Unified Protocol in Penitentiary Facilities

Structured interview for anxiety disorders and related disorders, according to the DSM-5 (ADIS-5)

Diagnostic interview to determine if the participant has a clinical diagnosis of emotional disorder (ET) and can be part of the study. The following diagnoses according to the DSM-V are included within the category of emotional disorder: major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, social anxiety disorder, hypochondria, and adjustment disorders. Patients with anxiety disorders not otherwise specified and those with depressive disorders not otherwise specified will also be included in the study.

General Depression Severity and Interference Scale (ODSIS)

Severity of depressive symptoms; 5 items with 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (I did not feel depressed) to 4 (constant depression). Higher scores are associated with greater depressive symptomatology and interference.

General Severity and Interference Scale for Anxiety (OASIS)

Severity of anxiety symptoms; 5 items with 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (I did not feel anxious) to 4 (constant anxiety). Higher scores are associated with greater anxiety symptomatology and interference.

Multidimensional Inventory for Emotional Disorders (MEDI)

Evaluation through 49 items of the transdiagnostic profile of Emotional Disorders, which is composed of nine dimensions: neurotic temperament, positive temperament, depressed mood, somatic anxiety, arousal activation, social anxiety, intrusive cognitions, traumatic re-experiencing, and avoidance

Emotional Regulation Difficulties Scale (DERS)

The evaluation is conducted through 28 items assessing difficulties in emotional regulation, divided into 5 subscales: lack of control, rejection, interference, inattention, and emotional confusion. Scores range from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always), with higher scores being associated with greater difficulties in emotional regulation.

EuroQol

Quality of life is evaluated through 5 items assessing difficulties in mobility, self-care, daily activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Scores range from 1 (I do not have problems) to 3 (unable to perform these activities), with higher scores being associated with a worse quality of life.

The EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (VAS)

The EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (VAS) assesses self-reported quality of life using a thermometer scale ranging from 0 (the worst imaginable health state) to 100 (the best imaginable health state).

Satisfaction with Treatment Questionnaire (STQ) An adaptation of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)

Our adaptation includes 6 of the 8 items of the CSQ-8 (perceived quality, adequacy to previous expectations, recommendation of the treatment to friends or family, usefulness of the techniques learned, general satisfaction with the intervention and probability that they will choose an intervention of this type again) and one more item related to the discomfort generated by the intervention. Likewise, a change has been made in the Likert response scale from 4 points in the original (0 = "Bad / Not at all" to 4 = "Excellent/Very Much") to 11 in the current one (0 = "Bad / Not at all to 10 = "Excellent/Very Much").

Questionnaire on Sociodemographic Data (ad hoc)

Ad-hoc; Sex, age, marital status, number of sessions attended, and legal status of each participant.

Acceptability Questionnaire based on the TFA model

The Acceptability Questionnaire, based on the TFA model, consists of 7 items with a Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree, no effort, unsure, or unacceptable) to 5 (strongly agree, great effort, very sure, or completely acceptable). It evaluates the following dimensions: (1) Affective Attitude, assessing the extent to which participants liked or disliked using the UP; (2) Burden, measuring how much effort it cost to apply the UP; (3) Ethicality, evaluating whether there were any negative ethical or moral consequences of applying the UP; (4) Intervention Coherence, asking whether the approach of the UP to improve patients' emotional regulation made sense to the user; (5) Opportunity Costs, looking at whether the application of the UP interfered with other psychotherapy priorities; (6) Perceived Effectiveness, gauging how much the UP helped patients regulate their emotions; and (7) Self-efficacy, reflecting the degree of competence felt whe

Questionnaire on Intention to Use the UP in the Future and General Acceptability

The Questionnaire on Intention to Use the UP in the Future and General Acceptability includes an ad hoc question aimed at gauging participants' willingness to apply the UP again in the future. Specifically, for GHPs with experience in applying the UP, the question asks: To what extent would you accept applying it again? For participants with no prior experience, the question asks: To what extent would you accept using the UP? The response format is a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Higher scores are associated with greater general acceptability and a stronger intention to use the UP in the future.

Barriers to Implementation

The Barriers to Implementation Inventory (BTI) is a 39-item inventory designed to identify barriers to program implementation across four domains: equipment, administrative, theoretical/philosophical, and structural problems. Higher scores are associated with a greater number of barriers perceived during the implementation process.