Objective This review aims to identify non‐medical interventions that may reduce the fear of childbirth, directly or indirectly (through its factors). Methods This review followed the PRISMA guidance and a rigorous protocol that was registered in PROSPERO. Searches were done in ProQuest, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Google Scholar. All RCTs published in the last 5 years, in English or Spanish, regarding women with a low‐risk pregnancy and without mental disorders were included. Results From 5147 articles found, only 69 were full‐text assessed. Finally, 18 studies were included suggesting that prenatal education, psychoeducation, and counseling might be effective, whereas cognitive‐behavioral therapy and some alternative therapies require more research. The results of relaxation techniques were contradictory. Results also suggest that social support and exposure (through education) might have an important role in the efficacy of interventions. Conclusions More appropriately randomized and blinded trials are necessary that use a prespecified definition of fear of childbirth and comprehensive measurement tools specific for pregnant women.

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)

The aim of this study is to compare, in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility terms, a brief transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioural therapy in two different modes, individual and group, with the treatment usually administered in primary care (TAU). Participants between 18 and 65 years old and with, according to the pretreatment evaluation, mild to moderate emotional disorders will be randomly allocated to the three clusters. They will be assessed again immediately after treatment and 6 and 12 months later. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04847310

Several randomised controlled trials (RCT) have demonstrated the superiority of transdiagnostic group cognitive-behavioural therapy (TD-CBT) to treatment as usual (TAU) for emotional disorders in primary care. To date, however, no RCTs have been conducted to compare TD-CBT to another active intervention in this setting. Our aim is to conduct a single-blind RCT to compare group TD-CBT plus TAU to progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) plus TAU in adults (age 18 to 65 years) with a suspected emotional disorder. We expect that TD-CBT + TAU will be more cost-effective than TAU + PMR, and that these gains will be maintained at the 12-month follow-up. Seven therapy sessions (1.5 hours each) will be offered over a 24-week period. The study will be carried out at four primary care centres in Cantabria, Spain. The study will take a societal perspective. Psychological assessments will be made at three time points: baseline, post-treatment, and at 12-months. The following variables will be evaluated: clinical symptoms (anxiety, depression, and/or somatic); functioning; quality of life (QoL); cognitive-emotional factors (rumination, worry, attentional and interpretative biases, emotion regulation and meta-cognitive beliefs); and satisfaction with treatment. Data on health service use, medications, and sick days will be obtained from electronic medical records. Primary outcome measures will include: incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Secondary outcome measures will include: clinical symptoms, QoL, functioning, and treatment satisfaction. Bootstrap sampling will be used to assess uncertainty of the results. Secondary moderation and mediation analyses will be conducted. Two questionnaires will be administered at sessions 1, 4, and 7 to assess therapeutic alliance and group satisfaction. If this trial is successful, widespread application of this cost-effective treatment could greatly improve access to psychological treatment for emotional disorders in the context of increasing demand for mental healthcare in primary care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: Cost-effectiveness of a Transdiagnostic Psychological Treatment for Emotional Disorders in Primary Care (PsicAP). NCT05314920.