Evidence Hub

Systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral interventions for sleep disruption in pediatric neurodevelopmental and medical conditions

Dana Kamara, Angel Bernard, E. Clark, K. Duraccio, D. Ingram, Tian-Jing Li, Christi Piper, Emily H. Cooper et al.

Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 2025

1,374 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions for sleep disruption in children with neurodevelopmental and medical conditions.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was designed and run for studies published between 1970 and July 1, 2023. Original, peer-reviewed RCTs of children ages birth to 18 years with/at risk for sleep disruption and a neurodevelopmental and/or medical condition were included. Interventions without behavioral components, lifestyle interventions, or pharmaceutical interventions were excluded. Primary outcomes included sleep health domains, and secondary outcomes were condition symptomatology and quality of life.

RESULTS

Data from 15 RCTs were examined (1,374 participants, 78% male, 71% White). Sleep disruptions were predominantly insomnia symptoms. Intervention content included parent training, sleep hygiene education, and relaxation strategies. Adaptations to the interventions for use in children with neurodevelopmental and/or medical conditions included behavioral strategies commonly used in those conditions, sleep education specific to the condition, and/or use of case examples specific to the condition. No studies reported on adverse effects. Behavioral sleep interventions had a significant effect on sleep satisfaction, bedtime resistance, and ADHD symptoms at postintervention. At follow-up, effects were maintained only for sleep satisfaction. Parent rating of child…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,374 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free