Search

Background: The high prevalence of emotional disorders leads to a high demand for mental care which results in high costs and long waiting lists in public mental health settings. The Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders (UP) is a recent emotion‐regulation‐based intervention that can be a cost‐effective solution in public mental health settings due its transdiagnostic approach and the possibility to apply it in group format. However, the acceptability by mental healthcare professionals (MHCPs) delivering the UP in group format has not been explored. Methods: Thirty‐three MHCPs, grouped into MHCPs without previous experience and MHCPs with experience in delivering the UP, were asked about aspects of acceptability and intention to use. Quantitative analysis was carried out to explore MHCPs acceptability. Furthermore, qualitative opinion about UP were collected through a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis to explore MHCPs opinion of delivering the UP intervention in a group format, within the Spanish Public Mental Health System. Results: The results showed high scores in all acceptability dimensions and intention to use in the future. SWOT analysis showed strengths and opportunities focusing on its transdiagnostic nature and the cost‐effective benefits of group treatment, and weaknesses and threats related to the limited material and human resources. Conclusions: Findings indicate high acceptability of the UP by MHCPs working within the Spanish Public Mental Health System and also identified areas for improvements. In order to enhance the dissemination and implementation of the UP, it is essential to consider MHCPs' perceptions and to be open to their suggestions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: 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. Method: We studied patients’ preferences considering sociodemographic characteristics, diagnoses, history of psychological treatments, number of sessions, and satisfaction with past interventions. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]