The Effectiveness of Brief Multidisciplinary Outpatient Treatment for Functional Neurological Disorder: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Functional neurological disorder (FND) is a common, costly, and debilitating condition with a guarded prognosis. Limited evidence supports providers about which treatment approaches to undertake. Evidence-based care for FND is urgently needed to improve patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate functional and psychological outcomes associated with a novel outpatient multidisciplinary treatment programme for adults with FND. Method: Participants included 18 sequentially referred adults who attended the 5-day FND treatment programme, including those who completed ( n = 13) and who were available for follow-up at 6 months ( n = 9). Intervention included assessment and up to 5 consecutive days of treatment including two group-administered psychoeducation sessions. Primary measures included the timed up-and-go (TUG), the EQ-5D-5L index score, and the visual analogue scale (VAS), and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Secondary outcomes included Battery for Health Improvement-2 (BHI-2) Depression and Anxiety subscales. Results: Significant improvement was observed on COPM performance and COPM satisfaction, EQ-5D-5L index (as well as VAS), and TUG ( p < 0.05) immediately following 5-day treatment. Improvement was gained at 6 months for BHI-2 Depression and Anxiety, and maintained for COPM performance, COPM satisfaction, EQ-5D-5L index, EQ-5D-5L VAS, and TUG. Conclusions: The findings of this preliminary work suggest that multidisciplinary treatment for FND has a positive impact on psychological and physical outcomes with results sustained up to 6 months.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".