Anxiety and depressive disorders are the most frequent disorders for which patients seek care in public health settings in Spain. This study aimed at validating the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) and the Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale (ODSIS), which are brief screening scales for anxiety and depression consisting of only five items each. The study was conducted in a Spanish clinical sample receiving outpatient mental health treatment (N = 339). A subsample of participants (n = 219) was assessed before and after receiving a course of cognitive-behavioral treatment. The results revealed excellent internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alpha for the OASIS and the ODSIS was 0.87 and 0.94, respectively), along with promising convergent and discriminant validity and test-criterion relationships (i.e., moderate correlation with other measures of depression and anxiety, as well as with neuroticism, quality of life, adjustment, and negative affect). A one-dimensional structure was obtained for the OASIS and the ODSIS. The ROC analyses indicated an area under the curve of 0.83 for the OASIS and the ODSIS when predicting moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression, respectively. Good sensitivity to therapeutic change was also evidence and the analysis of the sensitivity as a function of 1-specificity area suggested a cutoff value of 10 for both scales. Inter-rater reliability of diagnoses with the ADIS-IV interview could not be investigated and the results obtained may not be generalizable to other samples and health settings. The availability of these two short and psychometrically sound measures should make screening of anxiety and depressive symptoms in routine care more feasible.

The present study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the Unified Protocol (UP), a transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders (EDs), when applied in a group format in the public mental h...

Evidence-Based Psychological Treatments for Adults: A Selective Review. Psychological treatments have shown their efficacy, effectiveness, and efficiency in dealing with mental disorders. However, considering the scientific knowledge generated in recent years, in the Spanish context, there are no updating studies about empirically supported psychological treatments. The main goal was to carry out a selective review of the main empirically supported psychological treatments for mental disorders in adults. Levels of evidence and degrees of recommendation were collected based on the criteria proposed by the Spanish National Health System (Clinical Practice Guidelines) for different psychological disorders. The results indicate that psychological treatments have empirical support for the approach to a wide range of psychological disorders. These levels of empirical evidence gathered range from low to high depending on the psychological disorder analysed. The review indicates the existence of certain fields of intervention that need further investigation. Based on this selective review, psychology professionals will be able to have rigorous, up-to-date information that allows them to make informed decisions when implementing empirically based psychotherapeutic procedures based on the characteristics of the people who require help.

Emotional disorders are those that most commonly present comorbidly with medical conditions. The Unified Protocol for the Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders (UP), a cognitive-behavioral emotion-based intervention, has proven efficacy and versatility. The aim of this systematic review is to know the current (research studies) and future research interest (study protocols) in using the UP for the transdiagnostic treatment of emotional symptoms or disorders (EDs) in people with a medical condition. Using the PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, and Dialnet. The nine research studies included in this review indicated that the UP is effective in treating emotional symptomatology in a population with a medical condition (effect sizes ranging from d = −3.34 to d = 2.16). The three included study protocols suggest interest in the future UP application to different medical conditions, and also in distinct application formats. Our review results are encouraging, and conducting more controlled studies is advised to recommend the UP to treat and/or prevent EDs in medical conditions, especially in children and youths.

Healthcare professionals, especially women, have shown increases in anxious-depressive symptoms as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a Unified Protocol (UP) prevention program to provide emotional regulation skills to cope with stressful situations. The sample consisted of 27 nursing professionals (100% women; mean age: 45.67; SD = 7.71) working in a Spanish public hospital during COVID-19, who were randomized to an immediate treatment group (ITG, n = 13) or to a delayed treatment group (DTG, n = 14, which served as the waiting list control group and received the program 5 weeks after the ITG had received it). The program consisted of five-weekly, two-hour, UP-based group sessions. Variables related to emotional symptomatology, emotional regulation, personality, burnout, and perceived quality of life were evaluated at the following time points: pre- and post-intervention and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Statistically significant between-group differences showed lower emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment in favor of the ITG after the intervention. Regarding the effect over time for all participants who received the UP (n = 27), statistically significant reductions were observed in neuroticism, personal accomplishment, and subjective distress caused by traumatic events (−0.23 ≤ d ≤ −0.73). A statistically significant interaction “Time*Condition” was found in anxiety, with increases in the DTG. Participants showed high satisfaction with the UP. These findings show good acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of the UP to reduce the emotional impact of the pandemic in female nursing workers.

We analyzed the preference of three psychological intervention formats—individual, group, and online—in a sample of 267 patients with a primary diagnosis of emotional disorder in Spanish public mental health settings. We studied patients’ preferences considering sociodemographic characteristics, diagnoses, history of psychological treatments, number of sessions, and satisfaction with past interventions. Most participants (85.4%) preferred psychological treatment in an individual format, 14.2% in group, and 0.4% online. When comparing the people who chose individual and group treatment, no demographic or clinical differences were found. The arguments against group format were the lack of privacy and expression difficulties. Regarding online format, these included being considered impersonal and ineffective. The rejection of group and online psychotherapy formats allows us to define the actions we should carry out in public mental health settings to improve the acceptance of more cost-effective therapy formats.