|
| Investigators (year, name) | Patients satisfactions | Cognitive results |
|
| Maschio et al. (2015) [13] | nd | After rehabilitation training: improved scores in span forward, long-term visuospatial memory, episodic memory, and phonetic fluency compared to the baseline. The same functions remained stable at 6-month follow-up. |
|
| Yang et al. (2014) [14] | nd | Study group: improvements in visual and auditory continuous performance scores, digit span and visual span tests, verbal and visual learning tests, TMT A scores, and MMSE.
Control group: improvement in auditory continuous performance score, visual and verbal learning tests, forward visual span test, and MMSE. |
|
| Zucchella et al. (2013) [15] | nd | Study group: significant improvement in all neuropsychological tests.
Control group: trend improvement but it was not statistically significant.
A statistically significant difference between groups was only found in visual attention and verbal memory but not in logical-executive functioning. |
|
| Hassler et al. (2010) [16] | All patients were very satisfied with the training. | Evaluation of neurocognitive functions done before and after training demonstrated that an enhancement across all neurocognitive functions assessed was achieved. This improvement was statistically significant only in total learning scores of HVLT test. |
|
| Gehring et al. (2009) [17] | Patients reported that this type of training was very useful and strategies learned during the rehabilitation period were also used in everyday life. | Over time: significant differences between groups in objective evaluation of cognitive functions, in particular, on attention and verbal memory. In subjective evaluation, differences were found in CFS total score, CFQ total score, and burden.
After the end of the training: no significant differences between groups. In subjective outcomes, the intervention group had better reported cognitive functioning.
6 months after the end of the treatment: scores of the study group differed significantly from control group for attention and verbal memory. In subjective outcomes, no differences were found. |
|
| Locke et al. (2008) [18] | 88% of patients and caregivers think that the program could be “very helpful” or “somewhat helpful.” | 88% of patients in study group used the study-specific strategies in the range of several times a week (minimum) to several times a day (maximum).
At three-month follow-up, 50% patients used techniques in the range of several times a week (minimum) to several times a day (maximum) and 88% employed them but less frequently in time. It was not possible to know if the assessed cognitive functions had improved, remained stable, or deteriorated over time, because many of the patients did not show up for the follow-up evaluation. |
|
| Sherer et al. (1997) [19] | nd | Patients improved during the treatment period. This gain was generally maintained at follow-up 8 months after discharge. Patients had increased community, employment and financial independence, and quality of life. |
|
