Relaxation Interventions in Multiple Sclerosis and Stroke
This systematic review examined 63 studies on relaxation interventions for individuals with multiple sclerosis and stroke. The findings suggested that these interventions are generally feasible and well-accepted, adaptable to individual needs and preferences, and focus primarily on psychological functioning.
- Tags
- #MSResearch
- Most relevant to
- —
Why it matters
Understanding the feasibility and acceptance of relaxation therapies can inform rehabilitation strategies for neurological conditions, potentially enhancing patient care and psychological well-being.
What this does not prove
The evidence base is heterogeneous, with limited focus on less common conditions, few qualitative studies, and a lack of comparative effectiveness evaluations, especially concerning stress-related outcomes.
Next milestone
No next milestone was established from the available source.
Study facts
- Study design
- Systematic review
- Participants / samples
- 63 · basis not reported
- Randomised
- Not reported
- Controlled
- Not reported
- Primary endpoint met
- Not reported
- Relevant MS type
- Not reported
- Publication date
- 2026-10-08
- Evidence reviewed
- Abstract only
- Regulatory approval
- Not reported
- Research areas
- Not classified
Original sources
- Primary evidenceRelaxation interventions in neurological rehabilitation: a scoping review. ↗DOI: 10.2340/jrm.v58.45972
Supporting passages (7)
subjectsRelaxation interventions have most frequently been studied in people with multiple sclerosis and stroke.
study designTo offer a comprehensive synthesis that maps current research on relaxation interventions in neurological rehabilitation settings.
sample size63 sources were included.
peer reviewedMETHODS: The review was registered (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/QD4TM) and followed the Joanna Briggs Institute framework.
findingsRelaxation interventions have most frequently been studied in people with multiple sclerosis and stroke.
limitationsKey gaps in the evidence base include limited research into less prevalent conditions, few qualitative designs and comparative effectiveness studies, as well as limited assessment of outcomes relating to perceived and physiological stress, activities, and participation.
publication datePublication date: 2026-10-08
AI assessment, not yet reviewed by a person · version 1 · Community votes are separate from evidence review.