Reappraisal Of Medical Assurance (ROMA): An Experimental Study in Patients With Functional Somatic Symptoms (ROMA)

January 5, 2022 updated by: Philipps University Marburg Medical Center

Why Medical Reassurance Fails in Patients With Functional Somatic Symptoms - An Experimental Study on Cognitive Immunization

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.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

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.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
60

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Germany
    • Rheinland-Pfalz
      • Landau, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany, 76829
        • University of Koblenz-Landau

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 69 years (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Primary diagnosis of a somatoform disorder (F45.x) (as assessed with the SKID interview)
  • Age between 18 and 69
  • Sufficient German language skills

Exclusion Criteria:

  • acute life-threatening disease
  • diagnosed mental disorder other than the somatoform disorder that is considered the primary diagnosis (people with other comorbid mental disorders are not excluded if the somatoform disorder is the primary diagnosis)

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: BASIC_SCIENCE
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: SINGLE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
EXPERIMENTAL: Immunization-enhancement
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
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.
EXPERIMENTAL: Immunization-inhibition
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 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.
EXPERIMENTAL: Control group
This group does not receive additional information after the doctor's report.
Behavioral: Control group
This group receives no further information after watching the videotaped doctor's report.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Likelihood of a serious disease scale
Time Frame: 2 minutes after the doctor's report
Numerical analogue scale to assess the likelihood of having a serious disease (0 = serious disease excluded; 100 = serious disease for sure)
2 minutes after the doctor's report

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Cognitive immunization against medical reassurance scale
Time Frame: 5 minutes after the doctor's report
Assessment of cognitive reappraisal of medical reassurance; each item is scored 1-7 (1 = totally disagree; 7 = totally agree)
5 minutes after the doctor's report

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Philipps University Marburg Medical Center

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
Harvard Medical School (HMS and HSDM)
University of Kaiserslautern-Landau

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Tobias Kube, PhD, University of Kaiserslautern-Landau

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
October 23, 2019

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
December 23, 2021

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
December 23, 2021

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
July 16, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 2, 2019

First Posted (ACTUAL)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
August 5, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
January 10, 2022

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
January 5, 2022

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
January 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • ROMA_199

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Somatic Symptom Disorder

Clinical Trials on Immunization-enhancement

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings