Declining life expectancy and increasing all-cause mortality in the United States have been associated with unhealthy behaviors, socioecological factors, and preventable disease. A growing body of basic science, clinical research, and population health evidence points to the benefits of healthy behaviors, environments and policies to maintain health and prevent, treat, and reverse the root causes of common chronic diseases. Similarly, innovations in research methodologies, standards of evidence, emergence of unique study cohorts, and breakthroughs in data analytics and modeling create new possibilities for producing biomedical knowledge and clinical translation. To understand these advances and inform future directions research, The Lifestyle Medicine Research Summit was convened at the University of Pittsburgh on December 4–5, 2019. The Summit's goal was to review current status and define research priorities in the six core areas of lifestyle medicine: plant-predominant nutrition, physical activity, sleep, stress, addictive behaviors, and positive psychology/social connection. Forty invited subject matter experts (1) reviewed existing knowledge and gaps relating lifestyle behaviors to common chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, many cancers, inflammatory- and immune-related disorders and other conditions; and (2) discussed the potential for applying cutting-edge molecular, cellular, epigenetic and emerging science knowledge and computational methodologies, research designs, and study cohorts to accelerate clinical applications across all six domains of lifestyle medicine. Notably, federal health agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Veterans Administration have begun to adopt “whole-person health and performance” models that address these lifestyle and environmental root causes of chronic disease and associated morbidity, mortality, and cost. Recommendations strongly support leveraging emerging research methodologies, systems biology, and computational modeling in order to accelerate effective clinical and population solutions to improve health and reduce societal costs. New and alternative hierarchies of evidence are also be needed in order to assess the quality of evidence and develop evidence-based guidelines on lifestyle medicine. Children and underserved populations were identified as prioritized groups to study. The COVID-19 pandemic, which disproportionately impacts people with chronic diseases that are amenable to effective lifestyle medicine interventions, makes the Summit's findings and recommendations for future research particularly timely and relevant.

No abstract

BackgroundEngaging individuals who have a substance use disorder (SUD) in treatment continues to be a challenge for the specialty addiction treatment field. Research has consistently revealed high rates of missed appointments at each step of the enrollment process: 1. between calling for services and assessment, 2. between assessment and enrollment, and 3. between enrollment and completion of treatment. Extensive research has examined each step of the process; however, there is limited research examining the overall attrition rate across all steps.MethodsA single case study of a specialty addiction treatment agency was used to examine the attrition rates across the first three steps of the enrollment process. Attrition rates were tracked between August 1, 2011 and July 31, 2012. The cohort included 1822 unique individuals who made an initial request for addiction treatment services. Monthly retrospective reviews of medical records, phone logs, and billing data were used to calculate attrition rates. Attrition rates reported in the literature were collected and compared to the rates found at the target agency.ResultsMedian time between request for treatment and assessment was 6 days (mean 7.5) and between assessment and treatment enrollment was 8 days (mean 12.5). An overall attrition rate of 80% was observed, including 45% between call and assessment, 32% between assessment and treatment enrollment (another 17% could not be determined), and 37% left or were removed from treatment before 30 days. Women were less likely to complete 30 days of treatment compared to men. No other demographics were related to attrition rates.DiscussionOne out of every five people who requested treatment completed a minimum of 30 days of a treatment. The attrition rate was high, yet similar to rates noted in the literature. Limitations of the single case study are noted.ConclusionAttrition rates in the U.S. are high with approximately 75% to 80% of treatment seekers disengaging at one of the multiple stages of the enrollment and treatment process. Significant changes in the system are needed to improve engagement rates.

No abstract

In Ruth Ralph and Pat Corrigan, Eds. Recovery in Mental Illness: Broadening our understanding of wellness. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. A qualitative shift is occurring in the conceptual foundation and design of behavioral health services. Grassroots advocacy movements and a growing body of longitudinal research are challenging mental health and addiction treatment service providers to re-focus their services toward the goal and processes of long-term recovery. In the mental health field, the "ex-patients' survivor" movement of the 1970s (Chamberlin, 1978) was followed by new "consumer" voices in the 1980s (Deegan, 1988; Unzicker, 1989) and the christening of the 1990s as the "decade of recovery" (Anthony, 1993). Dramatic changes in the conceptual underpinnings of mental health treatment were spurred by research studies confirming that between half and two-thirds of people with serious mental illness achieve substantial recovery (