Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Functional neurological movement disorders are common conditions that can lead to significant limitations in daily life. They result from a functional disorder in the brain. A clear, understandable, and empathetic explanation of the diagnosis is a crucial first step in treatment. The purpose of this clinical study is to investigate how a clear and detailed explanation of the diagnosis of functional neurological movement disorders affects patients' understanding of their condition and their symptoms The investigators are interested in how well patients understand the diagnosis and the symptoms they experience as the disease progresses, as well as how the conversation between patient and doctor is experienced from both perspectives. In addition, as part of the study, a one-time examination using brain imaging (magnetic resonance imaging) will be conducted to better understand possible differences in brain function.
Functional neurological disorders (FNDs) are common neurological conditions associated with a significant reduction in quality of life and a poor prognosis if diagnosis is delayed. FNDs have multifactorial causes, including psychological stressors, psychiatric comorbidities, and past trauma. A characteristic feature of FNDs is their susceptibility to influence by attention: symptoms can be intensified by increased focus and alleviated by distraction. Despite the establishment of positive diagnostic criteria that position FNS as disorders to be actively diagnosed rather than merely excluded, communicating this in clinical practice remains a challenge. There is often a lack of clear, empathetic, and patient-centered communication of the diagnosis by physicians. Previous studies have shown that the way in which a diagnosis of functional disorders is communicated can have a decisive influence on understanding of the condition, acceptance of the diagnosis, willingness to undergo treatment, and long-term outcomes. In particular, psychoeducational intervention studies show positive effects; however, these have so far been investigated primarily within the context of complex group programs, which are potentially biased by participant self-selection. It remains unclear whether structured, empathetic, and guideline-based individual counseling provided during a regular doctor-patient consultation can achieve similar positive effects. In addition, many physicians report feeling uncertain about how to interact with patients with unexplained symptoms, which can negatively impact the quality of physician- patient communication and the physician-patient relationship. Patients are often simply told which other diseases have been ruled out, without receiving a comprehensible explanation for their symptoms-which can encourage repeated visits to other doctors ("doctor shopping"). Despite the recommendation for patient-centered, understandable, and empathetic explanation of the FNS diagnosis as the first step in treatment, there has been a lack of systematic research to date on the specific effectiveness of this explanation in the doctor-patient conversation. Against this backdrop, the planned study aims to investigate the impact of an empathetic, psychoeducational explanation of the diagnosis on patients newly diagnosed with a functional movement disorder (FMD). The focus is on changes in the perception of the condition and in symptom severity and burden, as well as confidence in the diagnosis of the functional movement disorder, the patients' communication experience and satisfaction with the physician who conveys the diagnosis, intentions regarding "doctor shopping," as well as remaining unanswered questions, individual preferences, and support needs following the diagnosis.
In addition, the self-efficacy of physicians in communicating the diagnosis will be assessed to identify potential correlations with patients' confidence in the diagnosis and the positive effect of the intervention on other variables.
As part of the study, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) will also be used once as a supplementary imaging modality to assess anatomical and functional aspects of the brain and to make comparisons between participants who show improvements in symptoms and quality of life over the course of the study and those who do not, as well as with healthy control groups.
Study Design: The study follows a prospective intervention design with repeated measurements at four time points within the same participants (within-subject waitlist design). Following an initial baseline assessment (T0), all participants undergo a four-week waiting period without intervention, which serves as an intra-individual control condition.
The measurement time points following the baseline assessment (T0) occur before the diagnosis is made (T1), immediately afterward (T2), four weeks later (T3), and three months later (T4). A separate control group of individuals who do not receive an intervention is not included.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standardized FND Psychoeducation Guideline | Experimental |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychoeducational communication guide for first-diagnosis of FND | Behavioral | The intervention is a structured communication protocol used by physicians to provide a systematic, evidence-based explanation of the diagnosis to patients with Functional Movement Disorders (FMD). The primary goal is to foster a common understanding of the condition, validate the patient's experience, and establish a foundation for active rehabilitation. The psychoeducational session follows a 14-step framework designed to address the clinical, neurological, and psychological dimensions of the disorder |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Illness Perception | Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R), Range (min, max scores) varies by subscale (typically 1-5 per item), Higher scores indicate more negative perceptions. | 4 months (at each measurement point) |
| Trust in the diagnosis | 3 questions whether participants trust the diagnosis | From immediately post-intervention to the last follow up |
| Doctor shopping intentions | Question on whether participants intent to consult other physicians regarding their diagnosis in the future | From post-intervention to the last follow up |
| Symptom Burden of functional movement disorders | Symptom-Functional Movement Disorder Rating Scale (S-FMDRS), Range: 0 - 60; higher scores mean greater symptom burden and severity | at baseline and the pre-intervention |
| Patient Global Impression of Severity / Change (PGI-S/C) | standardized instrument to assess the subjective impression of disease severity and change with 3 items, rated on a likert scale from 1-5. Range of the full scale: 3-15 (higher values indicate higher severity of the disease) | At baseline (severity), before the intervention (change), at the first follow up and at the second follow up) |
| Clinician Global Impression of Severity / Change (CGI-S/C) | standardized instrument for clinicians to assess the clinicians' impression of disease severity and change of the patient, with 3 items, rated on a likert scale from 1-5. Range of the full scale: 3-15 (higher values indicate higher severity of the disease) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Functional comorbidities | measured with selected subscales of the PHQ-D , which is the German translation and validation of the "Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)" by Löwe et al., 1999. Higher values indicate higher scores indicate more severe symptoms of depression, anxiety, or somatization. Scores range from 0-3 per item. | at baseline |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Presence of any of the following functional movement disorders:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maria Schneller | Contact | 004331638580395 | maria.schneller@medunigraz.at |
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical University of Graz | Recruiting | Graz | 8036 | Austria |
Not provided
Following an initial baseline assessment (T0), all participants undergo a four-week waiting period without intervention, which serves as an intra-individual control condition.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| At baseline (severity), before the intervention (change), at the first follow up and at the second follow up) |
| Patient-reported outcome measures of functional neurological disorders |
PROM questionnaire by Michaelis et al. (2026) assessing the extent and the impact of the movement disorder on the patient. Self-reported measurement. Range: 16 to 80 with higher values indicating higher severity/impairment. |
| at baseline, pre-intervention, 1st and 2nd follow up |
| health-related quality of life | Assessed with the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF36), a questionnaire of the patient's subjective quality of life, measured with 36 items rated on a likert scale, range of the total score goes from 0 to 100 with higher values indicating better health-related quality of life and function. | baseline, pre-intervention and at the 1st follow up |
| Remaining questions | assessing remaining open questions with regards to the FND diagnosis after the psychoeducation and diagnosis explanation , asked by the study team | immediately after the intervention and at the first follow up |
| Patient preferences | Assessing patients treatment preferences, practical, social and systematic support preferences with regards to the FND diagnosis asked through open questions by the study team | immediately after the intervention and at the first follow up |
| Communication quality | Assess the patient's rating of the communication quality with the clinician, assessed with the standardized EORTC-QLQ-COMU26-questionnaire (translated and validated german version) Range: 0-100, high score indicates good communication. | immediately post-intervention. |
| Substance Addiction | WHO - ASSIST V3.0 (Alcohol, Smoking & Substance Involvement Screening Test), scores are evaluated for each substance separetely with higher values indicating higher risk for addiction. Range from 0 to 27+ for high risk level. | at baseline |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D003291 | Conversion Disorder |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D013001 | Somatoform Disorders |
| D001523 | Mental Disorders |
Not provided
Not provided