Implementation barriers and facilitators for referral from the hospital to community-based lifestyle interventions from the perspective of lifestyle professionals: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: A lifestyle front office (LFO) in the hospital is a not yet existing, novel concept that can refer patients under treatment in the hospital to community-based lifestyle interventions (CBLI). The aim of this study was to identify implementation barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of an LFO in the hospital from the perspective of CBLI-professionals and to develop evidence-based implementation strategies to reduce these identified barriers. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews until data saturation, with 23 lifestyle professionals working in the community. A semi-structured topic guide was used, inquiring about (1) community-based lifestyle interventions; (2) their views about referral from the LFO; and (3) their preferences, needs and recommendations for collaboration with the LFO in the hospital. The online interviews lasted on average 46 minutes, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic content analysis was conducted. Found barriers and facilitators regarding the LFO where mapped using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) whereafter evidence based strategies were developed using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change Strategy Matching Tool V.1.0 (CFIR-ERIC). RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were divided into two main themes: 1) barriers and facilitators related to the referral from LFO to CBLI (i.e. financial, cultural, geographical, quality) and 2) barriers and facilitators related to the collaboration between LFO and CBLI (i.e. referral, communication platform and partnership). Thirty-seven implementation strategies concerning 15 barriers were developed and clustered into six overarching strategies: identify referral options, determine qualifications lifestyle professionals, develop support tools, build networks, facilitate learning collaboratives, and optimize workflow. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, barriers and facilitators for the development of the LFO were found and matching implementation strategies were developed. Practical improvements, like identifying specific referral options or develop support tools, can be implemented immediately. The implementation of other strategies, like connecting care pathways in basic services, primary, secondary and tertiary care, will take more time and effort to come to full potential. Future research should evaluate all implemented strategies.

Sports-Related Health Problems in Para-Sports: A Systematic Review With Quality Assessment.

CONTEXT: Participation in sports is associated with a risk of sports-related health problems. For athletes with an impairment, sports-related health problems further burden an already restricted lifestyle, underlining the importance of prevention strategies in para-sports. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive overview with quality assessment of the literature on sports-related health problems, their etiology, and available preventive measures in para-sports following the steps of the Sequence of Prevention. DATA SOURCES: A literature search (in PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library) was performed up to December 8, 2021, in collaboration with a medical information specialist. STUDY SELECTION: The search yielded 3006 articles, of which 64 met all inclusion criteria. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with quality assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent researchers carried out the screening process and quality assessment. One researcher extracted data, and the Sequence of Prevention categorized evidence. RESULTS: A total of 64 studies were included, of which 61 reported on the magnitude and risk factors of sports-related health problems, while only 3 reported on the effectiveness of preventive measures. Of these, 30 studies were of high quality. Most studies (84%) included elite-level athletes. The reported injury incidence varied widely between sports (0-91 per 1000 athlete days) and impairment categories (1-50 per 1000 athlete days). The same applies to illness incidence with regard to different sports (3-49 per 1000 athlete days) and impairment categories (6-14 per 1000 athlete days). CONCLUSION: This review shows the current vast range of reported sport-related health problems in para-sports. There is limited evidence concerning the severity of these sports-related health problems and inconclusive evidence on the risk factors. Lastly, the evidence regarding the development and effectiveness of preventive measures for para-athletes is sparse.

LOFIT (Lifestyle front Office For Integrating lifestyle medicine in the Treatment of patients): a novel care model towards community-based options for lifestyle change-study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A healthy lifestyle is indispensable for the prevention of noncommunicable diseases. However, lifestyle medicine is hampered by time constraints and competing priorities of treating physicians. A dedicated lifestyle front office (LFO) in secondary/tertiary care may provide an important contribution to optimize patient-centred lifestyle care and connect to lifestyle initiatives from the community. The LOFIT study aims to gain insight into the (cost-)effectiveness of the LFO. METHODS: Two parallel pragmatic randomized controlled trials will be conducted for (cardio)vascular disorders (i.e. (at risk of) (cardio)vascular disease, diabetes) and musculoskeletal disorders (i.e. osteoarthritis, hip or knee prosthesis). Patients from three outpatient clinics in the Netherlands will be invited to participate in the study. Inclusion criteria are body mass index (BMI) ≥25 (kg/m2) and/or smoking. Participants will be randomly allocated to either the intervention group or a usual care control group. In total, we aim to include 552 patients, 276 in each trial divided over both treatment arms. Patients allocated to the intervention group will participate in a face-to-face motivational interviewing (MI) coaching session with a so-called lifestyle broker. The patient will be supported and guided towards suitable community-based lifestyle initiatives. A network communication platform will be used to communicate between the lifestyle broker, patient, referred community-based lifestyle initiative and/or other relevant stakeholders (e.g. general practitioner). The primary outcome measure is the adapted Fuster-BEWAT, a composite health risk and lifestyle score consisting of resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, objectively measured physical activity and sitting time, BMI, fruit and vegetable consumption and smoking behaviour. Secondary outcomes include cardiometabolic markers, anthropometrics, health behaviours, psychological factors, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), cost-effectiveness measures and a mixed-method process evaluation. Data collection will be conducted at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. DISCUSSION: This study will gain insight into the (cost-)effectiveness of a novel care model in which patients under treatment in secondary or tertiary care are referred to community-based lifestyle initiatives to change their lifestyle. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN13046877 . Registered 21 April 2022.