ArticlePloS one2025
Preliminary feasibility and clinical utility of the Unified Protocol for the transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders in people with long COVID-19 condition: A single case pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe implementation of psychological interventions in long COVID-19 patients is still very limited. This study aims to analyze the feasibility and preliminary utility of the Unified Protocol (UP), for the psychological treatment of emotional disorders in long COVID-19 patients.
methods12 long COVID-19 patients (mean age = 47.92; SD = 13.18) presenting emotional disorders/symptoms received the UP through 8 online sessions.
resultsAll participants completed the UP psychological program, attending all eight sessions and the 6-month follow-up appointment. However, adherence to the assessment protocol was lower, with a 33% dropout rate at the 6-month follow-up. High satisfaction was reported with both the UP program (mean = 9.75) and the online format. Satisfaction with individual UP modules ranged from 7.17 to 9 points (from 0 = any satisfaction to 10 = highest satisfaction). Qualitative feedback emphasized the usefulness of the UP program, with some participants suggesting additional contents (i.e., training in assertive communication skills), more personalized modules (i.e., providing just some UP modules) or increasing the number of sessions. In terms of the UP clinical utility, 25 mental clinical diagnoses were established at pre-assessment; 50% of participants no longer met criteria for a mental clinical diagnosis at post-assessment, increasing to 67% at follow-up. Most therapeutic objectives were achieved or initiated over the course of the intervention (78% at post-assessment; 86% at follow-up). At post-assessment significant improvements were observed in anxiety (8 participants), depression (9 participants), emotion dysregulation (4 participants) and quality of life scores (7 participants), although 2 participants did not maintain these gains in emotion regulation and quality of life at follow-up.
conclusionThe promising results of the UP in terms of high participant satisfaction and clinical improvements in anxiety and depression scores suggest that the UP could be a valuable psychological intervention for individuals with long COVID-19 and comorbid emotional disorders. The modest improvements found in other outcomes highlighted the need to better adapt the psychological interventions for long COVID-19 patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.