BackgroundA 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.MethodsTwo 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.DiscussionThis 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 registrationISRCTN ISRCTN13046877. Registered 21 April 2022.
Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence-based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health-related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home-based or community-based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.
Background: A paradigm shift in health care from illness to wellbeing requires new assessment technologies and intervention strategies. Self-monitoring tools based on the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) might provide a solution. They enable patients to monitor both vulnerability and resilience in daily life. Although ESM solutions are extensively used in research, a translation from science into daily clinical practice is needed. Objective: To investigate the redesign process of an existing platform for ESM data collection for detailed functional analysis and disease management used by psychological assistants to the general practitioner (PAGPs) in family medicine. Methods: The experience-sampling platform was reconceptualized according to the design thinking framework in three phases. PAGPs were closely involved in co-creation sessions. In the ‘understand’ phase, knowledge about end-users’ characteristics and current eHealth use was collected (nominal group technique – 2 sessions with N = 15). In the ‘explore’ phase, the key needs concerning the platform content and functionalities were evaluated and prioritized (empathy mapping – 1 session with N = 5, moderated user testing – 1 session with N = 4). In the ‘materialize’ phase, the adjusted version of the platform was tested in daily clinical practice (4 months with N = 4). The whole process was extensively logged, analyzed using content analysis, and discussed with an interprofessional project group. Results: In the ‘understand’ phase, PAGPs emphasized the variability in symptoms reported by patients. Therefore, moment-to-moment assessment of mood and behavior in a daily life context could be valuable. In the ‘explore’ phase, (motivational) functionalities, technological performance and instructions turned out to be important user requirements and could be improved. In the ‘materialize’ phase, PAGPs encountered barriers to implement the experience-sampling platform. They were insufficiently facilitated by the regional primary care group and general practitioners. Conclusion: The redesign process in co-creation yielded meaningful insights into the needs, desires and daily routines in family medicine. Severe barriers were encountered related to the use and uptake of the experience-sampling platform in settings where health care professionals lack the time, knowledge and skills. Future research should focus on the applicability of this platform in family medicine and incorporate patient experiences.
