Lifestyle Medicine Practitioners Implementing a Greater Proportion of Lifestyle Medicine Experience Less Burnout.

PURPOSE: To identify reasons for burnout, characterize the effect of lifestyle medicine (LM) practice on burnout, and assess the risk of burnout in relation to the proportion of LM practice. DESIGN: Analysis of mixed methods data from a large, cross-sectional survey on LM practice. SETTING: Web-based survey platform. PARTICIPANTS: Members of an LM medical professional society at the time of survey administration. METHODS: Practitioner members of a medical professional society were recruited to a cross-sectional, online survey. Data were collected on LM practice and experiences with burnout. Free-text data were thematically grouped and counted, and the association of burnout with the proportion of lifestyle-based medical practice was analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 482 respondents, 58% reported currently feeling burned out, 28% used to feel burned out but no longer do, and 90% reported LM had positively impacted their professional satisfaction. Among LM practitioners surveyed, practicing more LM was associated with a 43% decrease (0.569; 95% CI: 0.384, 0.845; P = 0.0051) in the odds of experiencing burnout. Top reasons for positive impact included professional satisfaction, sense of accomplishment, and meaningfulness (44%); improved patient outcomes and patient satisfaction (26%); enjoyment of teaching/coaching and engaging in relationships (22%); and helps me personally: quality of life and stress (22%). CONCLUSION: Implementing LM as a greater proportion of medical practice was associated with lower likelihood of burnout among LM practitioners. Results suggest that increased feelings of accomplishment due to improved patient outcomes and reduced depersonalization contribute to reduced burnout.

Dietary Interventions to Treat Type 2 Diabetes in Adults with a Goal of Remission: An Expert Consensus Statement from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.

Objective: The objective of this Expert Consensus Statement is to assist clinicians in achieving remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in adults using diet as a primary intervention. Evidence-informed statements agreed upon by a multi-disciplinary panel of expert healthcare professionals were used. Methods: Panel members with expertise in diabetes treatment, research, and remission followed an established methodology for developing consensus statements using a modified Delphi process. A search strategist systematically reviewed the literature, and the best available evidence was used to compose statements regarding dietary interventions in adults 18 years and older diagnosed with T2D. Topics with significant practice variation and those that would result in remission of T2D were prioritized. Using an iterative, online process, panel members expressed levels of agreement with the statements, resulting in classification as consensus, near-consensus, or non-consensus based on mean responses and the number of outliers. Results: The expert panel identified 131 candidate consensus statements that focused on addressing the following high-yield topics: (1) definitions and basic concepts; (2) diet and remission of T2D; (3) dietary specifics and types of diets; (4) adjuvant and alternative interventions; (5) support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; (6) weight loss; and (7) payment and policy. After 4 iterations of the Delphi survey and removal of duplicative statements, 69 statements met the criteria for consensus, 5 were designated as near consensus, and 60 were designated as no consensus. In addition, the consensus was reached on the following key issues: (a) Remission of T2D should be defined as HbA1c <6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for the specific purpose of lowering blood glucose; (b) diet as a primary intervention for T2D can achieve remission in many adults with T2D and is related to the intensity of the intervention; and (c) diet as a primary intervention for T2D is most effective in achieving remission when emphasizing whole, plant-based foods with minimal consumption of meat and other animal products. Many additional statements that achieved consensus are highlighted in a tabular presentation in the manuscript and elaborated upon in the discussion section. Conclusion: Expert consensus was achieved for 69 statements pertaining to diet and remission of T2D, dietary specifics and types of diets, adjuvant and alternative interventions, support, monitoring, adherence to therapy, weight loss, and payment and policy. Clinicians can use these statements to improve quality of care, inform policy and protocols, and identify areas of uncertainty.

Lifestyle Medicine Shared Medical Appointments.

Chronic diseases pose many challenges to health care providers and the health care system from a human capital, logistic, and financial perspective. To overcome these challenges, efficient and effective health care delivery models that address multiple chronic conditions need to be leveraged. Shared medical appointments are one potential solution to address these issues. This article offers a brief history of group visits and shared medical appointments and reviews the available data regarding their outcomes. It describes the benefits of using lifestyle medicine as the primary therapeutic modality within a shared medical appointment to treat, reverse, and prevent chronic disease. Key considerations and action steps for the implementation of lifestyle medicine shared medical appointments (LMSMAs) are outlined and the potential delivery of these services via telehealth is explored.

Lifestyle Medicine Reimbursement: A Proposal for Policy Priorities Informed by a Cross-Sectional Survey of Lifestyle Medicine Practitioners.

Lifestyle medicine (LM) is a rapidly emerging clinical discipline that focuses on intensive therapeutic lifestyle changes to treat chronic disease, often producing dramatic health benefits. In spite of these well-documented benefits of LM approaches to provide evidence-based care that follows current clinical guidelines, LM practitioners have found reimbursement challenging. The objectives of this paper are to present the results of a cross-sectional survey of LM practitioners regarding lifestyle medicine reimbursement and to propose policy priorities related to the ability of practitioners to implement and achieve reimbursement for these necessary services. Results from a closed, online survey in 2019 were analyzed, with a total of n = 857 included in this analysis. Results were descriptively analyzed. This manuscript articulates policy proposals informed by the survey results. The study sample was 58% female, with median age of 51. A minority of the sample (17%) reported that all their practice was LM, while 56% reported that some of their practice was LM. A total of 55% of practitioners reported not being able to receive reimbursement for LM practice. Of those survey respondents who provided an answer to the question of what would make the practice of LM easier (n = 471), the following suggestions were offered: reimbursement overall (18%), reimbursement for more time spent with patients (17%), more support from leadership (16%), policy measures to incentivize health (13%), education in LM for practitioners (11%), LM-specific billing codes and billing knowledge along with better electronic medical record (EMR) capabilities and streamlined reporting/paperwork (11%), and reimbursement for the extended care team (10%). Proposed policy changes focus on three areas of focus: (1) support for the care process using a LM approach, (2) reimbursement emphasizing outcomes of health, patient experience, and delivering person-centered care, and (3) incentivizing treatment that produces disease remission/reversal. Rectifying reimbursement barriers to lifestyle medicine practice will require a sustained effort from health systems and policy makers. The urgency of this transition towards lifestyle medicine interventions to effectively address the epidemic of chronic diseases in a way that can significantly improve outcomes is being hindered by current reimbursement policies and models.

Lifestyle Medicine and Economics: A Proposal for Research Priorities Informed by a Case Series of Disease Reversal.

Chronic disease places an enormous economic burden on both individuals and the healthcare system, and existing fee-for-service models of healthcare prioritize symptom management, medications, and procedures over treating the root causes of disease through changing health behaviors. Value-based care is gaining traction, and there is a need for value-based care models that achieve the quadruple aim of (1) improved population health, (2) enhanced patient experience, (3) reduced healthcare costs, and (4) improved work life and decreased burnout of healthcare providers. Lifestyle medicine (LM) has the potential to achieve these four aims, including promoting health and wellness and reducing healthcare costs; however, the economic outcomes of LM approaches need to be better quantified in research. This paper demonstrates proof of concept by detailing four cases that utilized an intensive, therapeutic lifestyle intervention change (ITLC) to dramatically reverse disease and reduce healthcare costs. In addition, priorities for lifestyle medicine economic research related to the components of quadruple aim are proposed, including conducting rigorously designed research studies to adequately measure the effects of ITLC interventions, modeling the potential economic cost savings enabled by health improvements following lifestyle interventions as compared to usual disease progression and management, and examining the effects of lifestyle medicine implementation upon different payment models.