Biofeedback and Training of Interoceptive Insight and Metacognitive Efficacy Beliefs (InMe) to Improve Adaptive Interoception: A Subclinical Randomised Controlled Trial.
Michal Tanzer, Marina Bobou, Athanasios Koukoutsakis, Alkistis Saramandi, Paul M Jenkinson, Sam Norton, Caroline Selai, Katerina Fotopoulou
{"title":"Biofeedback and Training of Interoceptive Insight and Metacognitive Efficacy Beliefs (InMe) to Improve Adaptive Interoception: A Subclinical Randomised Controlled Trial.","authors":"Michal Tanzer, Marina Bobou, Athanasios Koukoutsakis, Alkistis Saramandi, Paul M Jenkinson, Sam Norton, Caroline Selai, Katerina Fotopoulou","doi":"10.1159/000546298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Introduction Interoception, the sensing, awareness and regulation of physiological states, is crucial for wellbeing and mental health. Behavioural interventions targeting interoception exist, but Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) testing efficacy remain limited. The present, preregistered (ISRCTN16762367) RCT tested the novel Interoceptive iNsight and Metacognitive Efficacy beliefs (InMe) intervention. InMe uses slow-breathing and cardiac biofeedback during stress to train interoceptive self-efficacy beliefs and improve self-reported interoception. Methods Healthy participants aged 18-30 years with low self-reported interoception were randomly assigned (1:1) to the InMe intervention (n=50) or an active control (guided imagery; n=52). Participants blinded to allocation were stratified by gender and disordered eating. Assessments included baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and 7-8 weeks post-intervention (T2). The primary outcome was the \"Adaptive Interoception\" factor of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness questionnaire. Results Both arms improved in the primary outcome at T1 (InMe:adjusted M difference=5.76; 95%CI[-0.03;11.56], p=0.05; Control:adjusted M difference=7.90; 95%CI[1.92;13.87], p=0.002; Marginal R2=0.09). However, only InMe sustained this improvement at T2 (InMe:adjusted M difference=9.25, 95%CI[3.37;15.13], p<0.001; Control:adjusted M difference=2.94, 95%CI[-3.07; 8.96], p=0.72), as indicated by a significant Time*Arm interaction (b=6.31; SE=2.92, 95%CI[0.56;12.05], p<0.03; Marginal R2=0.12). Secondary outcomes showed a reduction in disordered eating scores across both arms at both time points (T1:b=-1.44, SE=0.37, 95%CI[-2.17;-0.71], p<0.001; T2: b=-1.05, SE=0.37, 95%CI[-1.79; -0.32], p=0.005). Conclusion The InMe intervention selectively improved self-reported interoception at follow-up but did not outperform the Control for secondary outcomes. Future research should explore its efficacy in clinical populations alongside complementary therapies.</p>","PeriodicalId":20744,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","volume":" ","pages":"1-36"},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000546298","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction Interoception, the sensing, awareness and regulation of physiological states, is crucial for wellbeing and mental health. Behavioural interventions targeting interoception exist, but Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) testing efficacy remain limited. The present, preregistered (ISRCTN16762367) RCT tested the novel Interoceptive iNsight and Metacognitive Efficacy beliefs (InMe) intervention. InMe uses slow-breathing and cardiac biofeedback during stress to train interoceptive self-efficacy beliefs and improve self-reported interoception. Methods Healthy participants aged 18-30 years with low self-reported interoception were randomly assigned (1:1) to the InMe intervention (n=50) or an active control (guided imagery; n=52). Participants blinded to allocation were stratified by gender and disordered eating. Assessments included baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and 7-8 weeks post-intervention (T2). The primary outcome was the "Adaptive Interoception" factor of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness questionnaire. Results Both arms improved in the primary outcome at T1 (InMe:adjusted M difference=5.76; 95%CI[-0.03;11.56], p=0.05; Control:adjusted M difference=7.90; 95%CI[1.92;13.87], p=0.002; Marginal R2=0.09). However, only InMe sustained this improvement at T2 (InMe:adjusted M difference=9.25, 95%CI[3.37;15.13], p<0.001; Control:adjusted M difference=2.94, 95%CI[-3.07; 8.96], p=0.72), as indicated by a significant Time*Arm interaction (b=6.31; SE=2.92, 95%CI[0.56;12.05], p<0.03; Marginal R2=0.12). Secondary outcomes showed a reduction in disordered eating scores across both arms at both time points (T1:b=-1.44, SE=0.37, 95%CI[-2.17;-0.71], p<0.001; T2: b=-1.05, SE=0.37, 95%CI[-1.79; -0.32], p=0.005). Conclusion The InMe intervention selectively improved self-reported interoception at follow-up but did not outperform the Control for secondary outcomes. Future research should explore its efficacy in clinical populations alongside complementary therapies.
期刊介绍:
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is a reputable journal that has been published since 1953. Over the years, it has gained recognition for its independence, originality, and methodological rigor. The journal has been at the forefront of research in psychosomatic medicine, psychotherapy research, and psychopharmacology, and has contributed to the development of new lines of research in these areas. It is now ranked among the world's most cited journals in the field.
As the official journal of the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine and the World Federation for Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics serves as a platform for discussing current and controversial issues and showcasing innovations in assessment and treatment. It offers a unique forum for cutting-edge thinking at the intersection of medical and behavioral sciences, catering to both practicing clinicians and researchers.
The journal is indexed in various databases and platforms such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, Google Scholar, Academic Search, and Health Research Premium Collection, among others.