Hypothetically imagined tension headache (vignette-based scenario)
Conditions
Interventions
Group 1: Control Group, treatment vignette conventional medication
Sociodemographic information, current health status, and medication use are assessed first. All participants then read the same init
Devilly & Borkovec, 2000). This serves to capture baseline expectations and the perceived plausibility independently of the treatment content.
Participants then read a treatment vignette in which a c
Richmond et al., 2022)
2. German modified Health Anxiety Inventory (MK-HAI
Bailer & Witthöft, 2006)
3. General Self-Efficacy Scale (SWE
Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1999)
4. A people-pleasing scale developed by us
In addition, four general items assessing belief in the effectiveness of placebos are presented. Finally, participants are aske
Sponsors
Universität Graz
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: good knowledge of German
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: no participation in the pilot study
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Expectation and credibility ratings are assessed twice via the Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ; Devilly & Borkovec, 2000), once after the presentation of the case vignette and once after the presentation of the treatment vignette. Perceived appropriateness of the treatment and self-reported willingness to use the treatment are measured using two items following the treatment vignette. The analysis is based on the vignette study by Haas et al. (2021). | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The associations between various predictor variables (e.g., health anxiety, trust in physicians, type of treatment, etc.) and the personal treatment acceptability will be examined. | — |
Countries
Austria, Germany, Switzerland
Contacts
Public ContactAnne Schienle
Universität Graz
Outcome results
None listed