(1) Background: The work-to-retirement transition involves a process of psychologically and behaviorally distancing oneself from the workforce that is often accompanied by other social changes, which can influence health and well-being. However, research on interventions targeting the work-to-retirement transition to improve health status is limited. Our objective was to summarize and describe interventions aiming to improve well-being across the retirement transition; (2) Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the methodological framework described by Arksey and O’Malley; the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines as well as the PRISMA-ScR statements; we systematically searched articles and gray literature to identify interventions and policies that aimed to improve well-being across the retirement transition. (3) Results: 15 publications were included, which comprised both experimental designs (n = 10) and systematic reviews (n = 5). (4) Conclusions: More research on how to promote overall well-being during the work-to-retirement transition is needed. The results of this scoping review show that most reported interventions address one single lifestyle behavior, and that relevant social determinants of health have been barely considered in their design. Future investigations need to consider vulnerable groups and country-specific structural conditions. Adopting a patient and public involvement approach will contribute to developing interventions that address the significant needs of those in the transition to retirement.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant, capacitive resistive monopolar radiofrequency (CRMRF, INDIBA) treatment at 448 kHz together with physiotherapeutic techniques compared to a sham treatment with the same techniques, for pain reduction and quality of life (QoL) improvements in patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS).Methods: A triple‐blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) including patients with CPPS randomly allocated (1:1) to a CRMRF‐activated group (intervention) or a CRMRF‐deactivated one (control). Both groups received physiotherapeutic techniques and pain education weekly for 10 consecutive weeks. Data from a visual analogical scale and the SF‐12 questionnaire were collected at trial commencement and repeated at the 5th and 10th sessions. Pain intensity was considered the main outcome. For the comparisons between variables, the χ² and Student's t test were used. Superiority was analyzed by estimating the mean change (95% confidence interval). Analysis was performed for the per‐protocol and the intention‐to‐treat populations. The statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05.Results: Eighty‐one patients were included (67.9% women) with a mean age of 43.6 years (SD 12.9). CRMRF lessened pain scores by more than 2 points and improved QoL by 5 points. There were no relevant side effects and overall adherence to the treatment was 86.4%.Conclusions: This is the first RCT that evaluates the efficacy of CRMRF (INDIBA) compared to a sham treatment, and demonstrates its superiority in decreasing pain and improving QoL. Such results may lead to greater prescribing of CRMRF when treating CPPS patients.

Background: Radical prostatectomy is the gold standard treatment for men with localized prostate cancer. This technique is associated with post-operative urinary incontinence. Pelvic floor physiotherapy is a conservative, painless and economical treatment for this specific situation. Kegel exercises and perineal electrostimulation are common techniques to train pelvic floor muscles. The perineal electrostimulation can be applied to the patient with surface electrodes or by an intra-cavitary anal probe. This study proposes that transcutaneous perineal electrostimulation is as effective as intra-cavitary electrostimulation in reducing urinary incontinence secondary to radical prostatectomy. The main objective is to compare the efficacy of the treatment with transcutaneous perineal electrostimulation versus the same intra-cavitary treatment to reduce the magnitude of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy, and the impact on the quality of life. Methods: This single-blind equivalence randomized controlled trial will include 70 man who suffer urinary incontinence post radical prostatectomy. Participants will be randomized into surface electrodes group and intra-anal probe group. The groups will receive treatment for 10 consecutive weeks. Outcomes include changes in the 24-h Pad Test, and ICIQ-SF, SF-12 and I-QoL questionnaires. Clinical data will be collected at baseline, 6 and 10 weeks after the first session, and 6 months after the end of treatment. Discussion: The results will allow us to prescribe the most beneficial perineal electrostimulation technique in the treatment of urinary incontinence derived from radical prostatectomy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03587402. 27/06/2018