RESULTS: After introducing the intervention systematic changes were seen, with medium to large changes (Non-overlap of All Pairs 0.67-1) for all outcome measures. Associations between changes of the outcome measures were large (r ≥ 0.50) and changes occurred concurrently. Minimally clinically important difference thresholds were exceeded for all outcome measures and two patients achieved relevant improvements related to work reintegration.
CONCLUSIONS: The positive results of this study are comparable with recent CFT studies. However, the difference regarding the number of sessions and duration of the intervention is evident. The length of the intervention in this study seemed to enable continuous significant improvements up until 12 months post onset and follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: CFT in interdisciplinary care was effective for all measures. The detailed descriptions of the clinical processes aim to improve clinical care.
结果:在介绍干预措施后,观察到系统性变化,所有结果指标均有中等到较大的变化(所有对0.67-1不重叠)。结果测量值变化之间的关联很大(r≥0.50),同时发生变化。所有结果指标均超过了最小临床重要差异阈值,两名患者实现了与工作重返相关的相关改善。
结论:这项研究的阳性结果与最近的CFT研究相当。然而,会议次数和干预持续时间的差异是明显的。这项研究中的干预时间似乎可以持续显着改善,直到发病和随访后12个月。
结论:CFT在跨学科护理中对所有措施都有效。临床过程的详细描述旨在改善临床护理。