Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40472825›Full record

Trial reportPsychotherapy and psychosomatics2025

Biofeedback and Training of Interoceptive Insight and Metacognitive Efficacy Beliefs 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

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Michal TanzerResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Marina BobouResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Athanasios KoukoutsakisResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Alkistis SaramandiResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Paul M JenkinsonResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Sam NortonResearch Department of Psychology, King's College London, London, UK.
Caroline SelaiQueen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Katerina FotopoulouResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK, a.fotopoulou@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

<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 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.

methodsHealthy 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.

resultsBoth 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).

conclusionThe 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>.

Indexed as

AwarenessBiofeedback, PsychologyInteroceptionMetacognitionSelf EfficacyAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultBiofeedbackEating disordersInteroceptionRandomised controlled trialSelf-efficacySlow breathing

Identifiers

PMID40472825
PMCPMC12274049

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.