Objective: Diabetes is a defining disease of the 21st century because of its rising prevalence, association with obesity, and enormous health impact. Abundant evidence shows that lifestyle interventions can delay or prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D) in adults, offer relief, and sometimes achieve complete remission. Despite this empowering message, there are no clinical practice guidelines that focus primarily on lifestyle interventions as first-line management of prediabetes and T2D. Our objective, therefore, is to offer pragmatic, trustworthy, and evidence-based guidance for clinicians in using the 6 pillars of lifestyle medicine—nutrition, physical activity, stress management, sleep, social connectedness, avoidance of risky substances—for managing adults with T2D and in preventing T2D in adults with prediabetes or a history of gestational diabetes mellitus. Methods: We used well-established, peer-reviewed guideline methodology to develop evidence-based key action statements (recommendations) that facilitate quality improvement in clinical practice. The guideline development group included 20 members representing consumers, advanced practice nursing, cardiology, clinical pharmacology, behavioral medicine, endocrinology, family medicine, lifestyle medicine, nutrition and dietetics, health education, health and wellness coaching, sleep medicine, sports medicine, and obesity medicine. Recommendation strength was based on the aggregate evidence supporting a key action statement plus a comparison of associated benefits vs harms/costs. Multiple literature searches, conducted by an information specialist, identified 8 relevant guidelines, 118 relevant systematic reviews, and 112 randomized clinical trials. The guideline underwent extensive internal, external, and public review and comment prior to publication. Results: We developed 14 key action statements and associated evidence profiles, each with a distinct quality improvement goal in the context of lifestyle interventions for T2D. Strong recommendations were made regarding advocacy for lifestyle interventions; assessing baseline lifestyle habits; establishing priorities for lifestyle change; prescribing aerobic and muscle strength physical activity; reducing sedentary time; identifying sleep disorders; prescribing nutrition plans for prevention and treatment; promoting peer/familial support and social connections; counseling regarding tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs, and establishing a plan for continuity of care. Recommendations were made regarding identifying the need for psychological interventions and for adjusting (deprescribing) pharmacologic therapy. We include numerous tables and figures to facilitate implementation, a plain-language summary for consumers, and an executive summary for clinicians as separate publications. Conclusions: There is robust research evidence supporting the efficacy of lifestyle interventions in preventing, treating, and achieving remission of T2D in adults. Our multidisciplinary guideline development group successfully synthesized this evidence into 14 key action statements that can be used by clinicians and other healthcare professionals to improve quality of care for adults with, or at-risk for, T2D. Despite the research gaps and implementation challenges we highlight in the guideline we believe strongly that our recommendations have immediate relevance and can help raise awareness and shift the paradigm of T2D management towards optimal use of lifestyle interventions.

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.

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.

Background: Prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is rising, and its burden on the healthcare system remains a challenge. Consumption of a plant-predominant diet is a promising approach for achieving remission, which has emerged as a therapeutic target. Objective: To establish feasibility of achieving T2D remission with a plant-predominant diet in a cohort of free-living individuals. Methods: Patients referred to a wellness clinic were treated with a low-fat, whole food, plant-predominant diet while receiving standard medical treatment. Included patients were adults, mostly elderly, with HbA1c > 6.5%, with or without use of antidiabetic medications. Results: N = 59 patients were included in this analysis, with mean age 71.5 years (range 41-89). Twenty-two (37%) patients achieved T2D remission. Mean differences showed a significant decrease post-lifestyle change (T2) compared to prior to lifestyle change (T1) for the following outcomes [least squares mean difference (95% CI)]: BMI [−2.6 (−4.8, −.3)] kg/m ² ; HbA1c [ −1.3 (−1.6, −1.0)] %; and fasting glucose [−29.6 (−41.8, −17.5)] mg/dL. No significant differences were observed for systolic or diastolic blood pressure, HDL, LDL, or triglycerides. Conclusion: A lifestyle-based treatment intervention promoting adherence to a plant-predominant diet and integrated as part of routine care can successfully achieve T2D remission in wellness clinic patients.

Lifestyle medicine (LM) is a rapidly growing medical specialty that can be integrated into all aspects of care. LM is implemented across primary, specialty, inpatient, outpatient, community and home settings, with multiple modalities, including virtual, individual or group visits. This position paper outlines how LM achieves value, improves health outcomes, and meets the goals of the Quintuple Aim, thus providing a framework to guide LM stakeholders, including patients, providers, payers, employers, and community organizations. It is the position of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) that: (1) The LM care delivery model addresses the escalating chronic disease healthcare burden; (2) LM is a powerful catalyst for healthcare transformation that delivers the Quintuple Aim; (3) LM is whole-person care implemented for all populations, across various settings, intensities and modalities; (4) LM providers are trained, interdisciplinary experts in chronic disease care across the continuum, from prevention to treatment and remission of disease; (5) nine core elements are essential to an effective and evidence-based LM care framework.

Background: Lifestyle medicine (LM) is the use of therapeutic lifestyle changes (including a whole-food, plant-predominant eating pattern; regular physical activity; restorative sleep; stress management; avoidance of risky substances; and positive social connection) to prevent and treat chronic illness. Despite growing evidence, LM is still not widely implemented in health care settings. Potential challenges to LM implementation include lack of clinician training, staffing concerns, and misalignment of LM services with fee-for-service reimbursement, but the full range of factors facilitating or obstructing its implementation and long-term success are not yet understood. To learn important lessons for success and failure, it is crucial to understand the experiences of different LM programs. Objective: This study aims to describe in depth the protocol used to identify barriers and facilitators impacting the implementation of LM in health systems. Methods: The study team comprises team members at the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM), including staff and researchers with expertise in public health, LM, and qualitative research. We recruited health systems that were members of the ACLM Health Systems Council. From among 15 self-nominating health systems, we selected 7 to represent a diversity of geographic location, type, size, expertise, funding, patients, and LM services. Partway through the study, we recruited 1 additional contrasting health system to serve as a negative case. For each case, we conducted in-depth interviews, document reviews, site visits (limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic), and study team debriefs. Interviews lasted 45-90 minutes and followed a semistructured interview guide, loosely based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) model. We are constructing detailed case narrative reports for each health system that are subsequently used in cross-case analyses to develop a contextually rich and detailed understanding of various predetermined and emergent topics. Cross-case analyses will draw on a variety of methodologies, including in-depth case familiarization, inductive or deductive coding, and thematic analysis, to identify cross-cutting themes. Results: The study team has completed data collection for all 8 participating health systems, including 68 interviews and 1 site visit. We are currently drafting descriptive case narratives, which will be disseminated to participating health systems for member checking and shared broadly as applied vignettes. We are also conducting cross-case analyses to identify critical facilitators and barriers, explore clinician training strategies to facilitate LM implementation, and develop an explanatory model connecting practitioner adoption of LM and experiences of burnout. Conclusions: This protocol paper offers real-world insights into research methods and practices to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of LM in health systems. Findings can advise LM implementation across various health system contexts. Methodological limitations and lessons learned can guide the execution of other studies with similar methodologies. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51562