Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Tinnitus affects around 15% of the population and can be a debilitating condition for a sizeable part of them. However, effective evidence-based treatments are scarce. One recommended treatment for tinnitus is cognitive behavioral therapy which has been found to be effective when delivered online. However, more treatments including mindfulness-based interventions have been studied recently in an attempt to facilitate the availability of effective treatments. There are promising findings showing great effects in reducing tinnitus-induced distress and some evidence about the efficacy of such intervention delivered online. However, there is a lack of evidence on how these two treatments compare against one another. Therefore, the aim of this study will be to compare Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for tinnitus against an Internet-delivered mindfulness-based tinnitus stress reduction intervention in a three-armed randomized controlled trial with a waiting list control condition. Methods This study will be a randomized controlled trial seeking to recruit Lithuanian-speaking individuals suffering from chronic tinnitus. The self-report measure Tinnitus Handicap Inventory will be used. Self-referred participants will be randomized into one of three study arms: Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy, Internet-delivered mindfulness-based tinnitus stress reduction intervention, or a waiting-list control group. Post-treatment measures will be taken at the end of the 8-week-long intervention (or waiting). Long-term efficacy will be measured 3 and 12 months post-treatment. Discussion Internet-delivered interventions offer a range of benefits for delivering evidence-based treatments. This is the first randomized controlled trial to directly compare Internet-delivered CBT and MBTSR for tinnitus in a non-inferiority trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05705323. Registered on January 30, 2023.

Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is especially prevalent among young individuals aged 18–25 and significantly affects daily social activities and interpersonal relationships. Public Speaking Anxiety (PSA), a subtype of SAD, is a widespread concern that affects one in five individuals. The study focuses on the Public Speaking Anxiety Scale (PSAS), with the aim of assessing the factor structure and reliability of the Lithuanian version (PSAS-LT). The PSAS-LT, administered to 227 participants aged 18–25, comprises 17 Likert-scaled items, evaluating cognitive, behavioral, and physiological aspects of PSA. Three models were tested: a single-factor model, a three-factor model and a single factor model with positive and negative item wording factors model. Results indicate less than desirable fit for the single, and three-factor models, suggesting the need for alternative structures. The model that included a single factor as well as positive and negative item wording factors demonstrated a reasonably good fit. The diagnostic validity confirmed that the PSAS-LT effectively differentiated between participants with and without history of anxiety disorders. The total score of the PSAS-LT had excellent internal consistency. Despite limitations, including convenience sampling and nonrepresentative sample, the study contributes valuable insights into refining the understanding of PSA assessment features, emphasizing the importance of considering response patterns. Future research should validate these findings with larger and more diverse samples of the Lithuanian population.

Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is especially prevalent among young individuals aged 18–25 and significantly affects daily social activities and interpersonal relationships. Public Speaking Anxiety (PSA), a subtype of SAD, is a widespread concern that affects one in five individuals. The study focuses on the Public Speaking Anxiety Scale (PSAS), with the aim of assessing the factor structure and reliability of the Lithuanian version (PSAS-LT). The PSAS-LT, administered to 227 participants aged 18–25, comprises 17 Likert-scaled items, evaluating cognitive, behavioral, and physiological aspects of PSA. Three models were tested: a single-factor model, a three-factor model and a single factor model with positive and negative item wording factors model. Results indicate less than desirable fit for the single, and three-factor models, suggesting the need for alternative structures. The model that included a single factor as well as positive and negative item wording factors demonstrated a reasonably good fit. The diagnostic validity confirmed that the PSAS-LT effectively differentiated between participants with and without history of anxiety disorders. The total score of the PSAS-LT had excellent internal consistency. Despite limitations, including convenience sampling and nonrepresentative sample, the study contributes valuable insights into refining the understanding of PSA assessment features, emphasizing the importance of considering response patterns. Future research should validate these findings with larger and more diverse samples of the Lithuanian population.