 18) completed the baseline and three follow-up assessments. In each assessment, the participants completed three questionnaires, including the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q), Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS), and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI); (3) Results: Multilevel linear mixed-effects regression analyses showed that participants demonstrated increased insomnia longitudinally over 3 months (B = 0.12 and 0.19; p = 0.003 and <0.001). Insomnia was associated with nomophobia (B = 0.20; p < 0.001) and addictive use of social media (B = 0.49; p < 0.001). Nomophobia and addictive use of social media interacted with time in associations with insomnia as demonstrated by significant interaction terms (B = 0.05; p < 0.001 for nomophobia; B = 0.13; p < 0.001 for addictive use of social media); (4) Conclusions: Both nomophobia and addictive use of social media are potential risk factors for adolescent insomnia. The temporal relationship between the three factors suggests that parents, policymakers, and healthcare providers may target reducing nomophobia and addictive use of social media to improve adolescents’ sleep.

One of the most efficient methods to control the high infection rate of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is to have a high coverage of COVID-19 vaccination worldwide. Therefore, it is important to understand individuals’ intention to get COVID-19 vaccinated. The present study applied the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to explain the intention to get COVID-19 vaccinated among a representative sample in Qazvin, Iran. The TPB uses psychological constructs of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control to explain an individual’s intention to perform a behavior. Fear and perceived infectability were additionally incorporated into the TPB to explain the intention to get COVID-19 vaccinated. Utilizing multistage stratified cluster sampling, 10,843 participants (4092 males; 37.7%) with a mean age of 35.54 years (SD = 12.00) completed a survey. The survey assessed TPB constructs (including attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention related to COVID-19 vaccination) together with fear of COVID-19 and perceived COVID-19 infectability. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to examine whether fear of COVID-19, perceived infectability, and the TPB constructs explained individuals’ intention to get COVID-19 vaccinated. The SEM demonstrated satisfactory fit (comparative fit index = 0.970; Tucker-Lewis index = 0.962; root mean square error of approximation = 0.040; standardized root mean square residual = 0.050). Moreover, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, attitude, and perceived COVID-19 infectability significantly explained individuals’ intention to get COVID-19 vaccinated. Perceived COVID-19 infectability and TPB constructs were all significant mediators in the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and intention to get COVID-19 vaccinated. Incorporating fear of COVID-19 and perceived COVID-19 infectability effectively into the TPB explained Iranians’ intention to get COVID-19 vaccinated. Therefore, Iranians who have a strong belief in Muslim religion may improve their intention to get COVID-19 vaccinated via these constructs.