Search

In recent decades, the evidence on psychological treatments for children and adolescents has increased considerably. Several organizations have proposed different criteria to evaluate the evidence of psychological treatment in this age group. The aim of this study was to analyze evidence-based treatments drawn from RCTs, reviews, meta-analyses, guides and lists provided by four leading international organizations. The institutions reviewed were the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (Division 53) of the American Psychological Association, Cochrane Collaboration and the Australian Psychological Society in relation to mental disorders in children and adolescents. A total of 137 treatments were analyzed for 17 mental disorders and compared to determine the level of agreement among the organizations. The results indicate that, in most cases, there is little agreement among organizations and that there are several discrepancies within certain disorders. These results require reflection on the meaning attributed to evidence-based treatments with regard to psychological treatments in children and adolescents. The possible reasons for these differences could be explained by a combination of different issues: the procedures or committees may be biased, different studies were reviewed, different criteria are used by the organizations or the reviews of existing evidence were conducted in different time periods.

Most mental health services throughout the world currently regard evidence-based psychological treatments as best practice for the treatment of mental disorders. The aim of this study was to analyze evidence-based treatments drawn from RCTs, reviews, meta-analyses, guides, and lists provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Division 12 (Clinical Psychology) of the American Psychological Association (APA), Cochrane and the Australian Psychological Society (APS) in relation to mental disorders in adults. A total of 135 treatments were analyzed for 23 mental disorders and compared to determine the level of agreement among the organizations. The results indicate that, in most cases, there is little agreement among organizations and that there are several discrepancies within certain disorders. These results require reflection on the meaning attributed to evidence-based practice with regard to psychological treatments. The possible reasons for these differences are discussed. Based on these findings, proposals to unify the criteria that reconcile the realities of clinical practice with a scientific perspective were analyzed., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Emotional disorders (EDs) are the most prevalent worldwide. Despite psychotherapies are their treatment of choice, there are difficulties to apply them properly in mental health services. Since literature shows that cognitive processes are associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms, more information is needed in order to improve psychological treatments. To determine the relation between cognitive factors with specific and non-specific ED symptoms in order to promote the development of accurate psychological treatments. We analyzed the relation between rumination, worry, and metacognition with generalized anxiety, panic, and depression disorder symptoms from a clinical sample of 116 individuals through correlation and linear regression analyses. Although each specific disorder had a closer link with a particular cognitive process, all general ED symptoms were associated with the three cognitive factors studied. For "pure" disorders, targeting a concrete cognitive process might be an optimal therapeutic option. However, due to the high comorbidity among EDs, we support the dissemination of the transdiagnostic treatment approach in which all cognitive factors are taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychological flexibility is a key concept of acceptation and commitment therapy (ACT). This factor has been linked with psychological wellbeing and associated factors, such as quality of life, in cancer patients. These and other positive results of acceptation and commitment therapy in cancer patients found in previous research could be enhanced by using mhealth tools. A three-arm randomized superiority clinical trial, with a pre-post-follow-up repeated measures intergroup design with a 1:1:1 allocation ratio is proposed. A hundred and twenty cancer patients will be randomly assigned to one of the following interventions: (1) face-to-face ACT + mobile application (app), (2) face-to-face ACT, and (3) Waitlist control group. The primary expected outcome is to observe significant improvements in psychological flexibility acceptance and action questionnaire- II (AAQ-II) in the face-to-face ACT + app group, after comparing baseline and post-treatment scores, and the scores will remain stable in the two assessment points, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Secondary expected outcomes are significant increasing scores in quality of life (EORTC QLQ C-30) and post-traumatic-growth (PTGI-SF), and significant decreasing scores in anxiety and depression (HADS), insomnia (ISI) and fatigue (BFI) at the same assessment points. Also, it is expected that the scores of this group will be higher than the scores of the face-to-face ACT group and the waitlist control group. This study aims to assess the efficacy of a combined intervention (face-to face ACT + app) for psychological flexibility and associated symptoms in cancer patients. The results of this protocol may help to consider the use of acceptation and commitment therapy and mhealth applications in cancer settings as a valid therapeutic choice. Clinical Trial Registration: [www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT05126823]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emotional disorders are common, and they have become more prevalent since the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to a high attendance burden at the specialized level, most emotional disorders in Spain are treated in primary care, where they are usually misdiagnosed and treated using psychotropic drugs. This contributes to perpetuate their illness and increase health care costs. Following the IAPT programme and the transdiagnostic approach, the PsicAP project developed a brief group transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioural therapy (tCBT) as a cost-effective alternative. However, it is not suitable for everyone; in some cases, one-on-one sessions may be more effective. The objective of the present study is to compare, in cost-benefit terms, group and individual tCBT with the treatment usually administered in Spanish primary care (TAU). Methods: A randomized, controlled, multicentre, and single-blinded trial will be performed. Adults with mild to moderate emotional disorders will be recruited and placed in one of three arms: group tCBT, individual tCBT, or TAU. Medical data and outcomes regarding emotional symptoms, disability, quality of life, and emotion regulation biases will be collected at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 6 and 12 months later. The data will be used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios. Discussion: This trial aims to contribute to clinical practice research. The involvement of psychologists in primary care and the implementation of a stepped-care model for mental disorders are recommended. Group therapy and a transdiagnostic approach may help optimize health system resources and unblock waiting lists so that people can spend less time experiencing mental health problems. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04847310; Protocols.io: bx2npqde. (April 19, 2021) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses about the evaluation of the Evidence of Psychological Treatments advance in the development of psychological interventions for a wide range of mental disorders in children. The article also discusses about therapies in related with mental health, efficacy of the therapy of health managers y scientific evidence of psychological treatments.

Context: Pain is the most fearful symptom in cancer. Although there is a relationship between psychosocial variables and oncologic pain, psychological and non-pharmacological treatments for pain management in cancer patients are not very widespread.Objectives: To analyze the efficacy of psychological and non-pharmacological treatments for reducing pain in cancer patients.Methods: We performed a systematic review following the PRISMA protocol. In January 2021, data were extracted from PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, including randomised controlled trials (RCT) published in the last five years (from 28 January, 2015 to December 15, 2020), in the English language and whose sample was patients with cancer pain. The database search used the following keywords: cancer, cancer-related pain, psychological intervention, non-pharmacologic intervention. The Cochrane risk of bias assess ment for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used for quality appraisal.Results: After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, ten papers were fully screened. The evidence suggested that the most effective interventions to reduce cancer pain were mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, guided imagery and progressive muscle relaxation and emotional and symptom focused engagement (EASE). Music therapy and brief cognitive behavioral strategies (CBS) require more research, while coping skills training and yoga did not show positive effects. Overall, we obtained a moderate size effect (d = 0.642, 95% CI: 0.125-1.158) favourable to psychological and non-pharmacologic treatments at post-treatment, which increased at follow-up (k = 5, d = 0.826, 95% CI: 0.141-1.511).Conclusion: This study provides insight into psychological interventions which might be applied and contribute to cancer-related pain reduction in adults. Although the results are not completely consistent, they may shed light on psychology applications in the oncology environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]