Physical Activity Levels, Correlates, and All-Cause Mortality Risk in People Living With Different Health Conditions.

BACKGROUND: To better understand physical activity behavior and its health benefits in people living with health conditions, we studied people with and without 20 different self-reported health conditions with regard to (1) their physical activity levels, (2) factors correlated with these physical activity levels, and (3) the association between physical activity and all-cause mortality. METHODS: We used a subsample (n = 88,659) of the Lifelines cohort study from the Netherlands. For people living with and without 20 different self-reported health conditions, we studied the aforementioned factors in relation to physical activity. Physical activity was assessed with the Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Questionnaire, and mortality data were obtained from the Dutch death register. RESULTS: People with a reported health condition were less likely to meet physical activity guidelines than people without a reported health condition (odds ratios ranging from 0.55 to 0.89). Higher body mass index and sitting time, and lower self-rated health, physical functioning, and education levels were associated with lower odds of meeting physical activity guidelines across most health conditions. Finally, we found a protective association between physical activity and all-cause mortality in both people living with and without different health conditions. CONCLUSION: People living with different health conditions are generally less physically active compared with people living without a health condition. Both people living with and without self-reported health conditions share a number of key factors associated with physical activity levels. We also observed the expected protective association between physical activity and all-cause mortality.

Facilitators and barriers for the implementation of exercise are medicine in routine clinical care in Dutch university medical centres: a mixed methodology study on clinicians' perceptions.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the many proven advantages of a physically active lifestyle in patient populations, prescription of exercise is currently not widely implemented in routine clinical practice. The aims of this study were twofold: (1) to assess perceptions of clinicians on the current practice of exercise is medicine (E=M) prescription in two Dutch university medical centres and (2) to determine their perceived barriers and facilitators for the implementation of E=M in routine clinical care in Dutch university medical centres. DESIGN: A mixed methodologies study, using both online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Dutch university medical centres. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians working within the departments of medical oncology, orthopaedics and rehabilitation medicine of two university medical centres. RESULTS: Forty-five clinicians (response rate of 51%) completed the questionnaire, and 19 clinicians were interviewed. The results showed that even though clinicians had a positive attitude towards prescribing E=M, only a few reported to regularly prescribe E=M to their patients. The 52 identified facilitators and barriers for implementation of E=M were categorised into four main themes: (1) beliefs toward the implementation of E=M (eg, clinicians knowledge and skills, and social support), (2) factors related to the patient perspective (eg, patient priorities or motivation), (3) factors related to the referral options (eg, knowledge of and trust in local referral options) and (4) practical considerations when implementing E=M (eg, time constraints). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that even though many clinicians have a positive attitude toward an active lifestyle, many are not prescribing E=M on a regular basis. In order for clinicians to effectively implement E=M, strategies should focus on increasing clinicians E=M referral skills, improving clinicians knowledge of E=M referral options and develop a support system to ensure that E=M is high on the priority list of clinicians.

Implementing Individually Tailored Prescription of Physical Activity in Routine Clinical Care: Protocol of the Physicians Implement Exercise = Medicine (PIE=M) Development and Implementation Project.

BACKGROUND: The prescription of physical activity (PA) in clinical care has been advocated worldwide. This "exercise is medicine" (E=M) concept can be used to prevent, manage, and cure various lifestyle-related chronic diseases. Due to several challenges, E=M is not yet routinely implemented in clinical care. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the rationale and design of the Physicians Implement Exercise = Medicine (PIE=M) study, which aims to facilitate the implementation of E=M in hospital care. METHODS: PIE=M consists of 3 interrelated work packages. First, levels and determinants of PA in different patient and healthy populations will be investigated using existing cohort data. The current implementation status, facilitators, and barriers of E=M will also be investigated using a mixed-methods approach among clinicians of participating departments from 2 diverse university medical centers (both located in a city, but one serving an urban population and one serving a more rural population). Implementation strategies will be connected to these barriers and facilitators using a systematic implementation mapping approach. Second, a generic E=M tool will be developed that will provide tailored PA prescription and referral. Requirements for this tool will be investigated among clinicians and department managers. The tool will be developed using an iterative design process in which all stakeholders reflect on the design of the E=M tool. Third, we will pilot-implement the set of implementation strategies, including the E=M tool, to test its feasibility in routine care of clinicians in these 2 university medical centers. An extensive learning process evaluation will be performed among clinicians, department managers, lifestyle coaches, and patients using a mixed-methods design based on the RE-AIM framework. RESULTS: This project was approved and funded by the Dutch grant provider ZonMW in April 2018. The project started in September 2018 and continues until December 2020 (depending on the course of the COVID-19 crisis). All data from the first work package have been collected and analyzed and are expected to be published in 2021. Results of the second work package are described. The manuscript is expected to be published in 2021. The third work package is currently being conducted in clinical practice in 4 departments of 2 university medical hospitals among clinicians, lifestyle coaches, hospital managers, and patients. Results are expected to be published in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The PIE=M project addresses the potential of providing patients with PA advice to prevent and manage chronic disease, improve recovery, and enable healthy ageing by developing E=M implementation strategies, including an E=M tool, in routine clinical care. The PIE=M project will result in a blueprint of implementation strategies, including an E=M screening and referral tool, which aims to improve E=M referral by clinicians to improve patients' health, while minimizing the burden on clinicians.

A Cross-sectional Analysis of Motivation and Decision Making in Referrals to Lifestyle Interventions by Primary Care General Practitioners: A Call for Guidance.

AIM: To explore (1) general practitioners' (GPs') motivations to refer to lifestyle interventions and to investigate the association between GPs' own lifestyle behaviors and their referral behavior and (2) patient indicators in the decision-making process of the GPs' referral to lifestyle interventions. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 99 Dutch primary care GPs. Their motivation to refer was assessed by beliefs regarding lifestyle interventions. GPs' referral behaviors were assessed-considering referral and self-reported actual referral-as well as their own lifestyle behaviors (physical activity, dieting, being overweight). Decision making regarding referring patients to lifestyle interventions was assessed by imposed patient indicators, spontaneously suggested decisive patient indicators, and case-based referring (vignettes). RESULTS: A substantial group of GPs was not motivated for referral to lifestyle interventions. GPs' referral behavior was significantly associated with their perceived subjective norm, behavioral control, and their own physical activity and diet. Most important, patient indicators in referral to lifestyle interventions were somatic indicators and patients' motivation for lifestyle interventions. CONCLUSIONS: GPs' motivation and referral behavior might be improved by providing them with tailored resources about evidence-based lifestyle interventions, with support from allied health professionals and with official guidelines for a more objective and systematic screening of patients.

Barrier-belief lifestyle counseling in primary care: A randomized controlled trial of efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: Intervening on barrier beliefs (BBs) may inhibit the role of barriers as mediating factors in lifestyle behavior. The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of a barrier-belief counseling intervention (BBCI) on physical activity (PA) and healthy food intake. METHODS: An RCT was conducted in a primary care setting among adults (aged 18-70), with two interventions: a BBCI (n = 123) and a standardized lifestyle group intervention (SLI) (n = 122). A non-treated hanging control group (n = 36) received no intervention. Outcomes on PA (accelerometer and SQUASH) and fruit and vegetable intake (self-report) were measured with follow-ups at 6, 12 and 18 months, and analyzed using multiple regression. RESULTS: The BBCI was more effective on PA compared with the SLI (p < .01): in the short term all PA outcomes improved (p < .05), in the long term moderate-to-vigorous PA outcomes improved (p < .05), all with small effect sizes. No differences between interventions were found on fruit and vegetable intake. None of the outcomes in the control group changed over time. CONCLUSIONS: BBCI in primary care improves PA compared with SLI. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The customized BB approach seems promising for implementation in healthcare practice to stimulate PA.

The barrier-belief approach in the counseling of physical activity.

OBJECTIVE: To understand inactivity and relapse from PA, and to develop theory-based behavior change strategies to stimulate and support maintenance of PA. METHODS: We conducted a literature search to explore barriers to PA. Social cognitive theories and empirical evidence were evaluated and guided the process developing a theoretical framework and counseling strategies. RESULTS: A theoretical framework is presented to understand why people do not engage in PA and often relapse once they started PA. A distinction is made between three related types of BBs. In PA counseling these three beliefs are addressed using four different BB behavior change strategies. CONCLUSION: BB counseling aims to develop an individual pattern of PA for the long term that is adapted to the (often limited) motivation of the client, thereby preventing the occurrence of BBs. The client will learn to cope with factors that may inhibit PA in the future. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The BBs approach composes a way of counseling around the central construct of barrier-beliefs to stimulate engagement in PA independently, in the long term.