Lifestyle Medicine: A Brief Review of Its Dramatic Impact on Health and Survival.

By ignoring the root causes of disease and neglecting to prioritize lifestyle measures for prevention, the medical community is placing people at harm. Advanced nations, influenced by a Western lifestyle, are in the midst of a health crisis, resulting largely from poor lifestyle choices. Epidemiologic, ecologic, and interventional studies have repeatedly indicated that most chronic illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes, are the result of lifestyles fueled by poor nutrition and physical inactivity.In this article, we describe the practice of lifestyle medicine and its powerful effect on these modern instigators of premature disability and death. We address the economic benefits of prevention-based lifestyle medicine and its effect on our health care system: A system on the verge of bankruptcy. We recommend vital changes to a disastrous course. Many deaths and many causes of pain, suffering, and disability could be circumvented if the medical community could effectively implement and share the power of healthy lifestyle choices. We believe that lifestyle medicine should become the primary approach to the management of chronic conditions and, more importantly, their prevention. For future generations, for our own health, and for the Hippocratic Oath we swore to uphold ("First do no harm"), the medical community must take action. It is our hope that the information presented will inspire our colleagues to pursue lifestyle medicine research and incorporate such practices into their daily care of patients. The time to make this change is now.

Increasing the screening and counseling of adolescents for risky health behaviors: a primary care intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a systems intervention for primary care providers resulted in increased preventive screening and counseling of adolescent patients, compared with the usual standard of care. METHODS: The intervention was conducted in 2 outpatient pediatric clinics; 2 other pediatric clinics in the same health maintenance organization served as comparison sites. The intervention was implemented in 2 phases: first, pediatric primary care providers attended a training workshop (N = 37) to increase screening and counseling of adolescents in the areas of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, sexual behavior, and safety (seatbelt and helmet use). Second, screening and charting tools were integrated into the intervention clinics. Providers in the comparison sites (N = 39) continued to provide the usual standard of care to their adolescent patients. Adolescent reports were used to assess changes in provider behavior. After a well visit, 13- to 17-year olds (N = 2628) completed surveys reporting on whether their provider screened and counseled them for risky behavior. RESULTS: Screening and counseling rates increased significantly in each of the 6 areas in the intervention sites, compared with rates of delivery using the usual standard of care. Across the 6 areas combined, the average screening rate increased from 58% to 83%; counseling rates increased from 52% to 78%. There were no significant increases in the comparison sites during the same period. The training component seems to account for most of this increase, with the tools sustaining the effects of the training. CONCLUSIONS: The study offers strong support for an intervention to increase clinicians' delivery of preventive services to a wide age range of adolescent patients.