ArticleBMJ open2026
Legitimacy, trust and readiness for implementing lifestyle medicine in England: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study examines awareness, perceived legitimacy, trust and readiness for the implementation of lifestyle medicine within National Health Service (NHS) prevention pathways among community-dwelling adults and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in England. A secondary objective was to assess how professional training and system factors relate to the provision and intended use of lifestyle medicine services within the NHS.
designCross-sectional, self-administered online survey.
settingUK; online survey administered in January 2026.
participantsAdults aged ≥18 years living in the UK, recruited via a closed online panel using quota sampling to approximate national distributions by age, gender and ethnicity. A subgroup of respondents self-identified as HCPs.
main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were perceived legitimacy of lifestyle medicine as a healthcare approach and intention to use an NHS lifestyle medicine service if available. Secondary outcomes included awareness and familiarity with the term 'lifestyle medicine', trust in different providers of lifestyle advice, perceived self-efficacy across lifestyle domains and-among HCPs-training, confidence, barriers and current provision of lifestyle-related advice.
resultsA total of 733 participants completed the survey including 58 HCPs. Awareness of the term 'lifestyle medicine' was limited in the general population (26.3%) but substantially higher among HCPs (62.1%). Despite this, there was broad agreement across groups regarding core lifestyle medicine domains; particularly nutrition, physical activity, sleep and stress management. Higher perceived legitimacy of lifestyle medicine was strongly associated with stated intention to use an NHS service. Trust in lifestyle advice was highest when delivered by clinicians with formal lifestyle medicine training and lower for non-medical professionals, even when formally trained. Among HCPs, formal training and greater confidence were strongly associated with provision of lifestyle-related advice, whereas perceptions of NHS support for lifestyle-based approaches were consistently low regardless of training status.
conclusionsLifestyle medicine is widely viewed as legitimate and potentially valuable when anchored within professional training and NHS delivery but its implementation is constrained by limited public familiarity, variable workforce capability and low perceived system readiness. Strengthening training pathways, clarifying professional standards and enhancing institutional support may be critical to embedding lifestyle medicine within NHS prevention and long-term condition strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.