# An Appraisal of the Evidence behind the Use of the CHRODIS Plus Initiative for Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review

## TL;DR

This scoping review finds limited evidence supporting the CHRODIS Plus Workbox for managing chronic pain in workplaces.

## Contribution

The study is the first to formally assess the evidence base of the CHRODIS Plus initiative for chronic pain.

## Key findings

- The initial search found no suitable studies to include in the scoping review.
- A broader search identified 14 studies, but none were suitable for inclusion.
- Systematic reviews underpinning the tool had varying quality, from critically low to moderate.

## Abstract

Background: Chronic conditions, especially pain conditions, have a very significant impact on quality of life and on workplaces. Workplace interventions for chronic conditions are heterogenous, multidimensional, and sometimes poorly evidenced. The Joint Action for Chronic Disease Plus (CHRODIS Plus), including The CHRODIS Plus Workbox on Employment and Chronic Conditions (CPWEC), aimed to combat this, prevent chronic disease and multimorbidity, and influence policy in Europe. However, the supporting evidence behind CHRODIS Plus has not been formally assessed. Methods: A scoping review was carried out; Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched for literature related to CHRODIS Plus and pain. Title and abstract and full-text screening were carried out in duplicate and independently. Additionally, CHRODIS Plus authors were approached for unpublished data. Secondly, the search was broadened to CHRODIS Plus and pain-causing conditions. Grey literature was also searched. Appropriateness appraisal was derived from the Trial Forge Guidance. Systematic reviews, on which CPWEC was based, were appraised using the A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool. Results: The initial search yielded two results, of which zero were suitable to be included in the scoping review. The second, broader search revealed 14 results; however, none were deemed suitable for inclusion. AMSTAR 2 scores revealed that the three systematic reviews influencing CPWEC were of varying quality (from critically low to moderate). Conclusions: CPWEC is based on heterogenous reviews of varying quality. However, comparable tools are designed using alternative forms of evidence. Further research evaluating the post-implementation efficacy of the tool is needed.