Skip to main content
Download PDF

The acceptability of lifestyle medicine for the treatment of mental illness: perspectives of people with and without lived experience of mental illness

BMC Public Health volumeĀ 24, ArticleĀ number:Ā 171 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

While lifestyle medicine can be highly effective for treating a range of mental illnesses these approaches are grossly underutilised and have not been systematically implemented into health care systems. Understanding the acceptability of lifestyle medicine is a critical first step to remediate this. This study evaluated the acceptability of lifestyle medicine relative to pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, and explore perspectives of people with and without lived experience of mental illness.

Methods

Six hundred and forty-nine adult Australian residents (62.6% female; 53.6% with a lifetime diagnosis of mental illness) completed an online survey based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability assessing the acceptability of lifestyle medicine, pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for treating mental illness.

Results

Most participants felt positive about lifestyle medicine (76.9%) and felt that such approaches aligned with their personal values (74.9%). They understood how lifestyle medicine worked (86.4%) and believed it would be effective (69.6%). Lived experience of mental illness was associated with greater perceived burden and lower self-efficacy to engage in lifestyle medicine activities (both pā€‰<ā€‰0.001). While there was a clear preference for psychotherapy and lifestyle medicine over pharmacotherapy, pharmacotherapy was perceived as least effortful (pā€‰<ā€‰.001) and participants were least confident in their ability to engage in lifestyle medicine (pā€‰<ā€‰0.05).

Conclusion

The findings indicate strong acceptability of lifestyle medicine for mental illness, a preference for non-pharmacological treatment approaches, and an understanding of the challenges associated with making long-term healthy lifestyle modifications amongst people who have lived experience of mental illness.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Over one billion people worldwide are living with mental illness [1] and this number is continuing to rise [2]. While there has been an increase in mental healthcare expenditure [3,4,5] and access to traditional first-line treatments (i.e., psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy), in countries such as Australia and the US, this has not reduced the burden of mental illness or substantially improved therapeutic outcomes [6]. Mental illness continues to be among the leading causes of disability globally and is estimated to cost the global economy over $6 trillion US by 2030 [1]. A rapidly growing body of evidence indicates that lifestyle medicine approaches can be highly effective for numerous mental health indications [7,8,9,10] and are an underutilised treatment option that has the potential to offer a flexible, and empowering approach to improving mental health outcomes.

Lifestyle medicine, also known as behavioural medicine, is a branch of medicine that applies environmental, behavioural, medical, and motivational principles to promote the management of healthy lifestyle behaviours [11]. Physical exercise, sleep, diet, mindfulness meditation, and strengthening positive relationships are examples of lifestyle medicine activities with demonstrated efficacy to prevent and treat a wide variety of mental illnesses; albeit to varying degrees [7, 9, 12, 13]. For example, physical exercise and mindfulness-based interventions have been shown to be as effective as pharmacotherapy in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder [14,15,16,17] and Generalised Anxiety Disorder [18], respectively. Clinical trials have shown that interventions targeting sleep can reduce depression severity [19,20,21], while the field of nutritional psychiatry [22] has provided early evidence that interventions targeting diet quality can also reduce depressive symptoms [23]. Collectively, the weight of high-quality clinical evidence has led to lifestyle modification being recommended as a first-line treatment for mental illness in international treatment guidelines by organisations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (i.e. NICE Depression in adults: treatment and management [24]), the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (i.e. RANZCP clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders [7]), and the World Federation of Societies for Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) and Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine (ASLM; i.e., Clinical guidelines for the use of lifestyle-based mental health care in major depressive disorder [13]).

The value of lifestyle medicine comes not only from its capacity to treat mental illness but from its positive concurrent impacts on physical health [25]. This is particularly relevant for people living with mental illness who are twice as likely to be diagnosed with a cardiometabolic condition such as diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease [25,26,27,28,29], while those with a ā€˜severe mental illnessā€™ (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder) have a 10ā€“20ā€‰year reduction in life expectancy [30,31,32], largely due to these physical comorbidities. It is well established that lifestyle modification (e.g., diet, physical exercise, sleep) plays an important role in both preventing and treating cardiometabolic conditions and increasing life expectancy [25]. That these physical health benefits are unique to lifestyle medicine, as compared to psychotherapy and psychopharmacology, lends further weight to the utility of the widespread implementation of this approach.

Despite the weight of positive evidence, lifestyle-based interventions are rarely prescribed and have not been widely integrated into the mental healthcare system [9, 10]. Barriers to the wide-spread implementation of lifestyle medicine for mental illness are complex and include, but are not limited to: a lack of education and training in the prescription of effective lifestyle medicine approaches amongst practitioners [33, 34], limited funding pathways for allied health professionals to treat mental illness, and a scarcity of programs designed to support healthy lifestyle change [9]. One key ingredient to encouraging individual-level uptake and system-level implementation of lifestyle medicine is understanding how acceptable this approach is to end-users. Acceptability to end-users is important for all health treatments [35, 36], and especially for behavioural approaches which require significant sustained motivation and effort to be effective. Initiating and maintaining the level of lifestyle behaviour required to improve mental health outcomes is difficult and often more so for people living with mental illness [25]. People living with mental illness experience unique barriers to health behaviour change such as low mood, amotivation, reduced social support [37], higher rates of sleep disturbance, poor diet quality, and sedentary behaviour [25]. These distinct barriers make it particularly important to differentiate the perspectives of people with (i.e. patients) and without (i.e. potential future patients) mental illness. Evaluating the acceptability of lifestyle medicine and identifying any reservations people may have will provide insights into the value of continuing efforts to integrate lifestyle medicine alongside pharmacological and psychological approaches.

The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA [36]) is a gold-standard, empirically derived framework that outlines seven unique component constructs of acceptability: affective attitude, ethicality, burden, intervention coherence, perceived effectiveness, opportunity cost and self-efficacy (see TableĀ 1 for definitions). It was developed via evidence synthesis to bring clarity to the concept of acceptability and enable a nuanced examination of its many facets. In the context of the current study, the TFA provided a rigorous framework upon which to investigate: 1) the acceptability of lifestyle medicine for the treatment of mental illness, 2) whether lived experience of mental illness influences the acceptability of lifestyle medicine, and 3) compare the acceptability of lifestyle medicine to psychopharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.

Table 1 TFA component constructs, adapted from Sekhon et al., 2017 [36]
Full size table

Methods

Design

This study employed a cross-sectional survey-based research design.

Participants

Participants included 899 Australian adults (aged 18ā€‰years and above) recruited via advertisements on social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter), online forums (Reddit) and community organisation email lists (i.e., mental health support groups). Inclusion criteria were being aged 18ā€‰years or older and residing in Australia, and no exclusion criteria were applied. Upon completion of the study survey, participants were invited to enter a prize draw to win one of three $50 grocery/department store gift vouchers to show appreciation for their effort. The current analyses excluded participants who did not complete all survey items (nā€‰=ā€‰250). Thus, the resulting study sample included 649 participants (62.6% female, mean ageā€‰=ā€‰34.8ā€‰years, SDā€‰=ā€‰12.7). This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee, and all participants provided written informed consent.

Measures

Acceptability survey construction

A survey assessing the acceptability of lifestyle medicine, psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy to treat mental illness across each of the seven constructs of the TFA was developed by the research team. Survey construction and piloting was conducted using previously published methods [38, 39] and comprised the following five steps:

  1. 1)

    A literature review was conducted to identify words and phrasing commonly used to describe and assess each of the seven TFA constructs (e.g. Affective Attitude: like, enjoy, feel positive; Intervention Coherence: comprehensible, understand, easy to follow [38,39,40,41].

  2. 2)

    The research team discussed these options and achieved consensus on the most grammatically correct and readable phrasing to accurately reflect each TFA construct (see TableĀ 2).

  3. 3)

    Two researchers drafted items for each TFA acceptability domain based on the agreed phrasing.

  4. 4)

    Items were reviewed and refined by the broader research team and consensus achieved on the wording that most accurately reflected the core conceptual meaning of the TFA constructs.

  5. 5)

    The survey items were piloted with five non-academic community members who provided feedback on clarity and ease of completion.

Table 2 Example survey items
Full size table

Shortly after data collection Sekhon and colleagues published a validated TFA-based questionnaire designed to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions [42]. The items in the current survey align closely with those in the validated scale (e.g. ā€œI understand how engaging in lifestyle medicine activities could treat mental illnessā€ vs ā€œIt is clear to me how [intervention] will help [manage/improve] my [behaviour/condition/clinical outcome]ā€ [42]).

Acceptability survey

The final survey was delivered online in English via Qualtrics, median completion time was 10.2ā€‰minutes. The survey comprised three sections as described below (see Supplementary material for full survey).

i) Demographics. This section collected demographic data including age, gender, employment status, income, and past or present mental illness diagnosis.

ii) Information section. As community awareness of lifestyle medicine and its applications vary widely, a brief information section was included that provided definitions of lifestyle medicine, mental illness, and examples of the use of lifestyle medicine to treat mental illness. The information also noted that lifestyle interventions could be undertaken with or without professional supports (i.e. independent behaviour change vs. with a dietitian, exercise physiologist, health coach). The information section was written by the research team and reviewed by an independent researcher for accuracy and unbiased phrasing.

iii) Acceptability. This section assessed the acceptability of lifestyle medicine, psychotherapy, and pharmacotherapy to treat mental illness. Each approach was rated across seven items, one for each component construct of the TFA. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement on a five-point Likert scale (1ā€‰=ā€‰strongly disagree to 5ā€‰=ā€‰strongly agree). As items assessing burden and opportunity cost were phrased negatively, responses to these items were reverse scored (i.e., strongly disagree became strongly agree, disagree became agree and vice versa) to ensure the directionality of responses across component constructs was comparable. Participants were then asked to rank five common lifestyle medicine activities (exercise, diet, sleep, social connection, and meditation) in order according to which they would most, to least likely engage with. Participants were also asked to rank the three treatment modalities according to which they would prefer to be prescribed if they were experiencing a mental illness.

Data analysis

Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0. Descriptive statistics were used to document the acceptability of lifestyle medicine for treating mental illness across the seven TFA component constructs and to compare participantsā€™ preferred lifestyle medicine activities and treatment modality (lifestyle medicine, pharmacotherapy, or psychotherapy). Mann-Whitney U tests were used to investigate differences in the acceptability of lifestyle medicine between people with and without a lived experience of mental illness. A series of Friedmanā€™s repeated measures ANOVAs were used to examine differences in acceptability scores across the three treatment modalities for each TFA component construct. Wilcoxon signed-ranks test were used for post hoc analyses. An alpha of 0.05 was applied to all analyses.

Results

Participant characteristics

Of the 649 participants included in the analysis, 348 (53.6%) reported a past or present mental illness. Affective (47.2%) and anxiety disorders (41.9%) were the most prevalent mental illnesses and 231 participants reported experiencing more than one mental illness. Participants with and without lived experience of mental illness did not differ in age or gender, however those with a lived experience were more likely to be unemployed and have a lower income (TableĀ 3). The majority of participants resided in east Australian states (Victoria (nā€‰=ā€‰320), New South Wales or Australian Capital Territory (nā€‰=ā€‰137) and Queensland (nā€‰=ā€‰80)), followed by Western Australia (nā€‰=ā€‰48), South Australia (nā€‰=ā€‰43), Northern Territory (nā€‰=ā€‰15), and Tasmania (nā€‰=ā€‰6).

Table 3 Participant Characteristics
Full size table

Acceptability of lifestyle medicine

The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they felt positive about lifestyle medicine (affective attitudeā€‰=ā€‰76.9%), that this treatment approach aligned with their personal values (ethicalityā€‰=ā€‰74.9%), they understood how lifestyle medicine would work (intervention coherenceā€‰=ā€‰86.4%) and thought it would be effective (perceivedĀ effectivenessā€‰=ā€‰69.6%). The burden associated with engaging in lifestyle medicine was acceptable to fewer participants (53%). Less than half of participants reported that what they would have to give up in order to engage was acceptable (opportunity costā€‰=ā€‰47.3%) or were confident in their ability to engage in lifestyle medicine activities (self-efficacyā€‰=ā€‰45.7%; Fig.Ā 1). Across common lifestyle medicine activities with demonstrated efficacy for mental illness, participants indicated they would be most likely to engage in physical exercise (30.2%), followed by diet (14.5%), sleep (13.8%), social connection (9.3%), and meditation (3.9%). This pattern of preferences held for participants with lived experience of mental illness, however people without lived experience had a slight preference for sleep interventions (16.3%) over diet modification (15.9%).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Acceptability of lifestyle medicine for treating mental illness. Items assessing burden and opportunity cost were reverse scored such that strongly agree and agree indicated that the burden and opportunity cost was acceptable to participants (i.e. lower scores indicate these constructs are less acceptable)

Full size image

Effect of lived experience on the acceptability of lifestyle medicine

Responses to TFA items assessing burden and self-efficacy to engage in lifestyle medicine activities differed significantly between individuals with and without lived experience of a mental illness (Fig.Ā 2, see supplementary materials Table S1 for full frequency statistics). The burden associated with engaging in lifestyle medicine was less acceptable to participants who had experienced mental illness than those who had not (Uā€‰=Ā 60,470, zā€‰=Ā 3.57, rā€‰=Ā 0.14, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001). Participants with lived experience also reported lower self-efficacy to engage in lifestyle medicine activities compared to participants without lived experience (Uā€‰=Ā 61,587, zā€‰=Ā 4.02, rā€‰=Ā 0.16, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001). No significant differences in responses to items assessing affective attitude, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity cost, or perceived effectiveness were observed (all pā€‰>ā€‰0.05).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Acceptability of lifestyle medicine for people with and without lived experience of mental illness. Items assessing burden and opportunity cost were reverse scored such that strongly agree and agree indicated that the burden and opportunity cost was acceptable to participants (i.e. lower scores indicate these constructs are less acceptable). MI+ā€‰=ā€‰participants with lived experience of mental illness; MI-ā€‰=ā€‰participants with no lived experience of mental illness. **pā€‰<ā€‰0.001

Full size image

The acceptability of lifestyle medicine compared to psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy

Lifestyle medicine (46.8%) was most frequently ranked as participantā€™s preferred treatment modality, followed by psychotherapy (37.6%) and pharmacotherapy (15.6%). This order of preferences held for participants without lived experience of mental illness, however, people with lived experience preferred psychotherapy (41.7%) followed by lifestyle medicine (34.8%). The distribution of participant responses was significantly different between the three treatment modalities for the TFA component constructs of affective attitude (X2 (2) 86.20, = pā€‰<ā€‰0.001), burden (X2 (2) 86.71, = pā€‰<ā€‰0.001), ethicality (X2 (2) = 215.60, = pā€‰<ā€‰0.001), intervention coherence (X2 (2) 30.45, = pā€‰<ā€‰0.001), perceived effectiveness (X2 (2) 87.39, = pā€‰<ā€‰0.001), and self-efficacy (X2 (2) 80.18, = pā€‰<ā€‰0.001). There were no significant differences in opportunity cost (Fig.Ā 3, see supplementary materials Table S2 for full frequency statistics). Participants felt more positive (affective attitude) towards lifestyle medicine (Mā€‰=ā€‰3.92, Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰6.48, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001) and psychotherapy (Mā€‰=ā€‰3.99, Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰8.44, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001) than pharmacotherapy (Mā€‰=ā€‰3.54) and reported these approaches to be more in line with their personal values (ethicality; Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰10.24, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001 and Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰12.50, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001, respectively). In contrast pharmacotherapy (Mā€‰=ā€‰3.54) was perceived as significantly less burdensome than lifestyle medicine (Mā€‰=ā€‰3.54, Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰8.27, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001) and psychotherapy (Mā€‰=ā€‰3.54, Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰8.44, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001). Intervention coherence ratings were significantly higher for psychotherapy (Mā€‰=ā€‰4.27) than lifestyle medicine (Mā€‰=ā€‰4.10, Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰4.97, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001) and pharmacotherapy (Mā€‰=ā€‰4.15, Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰3.84, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001). Pharmacotherapy (Mā€‰=ā€‰3.58) was perceived as less effective than lifestyle medicine (Mā€‰=Ā 4.00, Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰4.03, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001) and psychotherapy (Mā€‰=Ā 4.00, Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰9.71, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001), while lifestyle medicine was perceived as less effective than psychotherapy (Zā€‰=ā€‰āˆ’ā€‰5.18, pā€‰<ā€‰0.001). Finally, self-efficacy differed significantly between all treatment modalities (all pā€‰<ā€‰0.001) such that participants were most confident in their ability to engage in psychotherapy (Mā€‰=ā€‰3.66), followed by pharmacotherapy (Mā€‰=ā€‰3.53) and lifestyle medicine (Mā€‰=ā€‰3.19).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Acceptability of lifestyle medicine, psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. Items assessing burden and opportunity cost were reverse scored such that strongly agree and agree indicated that the burden and opportunity cost was acceptable to participants. (i.e. lower scores indicate these constructs are less acceptable). LMā€‰=ā€‰Lifestyle medicine; Psyā€‰=ā€‰Psychotherapy, Phaā€‰=ā€‰Pharmacotherapy. ** pā€‰<ā€‰.001

Full size image

Discussion

The current study is the first to investigate the acceptability of lifestyle medicine for treating mental illness and explore differences in perspectives across people with and without lived experience of mental illness. The broad pattern of acceptability was such that participants typically found the more emotive (affective attitude, ethicality) and cognitive (intervention coherence, perceived effectiveness)Ā component constructs of the TFA to be highly acceptable. In contrast, across component constructs that reflect the practicalities of engaging in lifestyle medicine (burden, opportunity cost, and self-efficacy), acceptability was comparatively lower. Participants with lived experience of mental illness viewed lifestyle medicine as more burdensome and were less confident in their ability to engage, than those who had not experienced mental illness. Across the whole sample, participants felt more positive about (affective attitude) lifestyle medicine and psychotherapy, and that these two approaches were more in line with their values (ethicality) than pharmacotherapy. Pharmacotherapy, however, was perceived as less burdensome than the non-pharmacological treatments, and participants were least confident in their ability to engage in lifestyle medicine.

That participants generally felt positive about lifestyle medicine, believed it aligned with their values, understood how lifestyle medicine could treat mental illness, and perceived it to be an effective treatment option, indicate a favourable attitude towards this approach within the community. However, approximately half of participants felt that adopting lifestyle medicine activities would demand considerable effort, necessitate sacrificing other important priorities, and present challenges due to low self-efficacy, all of which would likely impede engagement to some degree. This highlights the need to support people to overcome barriers to initiating and maintaining health behaviour change. Behavioural science evidence indicates that group-based programs, supervised by an allied health professional (e.g. exercise physiologist or dietitian), alongside individualised motivational support, are most successful in establishing long-term health behaviour change [16, 23, 43] and therefore promoting mental health outcomes. However, referrals to allied health professionals for mental illness are rare, despite lifestyle change being recommended by peak bodies in psychiatry as non-negotiable first-line treatment for numerous mental health indications [7]. In Australia for example, 61% of primary health care visits for a mental health indication result in a prescription for medication versus less than 3% for lifestyle modification [44]. A lack of education and training is a known contributor to low referral rates by primary health care providers [45]. Furthermore, when referrals do occur, there is significant variability in allied health professionalsā€™ knowledge of the best practiceĀ approachesĀ for mental health indications and evidence-based programs specifically designed to assist people with mental illness in overcoming barriers to behaviour change are scarce [10].

The acceptability of lifestyle medicine did not differ between people with and without personal experience of mental illness across affective attitude, ethicality, intervention coherence, or perceived effectiveness. People with lived experience, did however, report lower self-efficacy to engage in lifestyle medicine. This is of particular importance as self-efficacy is a known predictor for the adoption and maintenance of healthy lifestyle behaviours [46,47,48]. To be maximally successful interventions should therefore embed strategies to increase self-efficacy. For example, providing opportunities for people to experience mastery has been shown to improve self-efficacy and adherence to lifestyle interventions [49,50,51]. Participants with lived experienced also felt that engaging in lifestyle medicine would be more burdensome. This may reflect the difficulties people face when attempting lifestyle changes while experiencing mental health symptoms (e.g. low energy, anhedonia, reduced motivation). It suggests that people who have experienced mental illness have a deeper understanding of the challenges associated with making health behaviour change while unwell, and are likely to require greater practical and psychological support to feel empowered and capable of engaging in sustained lifestyle change. Given a long history of researchers developing treatments without consulting end-users, and the potential downstream consequences for adherence, these findings highlight the importance of engaging people with experience of mental illness in the co-design of lifestyle-based interventions to ensure that such programs meet their wants and needs.

When comparing treatment modalities, the was a clear preference for psychotherapy and lifestyle medicine over medication. These findings are consistent with an existing body of research showing widespread preference for non-medication treatments in psychiatry and indicate that this perspective has not changed in over 20ā€‰years [52, 53]. While previous studies have primarily compared psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy [53], the results of the current study extend this work by also demonstrating a preference for lifestyle medicine. It highlights an ongoing clinical discrepancy that, for many, the least desired treatment approach is the most widely available and commonly prescribed [44]. While there has been global acknowledgement of the need to increase patient choice [54], this shift has yet to occur at scale despite evidence that receiving a preferred treatment may result in greater treatment compliance, additional therapeutic benefit, and increase cost-effectiveness [53, 54].

The use of the TFA enabled insight into which facets of acceptability may be driving treatment preferences. Participants felt more positive about and ethically aligned with the use of lifestyle medicine and psychotherapy than pharmacotherapy. They also perceived psychotherapy, followed by lifestyle medicine, as being more effective than pharmacotherapy in treating mental illness. That lifestyle medicine was widely perceived to be effective is notable, given how recent and evolving the use of behavioural interventions for mental health is. While perceived understanding of how each treatment might work (intervention coherence) was highest (91.7%) for psychotherapy, the degree to which this was better understood than lifestyle medicine (86.4%) or pharmacology (90.2%) was modest. In comparison, pharmacotherapy was viewed as being less burdensome than both lifestyle medicine and psychotherapy. This is unsurprising given the substantial time and effort frequently associated with engaging in these activities [55] compared with medication. Finally, participants felt they would need to give up something (opportunity cost) in order to engage in any treatment for mental illness. Time and cost are commonly cited as barriers to engaging in lifestyle medicine and psychotherapy [55,56,57], and medication use may be associated with side-effects [58], possibly resulting in a need to sacrifice other aspects of health. However, additional qualitative research is needed to provide a greater understanding of the factors underlying this finding.

The current findings have implications for the design and implementation of lifestyle medicine interventions into mental healthcare. While a preference for lifestyle medicine for mental illness was observed, and many components of acceptability were high, there are also clear barriers to engaging in lifestyle medicine. Going forward, harnessing gold-standard frameworks for behavioural intervention design and development (e.g., The Behaviour Change Wheel [59], ORBIT [60]) is likely to be particularly valuable in identifying and systematically addressing barriers to change. The sustainability and scalability of lifestyle medicine programs should also be considered. Leveraging the rise in digital health innovations may offer an avenue for greater scalability; however, given the efficacy professional support offers, combined approaches may balance the need for sustainability, scalability and personalisation, and ultimately lead to greater improvements in mental health outcomes. Although understanding acceptability to end-users is essential, documenting how acceptable lifestyle-based therapeutics are to clinicians (general practitioners, psychologists, psychiatrists, allied health clinicians), service managers, and payers (government and private) is also necessary. As gatekeepers to mental healthcare services and policy, the combined perspectives of these key stakeholders will be essential to facilitate system-level change.

The current data should be considered in context of a number of strengths and limitations. The use of the TFA provided a rich multifaceted breakdown of acceptability, enabling a nuanced appreciation of community attitudes to lifestyle medicine for mental illness and how this compares with current first-line treatments. It was, however, restricted to the assessment of prospectiveĀ (before treatment)Ā acceptability in the context of the examples provided, without considering participantsā€™ experience with the various treatment approaches. First-hand experience of these treatments, whether as a patient or clinician, will inevitably alter perspectives. This study also explored the acceptability of lifestyle medicine as a broad category of approaches. Given the observed preference for specific lifestyle activities (i.e., exercise, diet, and sleep), it will be valuable to assess concurrent (during treatment) and retrospective (after treatment) acceptability of specific lifestyle interventions. Lastly, the current study did not account for potential variations in acceptability based on type of mental health diagnosis due to the diverse nature of the sample. Further research would be necessary to explore potential interactions between diagnosis and the acceptability of different lifestyle medicine approaches.

Conclusion

There is a compelling body of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of lifestyle medicine approaches in treating mental illness. Given the current growth in the field, now is the time to progress the development of integrated behavioural approaches and systematic implementation into mental health care. Understanding the acceptability of interventions is a crucial initial step towards achieving this. The current findings illustrate a preference for lifestyle medicine for treating mental illness and indicate a need for healthcare infrastructure to support programs that help people initiate and, most importantly, maintain healthy lifestyle change. Designing and implementing interventions specifically for people with mental illness that address the burden and opportunity cost of engaging in lifestyle medicine and increase self-efficacy will be particularly powerful.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. The Lancet Global Health. Mental health matters. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(11):e1352.

    ArticleĀ  CASĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  2. GBD 2019 Mental Disorders Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990ā€“2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9(2):137ā€“50.

    ArticleĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health expenditure Australia 2020ā€“21. 2022.Ā https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/langlo/PIIS2214-109X(20)30432-0.pdf.

  4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health expenditure Australia 2010ā€“11. 2012.Ā https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/langlo/PIIS2214-109X(20)30432-0.pdf.

  5. Rajkumar RP. The correlates of government expenditure on mental health services: an analysis of data from 78 countries and regions. Cureus. 2022;14(8):e28284.

    PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  6. Jorm AF, Patten SB, Brugha TS, Mojtabai R. Has increased provision of treatment reduced the prevalence of common mental disorders? Review of the evidence from four countries. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):90ā€“9.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  7. Malhi GS, Bell E, Bassett D, Boyce P, Bryant R, Hazell P, et al. The 2020 Royal Australian and new Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiat. 2021;55(1):7ā€“117.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  8. Manger S. Lifestyle interventions for mental health. Aust J Gen Pract. 2019;48(10):670ā€“3.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  9. Marx W, Jacka F, Oā€™Neil A. Lifestyle-based mental health care in psychiatry: translating evidence into practice. Aust N Z J Psychiat. 2021;55(7):641ā€“3.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  10. Merlo G, Vela A. Mental health in lifestyle medicine: a call to action. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2022;16(1):7ā€“20.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  11. Eggar G, Binns A, Rossner S, Sagner M. Lifestyle medicine: lifestyle, the environment and preventive medicine in health and disease. 3rd ed. Academic Press; 2017.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  12. Firth J, Solmi M, Wootton RE, Vancampfort D, Schuch FB, Hoare E, et al. A meta-review of ā€œlifestyle psychiatryā€: the role of exercise, smoking, diet and sleep in the prevention and treatment of mental disorders. World Psychiatry. 2020;19(3):360ā€“80.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  13. Marx W, Manger SH, Blencowe M, Murray G, Ho FYY, Lawn S, et al. Clinical guidelines for the use of lifestyle-based mental health care in major depressive disorder: world Federation of Societies for biological psychiatry (WFSBP) and Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine (ASLM) taskforce. World J Biol Psychiat. 2023;24(5):333ā€“86.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  14. Ashdown-Franks G, Firth J, Carney R, Carvalho AF, Hallgren M, Koyanagi A, et al. Exercise as medicine for mental and substance use disorders: a meta-review of the benefits for neuropsychiatric and cognitive outcomes. Sports Med. 2020;50(1):151ā€“70.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  15. Heissel A, Heinen D, Brokmeier LL, Skarabis N, Kangas M, Vancampfort D, et al. Exercise as medicine for depressive symptoms? A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression. Br J Sports Med. 2023;57(16):1049ā€“57.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  16. Schuch FB, Vancampfort D, Richards J, Rosenbaum S, Ward PB, Stubbs B. Exercise as a treatment for depression: a meta-analysis adjusting for publication bias. J Psychiatr Res. 2016;77:42ā€“51.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  17. Singh B, Olds T, Curtis R, Dumuid D, Virgara R, Watson A, et al. Effectiveness of physical activity interventions for improving depression, anxiety and distress: an overview of systematic reviews. Br J Sports Med. 2023;57(18):1203ā€“9.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  18. Hoge EA, Bui E, Mete M, Dutton MA, Baker AW, Simon NM. Mindfulness-based stress reduction vs escitalopram for the treatment of adults with anxiety disorders: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiat. 2023;80(1):13.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  19. Ashworth DK, Sletten TL, Junge M, Simpson K, Clarke D, Cunnington D, et al. A randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: an effective treatment for comorbid insomnia and depression. J Couns Psychol. 2015;62(2):115ā€“23.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  20. Scott AJ, Webb TL, Martyn-St James M, Rowse G, Weich S. Improving sleep quality leads to better mental health: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Sleep Med Rev. 2021;60:101556.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  21. Gee B, Orchard F, Clarke E, Joy A, Clarke T, Reynolds S. The effect of non-pharmacological sleep interventions on depression symptoms: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Sleep Med Rev. 2019;43:118ā€“28.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  22. Marx W, Moseley G, Berk M, Jacka F. Nutritional psychiatry: the present state of the evidence. Proc Nutr Soc. 2017;76(4):427ā€“36.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  23. Jacka FN, Oā€™Neil A, Opie R, Itsiopoulos C, Cotton S, Mohebbi M, et al. A randomised controlled trial of dietary improvement for adults with major depression (the ā€˜SMILESā€™ trial). BMC Med. 2017;15(1):23.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  24. Pilling S, Anderson I, Goldberg D, Meader N, Taylor C. Two guideline development groups. Depression in adults, including those with a chronic physical health problem: summary of NICE guidance. Br Med J. 2009;339:b4108.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  25. Firth J, Siddiqi N, Koyanagi A, Siskind D, Rosenbaum S, Galletly C, et al. The lancet psychiatry commission: a blueprint for protecting physical health in people with mental illness. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(8):675ā€“712.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  26. Afzal M, Siddiqi N, Ahmad B, Afsheen N, Aslam F, Ali A, et al. Prevalence of overweight and obesity in people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Endocrinol. 2021;12:769309.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  27. Cao H, Zhao H, Shen L. Depression increased risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:913888.

    ArticleĀ  CASĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  28. Fan Z, Wu Y, Shen J, Ji T, Zhan R. Schizophrenia and the risk of cardiovascular diseases: a meta-analysis of thirteen cohort studies. J Psychiatr Res. 2013;47(11):1549ā€“56.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  29. Pan A, Sun Q, Okereke OI, Rexrode KM, Hu FB. Depression and risk of stroke morbidity and mortality: a meta-analysis and systematic review. JAMA. 2011;306(11):1241ā€“9.

    ArticleĀ  CASĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  30. Hayes JF, Marston L, Walters K, King MB, Osborn DPJ. Mortality gap for people with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: UK-based cohort study 2000ā€“2014. Br J Psychiatry. 2017;211(3):175ā€“81.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  31. Meier SM, Mattheisen M, Mors O, Schendel DE, Mortensen PB, Plessen KJ. Mortality among persons with obsessive-compulsive disorder in Denmark. JAMA Psychiat. 2016;73(3):268.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  32. Nielsen RE, Banner J, Jensen SE. Cardiovascular disease in patients with severe mental illness. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021;18(2):136ā€“45.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  33. Romain AJ, Trottier A, Karelis AD, Abdel-Baki A. Do mental health professionals promote a healthy lifestyle among individuals experiencing serious mental illness? Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2020;41(6):531ā€“9.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  34. Escobar-Roldan ID, Babyak MA, Blumenthal JA. Exercise prescription practices to improve mental health. J Psychiatr Pract. 2021;27(4):273ā€“82.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  35. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2011;38(2):65ā€“76.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  36. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:88.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  37. Firth J, Rosenbaum S, Stubbs B, Gorczynski P, Yung AR, Vancampfort D. Motivating factors and barriers towards exercise in severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2016;46(14):2869ā€“81.

    ArticleĀ  CASĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  38. Brook J, Aitken L, MacLaren JA, Salmon D. Co-production of an intervention to increase retention of early career nurses: acceptability and feasibility. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;47:102861.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  39. Renko E, Knittle K, Palsola M, Lintunen T, Hankonen N. Acceptability, reach and implementation of a training to enhance teachersā€™ skills in physical activity promotion. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1568.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  40. Murphy A, Gardner D. Pharmacistsā€™ acceptability of a menā€™s mental health promotion program using the theoretical framework of acceptability. AIMS Public Health. 2019;6(2):195ā€“208.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  41. Ndejjo R, Musinguzi G, Nuwaha F, Wanyenze RK, Bastiaens H. Acceptability of a community cardiovascular disease prevention programme in Mukono and Buikwe districts in Uganda: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:75.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  42. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:279.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  43. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) Research Group. The diabetes prevention program (DPP). Diabetes Care. 2002;25(12):2165ā€“71.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  44. Britt H, Miller GC, Henderson J, Bayram C, Harrison C, Valenti L, et al. General practice activity in Australia 2015ā€“16. Sydney: Sydney University Press;Ā 2016. (General practice series).

  45. Kleemann E, Bracht CG, Stanton R, Schuch FB. Exercise prescription for people with mental illness: an evaluation of mental health professionalsā€™ knowledge, beliefs, barriers, and behaviors. Braz J Psychiat. 2020;42(3):271ā€“7.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  46. Vancampfort D, Gorczynski P, De Hert M, Probst M, Naisiga A, Basangwa D, et al. Exercise self-efficacy correlates in people with psychosis. Psychiatry Res. 2018;262:359ā€“62.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  47. Sniehotta FF, Scholz U, Schwarzer R. Bridging the intentionā€“behaviour gap: planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise. Psychol Health. 2005;20(2):143ā€“60.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  48. Howlett N, Schulz J, Trivedi D, Troop N, Chater A. A prospective study exploring the construct and predictive validity of the COM-B model for physical activity. J Health Psychol. 2019;24(10):1378ā€“91.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  49. French DP, Olander EK, Chisholm A, Mc Sharry J. Which behaviour change techniques are most effective at increasing older adultsā€™ self-efficacy and physical activity behaviour? Syst Rev Ann Behav Med. 2014;48(2):225ā€“34.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  50. Newby K, Teah G, Cooke R, Li X, Brown K, Salisbury-Finch B, et al. Do automated digital health behaviour change interventions have a positive effect on self-efficacy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2021;15(1):140ā€“58.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  51. Prestwich A, Kellar I, Parker R, MacRae S, Learmonth M, Sykes B, et al. How can self-efficacy be increased? Meta-analysis of dietary interventions. Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8(3):270ā€“85.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  52. Dwight-Johnson M, Sherbourne CD, Liao D, Wells KB. Treatment preferences among depressed primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(8):527ā€“34.

    ArticleĀ  CASĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  53. McHugh RK, Whitton SW, Peckham AD, Welge JA, Otto MW. Patient preference for psychological vs pharmacologic treatment of psychiatric disorders: a meta-analytic review. J Clin Psychiat. 2013;74(06):595ā€“602.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  54. Drake RE, Cimpean D, Torrey WC. Shared decision making in mental health: prospects for personalized medicine. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2009;11(4):455ā€“63.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  55. Mohr DC, Hart SL, Howard I, Julian L, Vella L, Catledge C, et al. Barriers to psychotherapy among depressed and nondepressed primary care patients. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32(3):254ā€“8.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  56. Mohr DC, Ho J, Duffecy J, Baron KG, Lehman KA, Jin L, et al. Perceived barriers to psychological treatments and their relationship to depression. J Clin Psychol. 2010;66(4):394ā€“409.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  57. Moroz N, Moroz I, Dā€™Angelo MS. Mental health services in Canada: barriers and cost-effective solutions to increase access. Healthc Manage Forum. 2020;33(6):282ā€“7.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  58. Velligan DI, Sajatovic M, Hatch A, Kramata P, Docherty J. Why do psychiatric patients stop antipsychotic medication? A systematic review of reasons for nonadherence to medication in patients with serious mental illness. Patient Prefer Adher. 2017;11:449ā€“68.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  59. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  60. Czajkowski SM, Powell LH, Adler N, Naar-King S, Reynolds KD, Hunter CM, et al. From ideas to efficacy: the ORBIT model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases. Health Psychol. 2015;34(10):971ā€“82.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

We are extremely grateful to the Wilson Foundation and David Winston Turner Endowment Fund whose generous philanthropic investment in the BrainPark research team and facility made this research possible. Karyn Richardson and Sam Hughes were supported by the Wilson Foundation. Prof YĆ¼celā€™s role on this paper was funded through a National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship (NHMRC; #APP1117188). Prof YĆ¼cel also receives funding from: government funding bodies such as the NHMRC, Australian Research Council (ARC), Australian Defence Science and Technology (DST), the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH, USA); philanthropic donations from the David Winston Turner Endowment Fund, Wilson Foundation; sponsored Investigator-Initiated trials including Incannex Healthcare Ltd. These funding sources had no role in the data analysis, presentation, or interpretation and write-up of the data. Murat YĆ¼cel also sits on the Advisory Boards of: Centre of The Urban Mental Health, University of Amsterdam; and Enosis Therapeutics.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Karyn Richardson and Rachel Petukhova are co-first author.

  2. Murat YĆ¼cel and Rebecca Segrave are co-senior author.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BrainPark, Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences & Monash Biomedical Imaging Facility, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Karyn Richardson,Ā Rachel Petukhova,Ā Sam Hughes,Ā Joseph Pitt,Ā Murat YĆ¼celĀ &Ā Rebecca Segrave

  2. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD, Australia

    Murat YĆ¼cel

  3. Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Murat YĆ¼cel

Authors
  1. Karyn Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedĀ Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Petukhova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedĀ Google Scholar

  3. Sam Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedĀ Google Scholar

  4. Joseph Pitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedĀ Google Scholar

  5. Murat YĆ¼cel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedĀ Google Scholar

  6. Rebecca Segrave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedĀ Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and planning of the study. KR and RS led the research design. RP was responsible for data collection. RP and KR analysed the data. All authors participated in the interpretation of the data. KR and RP drafted the manuscript. All authors read, critically reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karyn Richardson.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was reviewed by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisherā€™s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richardson, K., Petukhova, R., Hughes, S. et al. The acceptability of lifestyle medicine for the treatment of mental illness: perspectives of people with and without lived experience of mental illness. BMC Public Health 24, 171 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17683-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17683-y

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us