An interventional study of Immunization-enhancement and Immunization-inhibition in Somatic Symptom Disorder, sponsored by Philipps University Marburg. Completed at 1 site in Germany. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 69 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-01-10.
Sponsored by Philipps University Marburg · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science
Research has shown that patients with functional somatic symptoms continue to worry about having a serious disease despite medical reassurance from their doctors. This study aims to investigate whether cognitive immunization is a mechanism that underlies the sustained concern about having serious disease. To this end, the use of cognitive immunization strategies will be experimentally modulated after receipt of medical test results.
It is known from research on functional somatic symptoms that patients continue to worry about having a serious illness despite receiving medical reassurance and normal medical test results. However, the psychological mechanisms underlying this maintenance of concern are largely unknown. The planned study will therefore apply knowledge from depression research to this question: In the field of depression there is sound evidence that people with depressive symptoms maintain negative expectations despite positive experiences to the contrary, and in previous work it was shown that this is due to a cognitive re-appraisal of expectation-disconfirming experiences, referred to as cognitive immunization. The planned study seeks to investigate whether cognitive immunization is also a mechanism underlying sustained concerns about having a serious disease despite medical reassurance in patients with functional somatic symptoms. For this purpose, participants are presented with a vignette in which gastrointestinal complaints are reported; participants are instructed to imagine to suffer from these symptoms and to go a doctor to have their symptoms examined. Subsequently, participants watch a videotaped doctor's report in which a family doctor discusses the results of several medical tests that have been carried out to exclude the possibility of some serious diseases, such as colon cancer. In this report, the doctor states clearly that, based on the test results, a serious disease is very unlikely. Afterwards, participants of some experimental groups receive additional information on the accuracy of medical diagnostics, aimed at differentially varying the appraisal of the medical reassurance received.
The experimental conditions described above apply only to the sample of patients with functional somatic symptoms (inclusion and exclusion criteria see below). In addition, we will also recruit a clinical (patients with depression, n=30) and healthy control group (n=30). These control groups will not undergo the cognitive immunization manipulation, but will only pass through the basic procedure of the experimental paradigm, that is, the same procedure as the control group from the sample of patients with functional somatic symptoms. These two control groups (healthy and clinical) are recruited to replicate previous findings showing that patients with somatic symptoms report increased probabilities of suffering from a serious disease compared to patients with depression and healthy control participants. Below, we will only present the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the sample with functional somatic symptoms.
71 studies on the registry are indexed under Medically Unexplained Symptoms; 22 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 60 is below the median of 68 across 53 interventional studies indexed under Medically Unexplained Symptoms.
Browse Medically Unexplained Symptoms studies →Philipps University Marburg is the lead sponsor of 116 studies on the registry; 12 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
This group receives an immunization-promoting manipulation aimed at triggering negative appraisals of the medical information received and questioning the validity of the medical reassurance. For this purpose, a standardized information text is presented to the participants after receipt of the doctor's report, in which it is stated that the standard medical diagnosis in gastroenterology is often not particularly accurate and that serious diseases are from times to times overlooked. As a further factor contributing to the non-detection of diseases, it is mentioned that doctors are often under time pressure and thus do not have sufficient time to ask patients for all important information. It is believed that communicating this information will result in participants continuing to report high probabilities of serious illness despite the previously received findings report.
Behavioral: Immunization-enhancement
The aim of the immunization-inhibiting manipulation is to increase the probability that the normal test results obtained will be used to reduce worries about a serious illness. The participants of this group receive - analogous to the immunization-promoting group - a standardized information text which states that the standard medical diagnosis in gastroenterology is very accurate and that the physicians are very often correct in their initial diagnostic assessment, especially with regard to the assessment of a serious organic disease. This is supported by two scientific publications. The aim of this information is to increase the value of the results obtained, so that the participants are more reassured as a result of the inconspicuous test results and use them to correct their health-related concerns.
Behavioral: Immunization-inhibition
This group does not receive additional information after the doctor's report.
Behavioral: Control group
This group receives a standardized information text, suggesting that medical diagnostics is not very accurate. Reasons for why a serious disease is overlooked are mentioned and discussed.
This group receives a standardized information text, suggesting that medical diagnostics is very accurate and that doctors are very often right in their first initial diagnostic assessments.
This group receives no further information after watching the videotaped doctor's report.
Likelihood of a serious disease scale
Numerical analogue scale to assess the likelihood of having a serious disease (0 = serious disease excluded; 100 = serious disease for sure)
Time frame: 2 minutes after the doctor's report
Cognitive immunization against medical reassurance scale
Assessment of cognitive reappraisal of medical reassurance; each item is scored 1-7 (1 = totally disagree; 7 = totally agree)
Time frame: 5 minutes after the doctor's report
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Medically Unexplained Symptoms →