99 CLINICAL OUTCOME AFTER OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION IN NA 5 possible and appropriate to advance the treatment process. The MR combines motor learning principles to normalize scapular stability and coordination with self-management strategies for pain and fatigue to enable daily occupations and reduce persisting pain and fatigue, 124 see Figure 2. The focus and extent to which each of these components were addressed within the intervention depended on individual patient needs. During the MR, participants were asked to refrain from any additional treatment for their NA-related complaints. Usual care The general approach of UC in patients with NA typically entails physical therapy with strength training, 8 however because UC may show some variation (e.g. no therapy, only physical therapy, alternative treatments), participants were asked to keep a diary to report the treatment they received during the UC period. Statistical analysis For our primary objective, we used an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for sex, age and SRQ-DLV baseline values, to compare the MR with UC regarding all primary and secondary outcome measures. In addition, we calculated group means and mean group differences including 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). All statistical analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Figure 2 Treatment model which includes the components addressed during the multidisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation program. Issues in the outer two circles (external factors, activities and participation) form the main focus of the occupational therapy sessions. During the physical therapy sessions, the main focus is on improving body functions. All other components (i.e. disease knowledge, fatigue, pain, behavior, self-efficacy and self-management) are addressed during both occupational and physical therapy sessions. This is accomplished through conveying knowledge of neuralgic amyotrophy and adaptation of behavior related to daily life functioning. *Reproduced, with permission, from IJspeert et al. NeuroRehabilitation 2013; 3;657-66651