Lifestyle Medicine Assessment Scores in Family Medicine Providers.

IF 1.3 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Christine Q Nguyen, Johanna Mosquera-Moscoso, Adrianna D M Clapp, Nicolas Arciniegas, Jeff T Wight
{"title":"Lifestyle Medicine Assessment Scores in Family Medicine Providers.","authors":"Christine Q Nguyen, Johanna Mosquera-Moscoso, Adrianna D M Clapp, Nicolas Arciniegas, Jeff T Wight","doi":"10.1177/15598276251375401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> A 21-question Lifestyle Medicine Assessment (LMA) tool was recently developed to quickly evaluate the lifestyle medicine domains (Avoidance of Substance Use, Nutrition, Connection, Movement, and Recovery). In this study, we used the LMA tool to complete a preliminary analysis of family medicine providers, a group that is known to face challenging lifestyle demands and burnout. <b>Objective:</b> The primary purpose was to assess the LMA domain scores and determine if significant differences exist (among the domains). The secondary purpose was to complete a correlation matrix for the LMA domain scores to better understand the strength of the relationships (among domains). <b>Methods:</b> The participants were 35 family medicine providers and all completed the LMA. The maximum LMA score is 50 (each of the five domains is scored 0-10 points). Pairwise comparisons were used to determine if there were significant differences among the five domain scores (P < .05) and Pearson correlation was used to assess correlations between domains. <b>Results:</b> The overall LMA score was moderate (34.68 ± 6.26). The Recovery domain score (4.71 ± 2.91) was significantly lower (P < 0.01) than the other domains (Connection = 6.94 ± 2.16; Nutrition = 7.41 ± 2.00; Movement = 6.26 ± 2.94; Avoidance of Substance Use = 9.35 ± 1.28). The Avoidance of Substance Use score was significantly higher than the other domains (<i>P</i> < .01). Overall, the correlation scores among the domains were weak (all r-scores were ≤0.34). <b>Conclusions:</b> For this group of providers, there appears to be substantial room for improvement in four of the five domains. The domain of greatest concern appears to be Recovery. The weak correlation scores suggest that domain scores tend to be independent of each other, and that assessment results are unique to the individual.</p>","PeriodicalId":47480,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"15598276251375401"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12417469/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15598276251375401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A 21-question Lifestyle Medicine Assessment (LMA) tool was recently developed to quickly evaluate the lifestyle medicine domains (Avoidance of Substance Use, Nutrition, Connection, Movement, and Recovery). In this study, we used the LMA tool to complete a preliminary analysis of family medicine providers, a group that is known to face challenging lifestyle demands and burnout. Objective: The primary purpose was to assess the LMA domain scores and determine if significant differences exist (among the domains). The secondary purpose was to complete a correlation matrix for the LMA domain scores to better understand the strength of the relationships (among domains). Methods: The participants were 35 family medicine providers and all completed the LMA. The maximum LMA score is 50 (each of the five domains is scored 0-10 points). Pairwise comparisons were used to determine if there were significant differences among the five domain scores (P < .05) and Pearson correlation was used to assess correlations between domains. Results: The overall LMA score was moderate (34.68 ± 6.26). The Recovery domain score (4.71 ± 2.91) was significantly lower (P < 0.01) than the other domains (Connection = 6.94 ± 2.16; Nutrition = 7.41 ± 2.00; Movement = 6.26 ± 2.94; Avoidance of Substance Use = 9.35 ± 1.28). The Avoidance of Substance Use score was significantly higher than the other domains (P < .01). Overall, the correlation scores among the domains were weak (all r-scores were ≤0.34). Conclusions: For this group of providers, there appears to be substantial room for improvement in four of the five domains. The domain of greatest concern appears to be Recovery. The weak correlation scores suggest that domain scores tend to be independent of each other, and that assessment results are unique to the individual.

家庭医疗服务提供者生活方式医学评估得分。
背景:最近开发了一个21个问题的生活方式医学评估(LMA)工具,用于快速评估生活方式医学领域(避免物质使用,营养,联系,运动和恢复)。在本研究中,我们使用LMA工具完成了对家庭医疗服务提供者的初步分析,这是一个已知面临挑战的生活方式需求和倦怠的群体。目的:主要目的是评估LMA域得分,并确定是否存在显著差异(域之间)。次要目的是完成LMA域分数的相关矩阵,以更好地理解(域之间)关系的强度。方法:35名家庭医疗服务提供者均完成了LMA。LMA的最高分为50分(5个域的得分为0-10分)。采用两两比较确定5个域评分之间是否存在显著差异(P < 0.05),采用Pearson相关评价域之间的相关性。结果:LMA总分为中等(34.68±6.26)分。恢复领域得分(4.71±2.91)显著低于其他领域得分(连接= 6.94±2.16,营养= 7.41±2.00,运动= 6.26±2.94,避免物质使用= 9.35±1.28)(P < 0.01)。避免物质使用得分显著高于其他领域(P < 0.01)。总体而言,各域间的相关评分较弱(r值均≤0.34)。结论:对于这组供应商来说,在五个领域中的四个领域似乎有很大的改进空间。最令人担忧的领域似乎是经济复苏。弱相关分数表明领域分数倾向于相互独立,并且评估结果对个体是唯一的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine
American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
15.80%
发文量
119
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信