Background: The demand for family caregiving in persons with chronic neurological conditions (CNCs) is increasing. Psychological resilience may empower and protect caregivers in their role. Thus, a synthesis of resilience evidence within this specific population is warranted.Aim: In this systematic review we aimed to: (1) examine the origins and conceptualizations of resilience; (2) summarize current resilience measurement tools; and (3) synthesize correlates, predictors and outcomes of resilience in family caregivers of persons with CNCs.Design: We sourced English articles published up to July 2020 across five databases using search terms involving CNCs, family caregivers and resilience.Results: A total of 50 studies were retained. Nearly half (44%) of the studies used trait‐based resilience definitions, while about one third (36%) used process‐based definitions. Twelve different resilience scales were used, revealing mostly moderate to high‐resilience levels. Findings confirmed that resilience is related to multiple indicators of healthy functioning (e.g., quality of life, social support, positive coping), as it buffers against negative outcomes of burden and distress. Discordance relating to the interaction between resilience and demographic, sociocultural and environmental factors was apparent.Conclusions: Incongruity remains with respect to how resilience is defined and assessed, despite consistent definitional concepts of healthy adaptation and equilibrium. The array of implications of resilience for well‐being confirms the potential for resilience to be leveraged within caregiver health promotion initiatives via policy and practice.Patient or Public Contribution: The findings may inform future recommendations for researchers and practitioners to develop high‐quality resilience‐building interventions and programmes to better mobilize and support this vulnerable group.

Background: A review of the safety profile of exercise training in multiple sclerosis (MS) has not been conducted since 2013. Objective: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise training published since 2013 and quantified estimated population risks of clinical relapse, adverse events (AE) and serious adverse event (SAE). Methods: Articles reporting safety outcomes from comparisons of exercise training with non-exercise among persons with MS were identified. The risk of bias was established from study’s internal validity assessed using Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Rates and estimated mean population relative risks (RRs; 95% confidence interval (CI)) of safety outcomes were calculated, and random-effects meta-analysis estimated the mean RR. Results: Forty-six interventions from 40 RCTs ( N = 1780) yielded 46, 40 and 39 effects for relapse, AE, adverse effects and SAE, respectively. The mean population RRs ((95% CI), p-value) for relapse, AE and SAE were 0.95 ((0.61, 1.48), p = 0.82), 1.40 ((0.90, 2.19), p = 0.14) and 1.05 ((0.62, 1.80), p = 0.85), respectively. No significant heterogeneity is observed for any outcome. Conclusion: In studies that reported safety outcomes, there was no higher risk of relapse, AE, adverse effects or SAE for exercise training than the comparator. Exercise training may be promoted as safe and beneficial to persons with MS.

Background: There is evidence of the benefits of exercise training in multiple sclerosis (MS); however, few studies have been conducted in individuals with progressive MS and severe mobility impairment. A potential exercise rehabilitation approach is total-body recumbent stepper training (TBRST). We evaluated the safety and participant-reported experience of TBRST in people with progressive MS and compared the efficacy of TBRST with that of body weight–supported treadmill training (BWSTT) on outcomes of function, fatigue, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Methods: Twelve participants with progressive MS (Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, 6.0–8.0) were randomized to receive TBRST or BWSTT. Participants completed three weekly sessions (30 minutes) of exercise training for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes included safety assessed as adverse events and patient-reported exercise experience assessed as postexercise response and evaluation of exercise equipment. Secondary outcomes included the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite, the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, and the Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life–54 questionnaire scores. Assessments were conducted at baseline and after 12 weeks. Results: Safety was confirmed in both exercise groups. Participants reported enjoying both exercise modalities; however, TBRST was reviewed more favorably. Both interventions reduced fatigue and improved HRQOL (P ≤ .05); there were no changes in function. Conclusions: Both TBRST and BWSTT seem to be safe, well tolerated, and enjoyable for participants with progressive MS with severe disability. Both interventions may also be efficacious for reducing fatigue and improving HRQOL. TBRST should be further explored as an exercise rehabilitation tool for patients with progressive MS.