Background: Chronic pain (CP) remains the second commonest reason for being off work. Tertiary return to work (RTW) interventions aim to improve psychological and physical capacity amongst workers already off sick. Their effectiveness for workers with CP is unclear.Aims: To explore which tertiary interventions effectively promote RTW for CP sufferers.Methods: We searched eight databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of tertiary RTW interventions for CP sufferers. We employed the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) and methodological quality assessment tools for all included papers. We synthesized findings narratively. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of study characteristics.Results: We included 16 papers pertaining to 13 trials. The types, delivery format and follow-up schedules of RTW interventions varied greatly. Most treatments were multidisciplinary, comprising psychological, physical and workplace elements. Five trials reported that tertiary interventions with multidisciplinary elements promoted RTW for workers with CP compared to controls. We gave a high ROB rating for one or more assessment criteria to three out of the five successful intervention trials. Two had medium- and low-risk elements across all categories. One compared different intensity multidisciplinary treatment and one comprised work-hardening with a job coach. Seven trials found treatment effects for secondary outcomes but no RTW improvement.Conclusions: There is no conclusive evidence to support any specific tertiary RTW intervention for workers with CP, but multidisciplinary efforts should be considered. Workers’ compensation is an important area for RTW policymakers to consider.

It is known that many trainee doctors around the world experience work satisfaction but also considerable work stress in the training period. Such stress seems to be linked to multiple factors including workload, level of support and growing cultural inculcation into unwillingness to show any personal or professional weakness. In the United Kingdom, junior doctors are qualified medical practitioners who have gained a degree in Medicine and are now working while training to become a specialist (consultant) or a general practitioner. The period of medical training can be particularly stressful for some UK junior doctors, in common with their counterparts in other countries. UK Postgraduate Medical Deaneries provide support for those who need it via Professional Support Units (PSUs); however little is known about the perceptions and experiences of the doctors who access and utilise this support. This study aimed to generate qualitative insight into how the (PSU) provided by one UK Deanery is experienced by the trainees who accessed it. We aimed to investigate whether such experience intersects with the progressive socialisation of trainee doctors into the notion that doctors do not get ill. Through in-depth telephone interviews with eight female junior doctors, we explored the benefits and problems associated with using a PSU with reference to the formation of trainee doctors’ professional identities, and conducted a thematic analysis. Themes identified illustrate the process of accepting, accessing and benefiting from PSU support. These are: Medical identity intact (it will never happen to me); Denial of disrupted medical identity; Being on the edge: accepting help; Role of PSU in ‘recovery’ process; Repaired identity / coming back from the edge; Different ways to be a doctor. The gendered sample occurred simply as it was females who responded to study invitations. Whilst we present some related aspects (such as “manning up” as part of keeping going), analyses of this small sample showed that medical identity as a doctor in training was more salient than a gendered experience of help seeking in this study. This study highlights the initial reluctance of female junior doctors to seek help from the PSU, as acknowledging their own difficulties spoiled their identity as a competent doctor. However, once engaged with the PSU, the findings exemplify its role in repairing medical identity, by offering different and acceptable ways to be a doctor. We interpret these findings within Goffman’s theoretical framework of stigma conferring a spoiled identity on recipients, and how this may then be repaired. Reducing the stigma attached to initial help-seeking among junior doctors is crucial to increase ease of access to the PSU and to improve the experiences of doctors who encounter challenges during their training.

The personal, social and economic burden of chronic pain is enormous. Tremendous research efforts are being directed toward understanding, preventing, and managing chronic pain. Yet patients with chronic pain, clinicians and the public are sometimes poorly served by an evidence architecture that contains multiple structural weaknesses. These include incomplete research governance, a lack of diversity and inclusivity, inadequate stakeholder engagement, poor methodological rigour and incomplete reporting, a lack of data accessibility and transparency, and a failure to communicate findings with appropriate balance. These issues span pre-clinical research, clinical trials and systematic reviews and impact the development of clinical guidance and practice. Research misconduct and inauthentic data present a further critical risk. Combined, they increase uncertainty in this highly challenging area of study and practice, drive the provision of low value care, increase costs and impede the discovery of more effective solutions. In this focus article, we explore how we can increase trust in pain science, by examining critical challenges using contemporary examples, and describe a novel integrated conceptual framework for enhancing the trustworthiness of pain science. We end with a call for collective action to address this critical issue. PERSPECTIVE: Multiple challenges can adversely impact the trustworthiness of pain research and health research more broadly. We present ENTRUST-PE, a novel, integrated framework for more trustworthy pain research with recommendations for all stakeholders in the research ecosystem, and make a call to action to the pain research community.

Resilience is a developing concept in relation to pain, but has not yet been reviewed in return-to-work (RTW) contexts. To explore the role of resilience enhancement in promoting work participation for chronic pain sufferers, by reviewing the effectiveness of existing interventions. Resilience was operationalized as: self-efficacy, active coping, positive affect, positive growth, positive reinforcement, optimism, purpose in life and acceptance. Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) whose interventions included an element of resilience designed to help RTW/staying at work for chronic pain sufferers. Study appraisal comprised the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and additional quality assessment. Findings were synthesized narratively and between-group differences of outcomes were reported. Heterogeneous PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) elements precluded meta-analysis. Thirty-four papers from 24 RCTs were included. Interventions varied; most were multidisciplinary, combining behavioural, physical and psychological pain management and vocational rehabilitation. Four found RTW/staying at work improved with intensive multidisciplinary interventions compared with less intensive, or no, treatment. Of these, one had low RoB; three scored poorly on allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Four trials had mixed results, e.g. interventions enabling reduced sick leave for people on short-term not long-term leave; 16 showed no improvement. Five trials reported resilience outcomes were improved by interventions but these were not always trials in which RTW improved. Effectiveness of resilience interventions for chronic pain sufferers on RTW is uncertain and not as helpful as anticipated. Further agreement on its conceptualization and terminology and that of RTW is needed.