Lifestyle Medicine Implementation in 8 Health Systems: Protocol for a Multiple Case Study Investigation.

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.