Michal Tanzer, Marina Bobou, Athanasios Koukoutsakis, Alkistis Saramandi, Paul M Jenkinson, Sam Norton, Caroline Selai, Katerina Fotopoulou
{"title":"生物反馈和训练内感受洞察力和元认知效能信念(InMe)以改善适应性内感受:一项亚临床随机对照试验。","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><strong>Introduction: </strong>Interoception, the sensing, awareness, and regulation of physiological states, is crucial for wellbeing and mental health. Behavioural interventions targeting interoception exist, but randomised controlled 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12274049/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biofeedback and Training of Interoceptive Insight and Metacognitive Efficacy Beliefs 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><strong>Introduction: </strong>Interoception, the sensing, awareness, and regulation of physiological states, is crucial for wellbeing and mental health. Behavioural interventions targeting interoception exist, but randomised controlled 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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\":\"1-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12274049/pdf/\",\"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}","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
摘要
内感受是对生理状态的感知、意识和调节,对身心健康至关重要。针对内感受的行为干预措施是存在的,但随机对照试验(RCTs)测试效果仍然有限。目前,预注册的(ISRCTN16762367)随机对照试验测试了新的内感受性洞察力和元认知效能信念(InMe)干预。InMe在压力下使用慢呼吸和心脏生物反馈来训练内感受性自我效能感信念并改善自我报告的内感受。方法将年龄在18-30岁、自我报告内感受较低的健康参与者随机(1:1)分配到InMe干预组(n=50)或主动对照组(引导图像;n = 52)。对分配不知情的参与者按性别和饮食紊乱进行分层。评估包括基线(T0)、干预后(T1)和干预后7-8周(T2)。主要结果为内感受意识多维度评估问卷中的“适应性内感受”因子。结果:T1时,两组患者的主要转归均有改善(InMe:调整后M差=5.76;95%可信区间[-0.03,11.56],p = 0.05;对照:调整M差=7.90;95%可信区间[1.92,13.87],p = 0.002;边际R2 = 0.09)。然而,只有InMe在T2时维持了这种改善(InMe:调整后的M差=9.25,95%CI[3.37;15.13], p
Biofeedback and Training of Interoceptive Insight and Metacognitive Efficacy Beliefs to Improve Adaptive Interoception: A Subclinical Randomised Controlled Trial.
Introduction: Interoception, the sensing, awareness, and regulation of physiological states, is crucial for wellbeing and mental health. Behavioural interventions targeting interoception exist, but randomised controlled 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.