The Effect of Psychoeducational Diagnosis Communication on Perception of Illness, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions Among Patients With Functional Neurological Movement Disorders

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.

• Functional comorbidities [Time frame: at baseline]
• Patient-reported outcome measures of functional neurological disorders [Time frame: at baseline, pre-intervention, 1st and 2nd follow up]
• health-related quality of life [Time frame: baseline, pre-intervention and at the 1st follow up]
• Remaining questions [Time frame: immediately after the intervention and at the first follow up]
• Patient preferences [Time frame: immediately after the intervention and at the first follow up]
• Communication quality [Time frame: immediately post-intervention.]
• Substance Addiction [Time frame: at baseline]