American College of Lifestyle Medicine Expert Consensus Statement: Lifestyle Medicine for Optimal Outcomes in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: Identify areas of consensus on integrating lifestyle medicine (LM) into primary care to achieve optimal outcomes. METHODS: Experts in both LM and primary care followed an a priori protocol for developing consensus statements. Using an iterative, online process, panel members expressed levels of agreement with statements, resulting in classification as consensus, near consensus, or no consensus. RESULTS: The panel identified 124 candidate statements addressing: (1) Integration into Primary Care, (2) Delivery Models, (3) Provider Education, (4) Evidence-base for LM, (5) Vital Signs, (6) Treatment, (7) Resource Referral and Reimbursement, (8) Patient, Family, and Community Involvement; Shared Decision-Making, (9) Social Determinants of Health and Health Equity, and (10) Barriers to LM. After three iterations of an online Delphi survey, statement revisions, and removal of duplicative statements, 65 statements met criteria for consensus, 24 for near consensus, and 35 for no consensus. Consensus was reached on key topics that included LM being recognized as an essential component of primary care in patients of all ages, including LM as a foundational element of health professional education. CONCLUSION: The practice of LM in primary care can be strengthened by applying these statements to improve quality of care, inform policy, and identify areas for future research.

Content and Face Validation of the Lifestyle Medicine Assessment.

Introduction: There are no validated global lifestyle medicine brief screening tools that measure health behaviors in all six lifestyle domains. The Lifestyle Medicine Assessment (LMA) tool was initially developed and revised based on feedback elicited from colleagues, experts, and patients. During the developmental process, every item underwent language changes. Three of the original 24 items were removed. However, there have not been any formal validation efforts. This study aims to formally evaluate the face and content validity of the LMA. Methods: A survey was emailed to 12 board-certified lifestyle medicine experts asking them to rank items in the LMA on a 1-4 scale for content relevance and clarity. Content and face validity were quantitatively determined using the item-level content validity index (I-CVI), scale-level content validity index (S-CVI), and item-level face validity index (I-FVI), scale-level face validity index (S-FVI), respectively. Literature accepted thresholds of I-CVI/I-FVI ≥.79 and S-CVI/S-FVI average ≥ .80 were used. Results: Eleven experts returned evaluations of the 21-item LMA. All 21 items had I-CVI for relevance ≥.91 and I-FVI ≥.81 with excellent kappa values. The S-CVI/I-FVI average for relevance and clarity were .99 and .95, respectively. Conclusion: The 21-item LMA is a brief global lifestyle medicine tool that has demonstrated excellent content and face validity.

Implementation of Exercise Management Services Among Sports Medicine Physicians in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of physical activity and exercise prescription has been widely supported by many organizations, yet provision of such services remains limited in the United States. We sought to uncover why such services have not been widely adopted. DESIGN: The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine organized a task force to canvas physicians and survey the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine membership. SETTING: Peer-to-peer and telecommunication discussions and web-based questionnaires. PARTICIPANTS: Sports medicine physicians in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of sports medicine physicians who provide exercise management services and mechanisms of billing for exercise management, identify barriers to such services, and identify industry collaborations for promoting physical activity through physicians. RESULTS: Three of 4 sports medicine physicians spend at least 1 min encouraging exercise with patients, using Evaluation and Management codes to bill or receive credit. Exercise counseling is often bundled within other patient care. Few health plans leverage the patient's relationship with a primary care physician to promote exercise. Most employed sports medicine physicians do not receive incentives to incorporate exercise counseling into practice, and only 1 in 6 have decision-making authority to hire an exercise professional. Major obstacles are the lack of a business model and knowledge about exercise prescription. CONCLUSION: The existing E&M codes adequately characterize the work, but physicians desire greater payment or credit for providing exercise management services. Physicians desire to do more exercise prescription, but health system bureaucracy, inadequate support, and economic disincentives are barriers to the provision of exercise management services.

Cost Analysis of Developing, Implementing, and Evaluating a Multi-Disciplinary Teaching Kitchen.

INTRODUCTION: Teaching kitchens have emerged as strategies to deliver lifestyle medicine principles and practices. However, a better understanding of their implementation, delivery cost, and potential benefits are needed. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the costs associated with the development, deployment, and evaluation of the Emory Healthy Kitchen Collaborative (EHKC) teaching kitchen clinical trial. METHODS: The actual number of hours spent and costs incurred to develop and deploy the EHKC teaching kitchen were recorded and broadly categorized into 1 of 4 areas: program development, course delivery, research, and optional enhancements. Costs of each item were assigned as fixed or variable, enabling calculation of the marginal per participant program cost. RESULTS: Total costs were US$123,898, with 3/4 incurred for program development, research, and optional enhancements. Delivery of the course alone (not including program development costs, research, or any optional enhancements) cost US$30,194. The total cost per participant for the course was US$755, with a marginal participant cost of US$141. CONCLUSION: Teaching kitchens represent viable options to deliver lifestyle medicine interventions. However, more research and cost analyses are needed to better understand the value teaching kitchens provide to determine if they are an effective and economical way to deliver lifestyle medicine.