The primary objectives of these international guidelines were to provide a global audience of clinicians with (a) a series of evidence-based recommendations for the provision of lifestyle-based men...

The incidence of substance use and behavioral addictions continues to increase throughout the world. The Global Burden of Disease Study shows a growing impact in disability-adjusted life years due to substance use. Substance use impacts families, communities, health care, and legal systems; yet, the vast majority of individuals with substance use disorders do not seek treatment. Within the United States, new legislation has attempted to increase the availability of buprenorphine, but the impact of substance use continues. Although medications and group support therapy have been the mainstay of treatment for substance use, lifestyle medicine offers a valuable adjunct therapy that may help strengthen substance use recovery through healthy neuroplastic changes.

With already wide disparities in physical health and life expectancy, COVID-19 presents people with mental illness with additional threats to their health: decreased access to health services, increased social isolation, and increased socio-economic disadvantage. Each of these factors has exacerbated the risk of poor health and early death for people with mental illness post-COVID-19. Unless effective primary care and preventative health responses are implemented, the physical illness epidemic for this group will increase post the COVID-19 pandemic. This perspective paper briefly reviews the literature on the impact of COVID-19 on service access, social isolation, and social disadvantage and their combined impact on physical health, particularly cancer, respiratory diseases, heart disease, smoking, and infectious diseases. The much-overlooked role of poor physical health on suicidality is also discussed. The potential impact of public health interventions is modelled based on Australian incidence data and current research on the percentage of early deaths of people living with mental illnesses that are preventable. Building on the lessons arising from services’ response to COVID-19, such as the importance of ensuring access to preventive, screening, and primary care services, priority recommendations for consideration by public health practitioners and policymakers are presented.

Endometriosis and adenomyosis are chronic, debilitating, inflammatory conditions affecting women of reproductive age. Current management primarily focuses on pharmacologic therapies and surgical interventions; however, many individuals adopt self-directed lifestyle modifications despite limited evidence-based guidance to support these approaches. This scoping review aimed to collate and evaluate the available evidence for lifestyle interventions in the management of pelvic pain among women with endometriosis and/or adenomyosis, with consideration of key lifestyle medicine domains including nutrition, physical activity, mind–body practices, social connection, sleep, substance cessation, and self-management. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Electronic databases (MEDLINE [OVID], CINAHL, and Scopus) were systematically searched to identify relevant interventional studies. Following abstract and full-text screening, 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Included studies demonstrated substantial heterogeneity in methodology, sample size, intervention type, and duration of follow-up. Only one study specifically included participants with adenomyosis. Findings suggested potential benefits of dietary modification, physical activity, mindfulness-based interventions, yoga, digital health programs, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pelvic pain management. However, small sample sizes and methodological variability limit the strength of conclusions. Overall, the current evidence base remains limited and underscores the need for rigorously designed interventional studies. Future research should incorporate broader outcome domains, including quality of life, fertility, and mental health, and should more comprehensively address lifestyle domains such as sleep and substance use. Greater inclusion of individuals with adenomyosis is also essential to inform evidence-based lifestyle recommendations in this population.

Lifestyle medicine provides a unifying, evidence-based framework that may assist in reducing cancer incidence, improving treatment tolerance and survivorship across the cancer journey.This article is a narrative, state-of-the-art review synthesising contemporary evidence on lifestyle medicine across the cancer continuum. The review was organised around the six pillars of lifestyle medicine: nutrition, physical activity, sleep, stress, social connection, risky substances associated with cancer risk, treatments and outcomes.The literature showed many strong associations, though there was considerable variation in study populations, strength and consistency across studies and among the six pillars. Plant-predominant, Mediterranean-style dietary patterns, coupled with reduced ultra-processed foods, red and processed meats, are consistently associated in observational studies with 24%–60% relative reductions in the incidence of breast, colorectal and other cancers, with emerging microbiome-mediated mechanisms supporting nutrition strategies. Physical activity prescriptions are associated with reduced risk of multiple cancers, improved treatment completion, reduced sarcopenia and cachexia, and cancer recurrence and mortality among survivors. The evidence linking obesity, body composition, tobacco and alcohol to cancer emphasises muscle preservation, metabolic health, cessation interventions before and after diagnosis. A growing body of evidence associates sleep disruption, circadian misalignment, chronic stress, depression, loneliness and social isolation as clinically relevant modifiable determinants. Yet fewer than one in four survivors are recommended lifestyle strategies to complement the management strategy.Although the strength, consistency of evidence and study populations vary across the six lifestyle pillars, the available literature suggests that lifestyle-related interventions across the six domains are associated with meaningful benefits.

Objective: To determine the efficacy of ginger (either stand-alone or as an adjunct treatment) for the treatment and management of migraine headaches. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Epistemonikos and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to 26 March 2025 which was updated on 16 April 2026 and conducted a backwards and forwards citation search of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of ginger (either stand-alone or as an adjunct) to placebo or usual active control (such as Depakine (valproic acid), amitriptyline or sumatriptan). Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 Tool (ROB-2) tool. Primary outcomes included headache severity or pain scores post-treatment, proportion of patients pain free or with pain relief post-treatment, frequency and duration of migraine attacks and migraine-associated symptoms. Random-effects meta-analyses were done and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Eight RCTs involving 594 patients were included. For acute treatments, ginger with ketoprofen compared with placebo with ketoprofen may have little to no difference on headache severity at 2 hours post (mean difference (MD) 1.27 lower, 95% CI 1.46 lower to 1.08 lower; 1 study, 60 participants; low certainty evidence). It was very uncertain if ginger combined with feverfew versus placebo or ginger alone compared with sumatriptan improved proportions of those with pain relief, pain free or the mean headache severity at 2 hours post. For preventative treatment, ginger in addition to an active drug compared with the same active drug with or without placebo, may result in an important reduction in headache pain severity at 3 months (pooled MD −3.18, 95% CI −3.94 to −2.42; 2 studies, 183 participants; low certainty evidence). However, it was very uncertain if ginger combined with herbs compared with active drugs of both Depakine and amitriptyline lowered headache frequency, duration or headache severity at 3 months. The overall certainty of evidence for all outcome measures ranged from low to very low. Conclusions: The volume of the existing evidence is limited and combined with either a low or very low certainty of evidence, it is currently too uncertain if ginger is effective either as an acute or preventative treatment. Therefore, additional acute and preventative trials are required to help raise the certainty of evidence. Trial registration number: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251025768 .