Feasibility and acceptability outcomes of the InMe trial - ...participants with subclinical eating and somatic symptom disorders 2026 Bobou et al

Andy

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)
Full title: Feasibility and acceptability outcomes of the InMe trial - a randomised controlled trial in participants with subclinical eating and somatic symptom disorders

Abstract​

Dysregulations in interoception have been associated with mental health disorders including eating and somatic symptom disorders. The present study addresses the feasibility and acceptability of a novel, behavioural intervention (InMe) in a healthy sample with low, self-reported interoception. The efficacy of the InMe intervention against an active control arm was tested in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) reported elsewhere, while the feasibility and acceptability of InMe were assessed in parallel and are fully reported here.

Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention arm (InMe) or active control arm and stratified according to their self-reported gender and a cut-off score from the Eating Disorders Questionnaire (EDE-Q). Feasibility and accessibility measures included self-report scales and questionnaires, assessor checklists and ratings, as well as behavioural and physiological responses. Data was gathered from a total of 102 participants and encompassed trial recruitment and retention rates, the suitability of measurement tools, as well as the feasibility and acceptability of stressors, interventions and other trial procedures.

The study found satisfactory feasibility in recruitment procedures, trial measurement tools, and intervention procedures. Participants perceived the intervention as acceptable, though minor adjustments for trial optimisation were identified. Overall, this feasibility study provided promising evidence regarding the acceptability and feasibility of an interoception based intervention in a RCT context. These findings offer valuable insights particularly for the design of future clinical trials for testing the efficacy of this intervention further in clinical populations.

Open access
 
It seems a bit weird. I had a quick look at the protocol and I think they were testing on normal healthy students who were slightly 'eating-disorderish' or whatever. It seemed to be some sort of biofeedback technique. Maybe biofeedback could work for severe ME/CFS but it would need to be tested on severe ME/CFS.
 
V.R.T. said:
I can't think of any reason why it would.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But maybe severe ME/CFS is the one situation where it does work - who knows? We need some data. If people are happy to have their vagus nerve given electric shocks maybe they should try this. I am not going to persuade them though!
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Agreed. But maybe severe ME/CFS is the one situation where it does work - who knows? We need some data. If people are happy to have their vagus nerve given electric shocks maybe they should try this. I am not going to persuade them though!
Click to expand...
Jonathan Edwards said:
I am simply stating that it is possible, but that we are not going to get much useful information from studying healthy students.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase yourself: sure, it’s also possible that you’ll feel better from eating a banana. What happened to getting people to stop wasting resources on trialling things without any good arguments for why it might work?

I agree that studying healthy people isn’t useful here.
 
The bar is so low that it can be met by sleeping through or passed out drunk. It's basically as if businesses consisted only of powerpoint presentations. No need to do anything after that, just the concept of a business idea.

It all feels like a sick joke, and it sure is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom