Towards a better understanding of brief lifestyle interventions in noncommunicable diseases: a concept analysis

Binglu Wang; Quan Shen; Meili Xiao; Shujuan Zhu; Jia Qu; ENuo Peng; Jun Lei

doi:10.1186/s12889-025-23744-7

. 2025 Oct 15;25:3497. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-23744-7

Towards a better understanding of brief lifestyle interventions in noncommunicable diseases: a concept analysis

Binglu Wang ^1,^3,^#, Quan Shen ^3,^#, Meili Xiao ^2,^✉, Shujuan Zhu ¹, Jia Qu ¹, ENuo Peng ¹, Jun Lei ^1,^✉

PMCID: PMC12522285 PMID: 41094398

Abstract

Background

Brief lifestyle interventions targeting diet and physical activity play a critical role in the prevention and management of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). However, healthcare providers often report feeling inadequately prepared to deliver such interventions, as there is limited guidance available to inform their practice.

Objective

To define and describe the concept of “brief lifestyle intervention” within the context of NCDs.

Design

A concept analysis.

Methods

A systematic literature review, including PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus, was conducted from inception to 11 August 2023 to yield studies related to brief lifestyle interventions, encompassing brief dietary and physical activity interventions. The Walker and Avant’s method was used to analyse the extracted data to determine the defining attributes, antecedents and consequences of the term “brief lifestyle intervention”.

Results

The 49 eligible studies were finally included, and the findings were categorized into defining attributes, antecedents and consequences. The defining attributes of brief lifestyle interventions were identified as healthy lifestyle, provider-led, patient-centered, counseling, assessment, feedback and time-limited. The antecedents were the necessity and importance of lifestyle interventions, the important role of healthcare providers in patients’ lifestyle changes, and the urgent need for a brief, cost-effective and easier-to-implement intervention, respectively. The consequences were categorized into consequences related to patients, consequences related to healthcare providers and healthcare system.

Conclusion

This study developed a universal definition and conceptual model of the term “brief lifestyle intervention” in the context of NCDs, including the theoretical relationships between its antecedents, defining attributes and consequences. The findings highlight the leading role of healthcare providers in delivering brief lifestyle interventions and offer guidance for their effective implementation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-025-23744-7.

Keywords: Brief lifestyle interventions, Concept analysis, Healthy lifestyle, Diet, Physical activity, Noncommunicable diseases

Background

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) contribute to 75% of global deaths, with the four major contributors being cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases and cancers [1]. In recent years, the incidence of NCDs has been rising rapidly worldwide. According to the Global Burden of Disease study, the number of incident cases of cardiovascular diseases increased by 92.3%, from 34.74 million in 1990 to 66.81 million in 2021 [2]. The incidence of diabetes rose by 90.5% over the same period [3]. Meanwhile, significant increases were also observed in chronic respiratory diseases and early-onset cancers, with incidence rates rising by approximately 49% and 79.1% between 1990 and 2019, respectively[4, 5]. Robust evidence underscores the pivotal role of modifiable behavioural risk factors, such as unhealthy diet and physical inactivity, in the onset and progression of NCDs [6–8]. Accordingly, numerous empirical studies have shown that lifestyle interventions, encompassing dietary modification and physical activity enhancement, exert beneficial effects on a broad range of physiological parameters (e.g., weight, blood pressure, fasting glucose, lipid profiles, C-reactive protein), as well as on all-cause mortality and life expectancy among patients with NCDs[9–12]. However, the integration of lifestyle interventions into routine clinical practice encounters several challenges, including insufficient time, high costs, poor clinical feasibility and patient compliance [13–15].

In response to this problem, brief lifestyle interventions were introduced and have proven effective in enhancing patients’ healthy eating and physical activity behaviors as well as their overall fitness in the long term [16, 17]. However, these interventions have not been widely implemented in routine clinical practice [18, 19]. Study suggests that healthcare providers express a desire to incorporate brief lifestyle interventions into their routine clinical practice but often lack clear guidance on how to do so effectively [20]. A major contributing factor to this issue is the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding this concept [21, 22]. When a concept lacks precise definition, ambiguity arises regarding its practical application in clinical settings and its integration into research, policy and education [23]. Additionally, a literature review shows that in many papers, some terms such as “brief lifestyle intervention”, “brief lifestyle counseling” and “brief lifestyle advice” have been used interchangeably [24]. Inaccurate naming and misuse of concepts can hinder the delivery of optimal and desirable care, thereby negatively affecting implementation in healthcare settings [23].

Although brief lifestyle interventions are applied in some research in the NCDs context, the term is rarely defined. A proper understanding of brief lifestyle interventions not only clarifies the role of healthcare providers but also creates a basis for designing a more structured care program. Therefore, the objective of this study was to conduct a concept analysis of brief lifestyle interventions in the context of NCDs, aiming to provide clarity for healthcare providers and researchers about this issue. An improved understanding of the concept has the potential to inform its theoretical underpinnings and facilitate the integration of its principles into healthcare and education, ultimately contributing to improved lifestyle behaviors among patients.

Methods

Design

This study included a systematic search of the literature to identify articles on brief lifestyle interventions using standard systematic review processes [25], and a concept analysis of the retrieved information guided by Walker and Avant’s method [23]. The method comprises eight steps: (1) Selecting a concept; (2) Determining the purpose of analysis; (3) Identifying uses of the concept; (4) Identifying defining attributes; (5) Identifying a model case; (6) Identifying additional cases; (7) Identifying antecedents and consequences; and (8) Identifying the empirical referents of the defining attributes [23]. This analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251049136).

Select a concept

Much of the research on brief lifestyle interventions in the context of NCDs fails to provide a clear definition of the term to shed light on the following key questions: (1) Is the term “brief lifestyle intervention” synonymous with “brief lifestyle counseling” or “brief lifestyle advice”? (2) What are the defining characteristics of brief lifestyle interventions? (3) What constitutes a brief lifestyle intervention? Addressing the above questions requires a clear operational definition of brief lifestyle interventions and hence the term “brief lifestyle intervention” was selected as the concept for this analysis [26].

Determine the aim of the analysis

We aimed to enhance the conceptual clarity of brief lifestyle interventions, so that the term can be usefully applied in clinical practice and research. The main outcomes are as follows: (1) Defining the key attributes of brief lifestyle interventions; (2) Constructing a model case that includes all defining attributes of the concept; (3) A discussion of antecedents and consequences which show the evolution of the intervention.

Identify all uses of the concept: literature search

Data sources

After selecting “brief lifestyle intervention” as the concept and determining the aim of the analysis, a literature synthesis was adopted to capture the available conceptual dimensions of the term. We systematically searched the literature in seven electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus) from inception to 11 August 2023. Additionally, we hand-searched reference lists of previous reviews and included articles, and we also consulted grey literature (Open Grey, Google Scholar) to identify other potentially relevant studies.

The search strategies were developed by two reviewers and further reviewed by an experienced research librarian. Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) was used in developing the search strategies as its use was found to be beneficial in reducing errors and improving the quality of search strategies [27]. The detailed search strategies for the seven electronic databases are presented in Additional file 1. No time and language restrictions were applied in the search stage.

Data selection

The study selection was conducted based on a three-step screening process: literature retrieval, preliminary review and full-text review. Literature retrieval was independently conducted by two reviewers and all selected articles were imported into EndNote X20 (2020). Subsequently, the same reviewers preliminarily filtered the selected articles by reviewing titles and abstracts after identifying duplication. Finally, full-texts were retrieved and reviewed following the eligibility criteria.

The inclusion criteria for this concept analysis were: (1) Focused on brief dietary and/or physical activity interventions delivered in healthcare settings; (2) Included patients with NCDs or individuals at risk due to lifestyle-related factors, including unhealthy diets and physical inactivity; (3) Published in English. Exclusion criteria were: (1) Addressed other lifestyle behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and smoking, collectively; (2) Only mentioned the concept without describing or defining it; (3) Published in non-peer reviewed journals, editorials and letters to the editor.

Data extraction and analysis

Two reviewers independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized data extraction sheet, including the first author’s name, publication year, country, design, population characteristics and intervention characteristics. To enhance the comprehension of brief lifestyle interventions, we extracted intervention details mainly based on five aspects: where, when, what, how and who provided, in accordance with the TIDieR Checklist [28]. The extracted data was categorized into defining attributes, antecedents and consequences and further classified into similar themes using the thematic analysis [29]. Disagreements in data extraction and analysis were resolved through discussions and consultations with a third reviewer.

Specifically, the analysis involved five aspects: (1) Identifying defining attributes. We identified characteristics associated with the concept that were frequently repeated, and the characteristics were then clustered by theme and refined through discussion to ensure that there was no overlap between them. This process resulted in seven key attributes that were unique to brief lifestyle interventions. (2) Identifying model and additional cases. In this study, we articulated a model case and a contrary case to provide evidence on how brief lifestyle interventions can be operationalized in healthcare settings. We created these cases based on the extant literature reviewed [30, 31], as well as the clinical and lived experiences of the research team. The cases were presented as narratives. (3) Identifying antecedents and consequences. We categorized key points described in the literature as prerequisites of brief lifestyle interventions as antecedents. Meanwhile, we categorized key points that were described as “outcomes” or “results” as consequences. We finally summarized three themes for antecedents and three for consequences, respectively. Additionally, we developed conceptual model of brief lifestyle interventions based on the three steps mentioned above. (4) Identifying related concepts. A related concept is defined as one that shares similarities with “brief lifestyle intervention” but does not include all of its defining attributes [23]. We exhibited the commonly shared attributes between the term “brief lifestyle intervention” and related concepts, including “brief lifestyle counseling”, “brief lifestyle advice”, “brief lifestyle motivational interview” and “lifestyle prescription”. (5) Identifying empirical referents. In the current analysis, no formal measuring tools were identified in the reviewed literature that were direct empirical referents for brief lifestyle interventions. Therefore, we did not perform this step because it was not suitable for the current concept.

Results

Study selection

The initial search yielded 23,124 articles, of which 23,112 were identified from the bibliographic databases and 12 were identified in Google Scholar and citation searching. After the three-step screening process, we finally excluded 23,075 articles and included 49 articles for this concept analysis. Figure 1 illustrates the data selection process using the PRISMA flow diagram.

Fig. 1 — PRISMA literature search flowchart

Characteristics of the included studies

Forty-nine studies included in this analysis were published between 1996 and 2023. The included studies were conducted in the following countries: United Kingdom (n = 17), United States (n = 11), Australia (n = 9), Canada (n = 2), Mexico (n = 2), and one each in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Italy, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, China and Thailand. The study designs were mainly quantitative (n = 35), with 2 qualitative studies, 5 mixed studies and 7 reviews. The details are presented in Additional file 2.

Uses of the concept

The term “brief lifestyle intervention” has not been consistently described in the literature. Lamming et al. [21]defined a brief lifestyle intervention as one lasting no more than 30 min or consisting of a single consultation, aimed at activating an individual’s personal motivation for lifestyle changes. In contrast, Whatnall et al. [17] described it as any intervention that intentionally limits the number and duration of contacts, with the goal of assisting patients in making sustainable lifestyle changes. Based on the definition of “brief advice” proposed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [32], Gc et al. [33] and Green et al. [34] defined “brief lifestyle intervention” as the provision of advice, discussion, negotiation or encouragement to promote healthy lifestyle behaviors among patients in primary care and community settings. These interventions are typically delivered face-to-face by healthcare providers, with or without supplementary written materials, ranging from a single short session (5–30 min) to multiple brief sessions or follow-ups. Overall, brief lifestyle interventions are generally identified based on their purpose and duration, but there are ambiguities regarding their form and process.

Defining attributes

Determining the defining attributes of a concept is a core step in its clarification and refinement, which leads to a profound comprehension of the concept and its distinctiveness from other concepts [23, 35]. This study identified seven defining attributes of brief lifestyle interventions across five aspects: focus, participants, form, process and characteristic of the intervention (see Additional file 2).

Focus: healthy lifestyle

All 49 studies identified “healthy lifestyle” as the central focus of brief lifestyle interventions. A healthy lifestyle, typically encompassing healthy diet and physical activity, plays a crucial role in the prevention and management of NCDs [36, 37], which is in accordance with the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) [38]. Brief lifestyle interventions serve as a strategy to enhance patients’ knowledge and motivation for dietary and physical activity behavior change, with the ultimate goal of encouraging the adoption and maintenance of healthy eating and exercise habits [36, 39–42], thereby contributing to improved overall well-being [43–46].

Participants: healthcare providers and patients

A total of 41 studies described brief lifestyle interventions as “provider-led”, while 39 referred to them as “patient-centered”. Brief lifestyle interventions emphasize the active interaction between healthcare providers and patients, advocating a “provider-led and patient-centered” care philosophy. This could be interpreted that healthcare providers act as navigators in the intervention and deliver tailored strategies based on patients’ stage of change [30, 47–49]. The Transtheoretical Model (TTM), the most frequently utilized theory in the included studies, explains behavior change as a process that progresses through five stages: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action and maintenance [50]. The model also emphasizes that individuals in different stages have distinct needs and highlights the importance of personalized intervention strategies.

Form: counseling

Forty-two studies mentioned that brief lifestyle interventions are delivered in the form of “counseling”, a purposeful conversation designed to empower patients to resolve their lifestyle issues and achieve overall health goals [51]. The counseling can vary from basic advice to a more extended, individually focused discussion and is typically conducted face-to-face [21, 46, 52, 53]. Additionally, computer-based online brief lifestyle interventions are gradually emerging as an alternative [54, 55].

Process: assessment and feedback

Twenty-six studies identified both “assessment” and “feedback” as essential components of brief lifestyle interventions. The assessment consists of two parts. At the beginning of the intervention, there is an evaluation of patients’ dietary and exercise habits over a specific period to identify whether they align with recommendations for a healthy lifestyle [36, 56–58]. Meanwhile, a continuous dynamic assessment is also required to judge patients’ stage of change throughout the entire intervention [43, 55, 59].

Feedback in brief lifestyle interventions is a patient-centered discussion based on the assessment results. The emphasis of feedback varies depending on patients’ stage of change [43, 45, 59–62]. For those in the precontemplation stage, the primary objective is to raise their awareness of what constitutes a healthy lifestyle and to create discrepancies between their actions and knowledge [14, 31, 41, 54, 63–65]. For those in the contemplation stage, the goal is to foster their motivation to embrace a healthy lifestyle. Healthcare providers are required to resolve patients’ ambivalence by assisting them in exploring beliefs about lifestyles and health, weighing the rewards and risks of unhealthy lifestyle, and identifying existing or potential barriers along with possible solutions [40, 45, 58, 60, 66, 67]. And for patients in the preparation/action stage, the focus shifts to formulating a personalized plan based on patients’ preferences, allocating resources and proceeding with implementation [34, 66, 68–71]. In the maintenance stage, the emphasis is to reinforce success by offering praise, encouraging continued adherence to healthy habits and motivating patients to pursue further improvement [22].

In addition to the TTM, some researchers have adopted the 5A model (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange) and the 5R model (Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, Repetition) to deliver more structured interventions that can be easily integrated into routine clinical practice [31, 70].

Characteristic: time-limited

Forty-four studies characterized brief lifestyle interventions as “time-limited”, aiming to attain substantial and lasting impact with minimal input and contact [17]. These interventions typically last less than 15 min per session and may occur either as a single encounter or over multiple sessions (usually fewer than 5 sessions), with or without subsequent follow-up [44, 57, 60, 61].

Cases

Model case

Sarah, a 50-year-old woman diagnosed with diabetes, sought help for medication-related issues at hospital. Following the medical consultation, the healthcare provider delivered a brief lifestyle intervention for her based on the 5A and the 5R model.

Initially, the provider asked Sarah several questions to evaluate her dietary pattern and physical activity level over the past month. Her answer revealed a diet high in saturated fats and a lack of regular exercise, accompanied by an unawareness of the need for change. The provider determined that she was in the precontemplation stage guided by the TTM. So he advised Sarah on the benefits of a healthy lifestyle to create discrepancies between her actions and knowledge. Subsequently, the provider assessed Sarah’s readiness to change but Sarah said she was still uncertain. Therefore, the provider conducted a motivational intervention by guiding her to explore the relevance of lifestyle choices to her health, weigh the risks and benefits of these habits, and identify existing or potential barriers and solutions to enhance her motivation for change. Following this, the provider repeated the assessment of readiness again and found that Sarah progressed to the preparation stage, willing to improve her lifestyle. And then the provider assisted Sarah in setting achievable and suitable goals for a healthy diet and regular exercise and encouraged her to take small and sustainable steps. The intervention concluded with an arrangement for a follow-up after a month to monitor progress and provide ongoing support in Sarah’s journey toward a healthier lifestyle. The counseling lasted approximately 10 min.

Contrary case

John, a 55-year-old patient with hyperlipidemia, expressed a desire to improve his overall health in the medical consultation. However, the healthcare provider only conducted a routine check-up and neglected to assess John’s dietary pattern and physical activity level. Additionally, the provider didn’t take John’s specific needs and preferences into consideration and delivered a generic, one-size-fits-all lecture on the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Moreover, the conversation lasted about 2 h.

Antecedents

Necessity and importance of lifestyle interventions

NCDs, as the leading cause of mortality, present a significant global health challenge [14, 15, 65]. Unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, including unhealthy diets and physical inactivity, significantly contribute to the burden of NCDs [37, 45, 56, 59, 64]. Although there is substantial evidence demonstrating the health benefits of adopting a healthy lifestyle [34, 61, 68, 72–74], a considerable number of individuals fail to meet the recommended dietary and physical activity levels outlined in the guidelines [42, 44, 62, 75, 76]. Therefore, it is crucial to carry out lifestyle interventions to promote a healthy lifestyle in populations at risk or already affected by NCDs.

Important role of healthcare providers in patients’ lifestyle changes

Healthcare providers play a pivotal role in facilitating patients’ lifestyle changes and are recognized as the primary implementers of lifestyle interventions in guidelines [32, 75]. Meanwhile, a significant majority of patients, ranging from 80 to 95%, express a preference for receiving guidance on healthy diet and physical activity directly from healthcare providers [36, 43, 59]. These findings underscore the central role of healthcare providers in influencing and guiding patients toward positive lifestyle modifications.

Urgent need for a brief, cost-effective and easier-to-implement intervention

However, healthcare providers often encounter challenges in delivering lifestyle interventions, including insufficient time [30, 36, 48, 55, 59], high costs [14, 15, 21, 42, 60, 76], limited resources [30, 55] and poor patient adherence to interventions [13]. Consequently, there is an urgent need for a brief, cost-effective and easier-to-implement intervention to address these barriers and enhance the feasibility and effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in healthcare settings.

Consequences

Consequences related to patients

Investigations into patient-related consequences indicated that brief lifestyle interventions can effectively facilitate positive changes in patients’ healthy lifestyle behaviors, including increased intake of fruit and vegetables and higher levels of physical activity [17, 30, 44, 48]. Furthermore, brief lifestyle interventions can make favorable effects on some health outcomes in the longer-term, including BMI, waist circumference, blood pressure, glucose tolerance and serum lipids [13, 15, 48, 54, 69, 77]. Additionally, brief lifestyle interventions have proven effective in improving patients’ adherence to the intervention due to their personalized nature [13, 74].

Consequences related to healthcare providers

Brief lifestyle interventions provide a practical and streamlined approach for healthcare providers to facilitate the delivery of lifestyle interventions [30, 62]. They report that brief lifestyle interventions are feasible and acceptable, with strong potential for integration into routine clinical practice [30, 46, 55, 76].

Consequences related to healthcare system

Limited resources have elevated the importance of cost-effectiveness in decision-making for care programs. Indeed, the cost-effectiveness analysis has become a crucial index for prioritizing plans within the healthcare system [78]. According to the included studies, one of the most important consequences associated with healthcare system is the reduction in costs [49, 73], with approximately 50% lower costs compared to traditional lifestyle interventions, including session cost, annual cost and cost per participant annually [60].

Related concepts

From the included articles, four terms that are used interchangeably with “brief lifestyle intervention” were identified: “brief lifestyle counseling” [66, 71], “brief lifestyle advice” [39, 52], “brief lifestyle motivational interview” [45, 68] and “lifestyle prescription” [33, 36]. Table 1 highlights the attributes shared with “brief lifestyle intervention”.

Table 1.

Shared attributes of brief lifestyle intervention and its related terms

Terms	Attributes
Terms	Healthy lifestyle	Provider-led	Patient-centered	Counseling	Assessment	Feedback	Time-limited
Brief lifestyle intervention	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Brief lifestyle counseling	√	√	√	√		√	√
Brief lifestyle advice	√	√	√	√		√
Brief lifestyle motivational interview	√	√	√	√		√	√
Lifestyle prescription	√	√	√			√

Open in a new tab

Brief lifestyle counseling

Brief lifestyle counseling is defined as a counseling intervention delivered by physicians or other professionals in a circumscribed time frame, aiming to promote lifestyle behavior changes [79].

Brief lifestyle advice

The term “brief lifestyle advice” refers to verbal advice, discussion, negotiation or encouragement provided by commissioners of health services to facilitate patients’ lifestyle modifications, with or without written or other support or follow-up. It can vary from basic advice to a more extended, individually focused discussion [32].

Brief lifestyle motivational interview

Brief lifestyle motivational interview is defined as a tool used in short appointment (approximately 15 min) by healthcare providers to help clients/patients increase both their desire to change and their belief in adopting a healthy lifestyle [68].

Lifestyle prescription

Lifestyle prescription is an evidence-based, achievable, specific written action plan for a healthy lifestyle, provided by healthcare providers and tailored to an individual’s unique needs [80].

Definition of the concept

Based on the analysis of literature, the following theoretical definition of brief lifestyle interventions in the NCDs context was developed:

Brief lifestyle intervention is a time-limited counseling approach advocating a “provider-led and patient-centered” care philosophy, designed to empower individuals to adopt and maintain a healthy lifestyle through assessment and feedback.

A preliminary conceptual model of the term “brief lifestyle intervention”, including the theoretical relationship between its antecedents, defining attributes and consequences is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 — Conceptual model of brief lifestyle intervention

Additionally, healthcare providers (nutritionists, exercise physiologists and endocrinologists) and patients (patients with diabetes/obesity or unhealthy lifestyle behaviors) actively participated in developing the universal definition, conceptual model and model case to ensure that the results met their needs.

Discussion

Although evidence on brief lifestyle interventions in the context of NCDs is increasing, there is still a lack of clear and consistent definition of this concept. To address this gap, the current concept analysis was conducted following Walker and Avant’s method, to identify defining attributes, antecedents and consequences of brief lifestyle interventions in the NCDs context. Brief lifestyle intervention, as conceptualized in this study, refers to time-limited counseling initiated by healthcare providers, which aims to empower patients to adopt and maintain a healthy lifestyle through personalized assessment and feedback. This conceptual clarification is expected to enhance the understanding of healthcare providers, enabling them to apply the concept more scientifically in both clinical practice and future research.

Consensus on the definition of brief lifestyle interventions is currently lacking, whereas the term “lifestyle intervention” is already well defined in the literature [11, 81]. Lifestyle intervention is a strategy aimed at modifying individuals’ lifestyle behaviors, and brief lifestyle interventions serve the same purpose. However, there are some differences between these two concepts. Brief lifestyle interventions place an emphasis on the delivery by healthcare providers [14, 37, 39, 67, 70]. Studies show that healthcare providers play a vital role in delivering lifestyle interventions for the prevention and management of NCDs [48, 54, 59, 75]. But challenges including time constraints, high costs and limited resources often hinder them from implementing it effectively [15, 71, 82]. The urgent need for a concise and easily implementable intervention led to the emergence of brief lifestyle interventions to overcome the inherent limitations of traditional lifestyle interventions. Moreover, brief lifestyle interventions are responsive to the needs of healthcare providers and patients, optimizing the form, process and duration of the intervention [34, 36, 45, 61, 77]. In this paper, we found the term “brief lifestyle intervention” can be defined by five different attribute categories: focus, participants, form, process and characteristic.

Firstly, all 49 studies emphasized that brief lifestyle interventions should focus on promoting a healthy lifestyle, driven by the practical concern that a significant number of individuals do not meet recommended dietary and physical activity levels [28, 62]. The primary goal of these interventions is to encourage healthier lifestyle behaviors among patients, ultimately improving their related health outcomes [30, 37, 82], which aligns with previous definitions [17, 21, 33, 34]. Secondly, 33 studies identified “provider-led and patient-centered” as the care philosophy behind brief lifestyle interventions. Both guideline recommendations and patient needs underscore the pivotal role of healthcare providers in delivering lifestyle interventions [32, 59, 75]. Acting as navigators, healthcare providers tailor lifestyle advice based on patients’ stage of change and individual characteristics, thereby enhancing intervention effectiveness and improving adherence [30, 39, 45, 48]. This emphasis on the providers’ active role stands in contrast to earlier conceptualizations proposed by Lamming et al. [21] and Whatnall et al. [17], which gave limited attention to the involvement of healthcare providers. We also clarified the form and process of brief lifestyle interventions, addressing inconsistencies in previous studies. For instance, Whatnall et al. [17] argued that brief lifestyle interventions should not be restricted to any specific form, whereas Lamming et al. [21], Gc et al. [33] and Green et al. [34] maintained that such interventions should take the form of consultations, advice or discussions. However, our systematic literature review found that most brief lifestyle intervention studies (87.76%) were conducted in the form of counseling. In terms of process, our findings also diverge from the definitions proposed by Lamming et al. [21], Gc et al. [33] and Green et al. [34], who emphasized feedback, primarily including advice and guidance, as the central step of brief lifestyle interventions. In contrast, our analysis underscores the importance of an initial assessment of patients’ lifestyle, along with a dynamic evaluation of their stage of change. Twenty-six studies mentioned both “assessment” and “feedback” simultaneously. Therefore, brief lifestyle intervention should be understood as a counseling session initiated by healthcare providers, during which they assess patients’ existing diet, exercise habits and stage of change, while also providing personalized feedback [30, 66]. The identification of the form and process of brief lifestyle interventions serves as a valuable guide for healthcare providers in developing and conducting effective interventions.

Additionally, this study explicitly clarified that brief lifestyle interventions should be time-limited. Given the constraints of time, cost and resources in healthcare settings, being time-limited is a crucial defining attribute of such interventions. While previous definitions have acknowledged the time-limited nature of these interventions, they often lacked specific details regarding their duration and frequency [17, 62]. In our analysis, 44 studies described brief lifestyle interventions as time-limited, among which 20 studies specified that each session should last less than 15 min, with intervention frequency typically fewer than five sessions [60, 64, 70]. This limited duration not only reduces intervention costs but also improves patient compliance [13] and facilitates implementation by healthcare providers [55].

Meanwhile, the study compared the differences between definitions of “brief lifestyle intervention” and related concepts. Though these related concepts share some attributes with brief lifestyle interventions including healthy lifestyle, provider-led, patient-centered and feedback, there are some differences in the other three attributes: counseling, assessment and time-limited. This suggests that future studies should differentiate between “brief lifestyle intervention” and other terms such as “brief lifestyle counseling”, “brief lifestyle advice”, “brief lifestyle motivational interview” and “lifestyle prescription” to avoid misunderstandings.

Implications for clinical practice and future research

The absence of a common definition of the concept of “brief lifestyle intervention” in the context of NCDs undermines the evidence in this area of practice. While numerous studies yield valid findings, they often lack clarity due to the absence of a shared definition, which compromises the ability to generalize results and diminishes the effectiveness of the intervention [23]. This study contributes to a scientific understanding of the concept, establishing a solid foundation that reduces current conceptual ambiguities and provides a shared reference point for effective communication among healthcare disciplines involved in brief lifestyle interventions. We suggest that it is essential for healthcare providers to revisit their use of the term “brief lifestyle intervention” and evaluate its conceptual clarity against the proposed definition derived from this comprehensive concept analysis. This is the first step in achieving uniformity and conceptual clarity.

Additionally, future research should be recommended and targeted at the following topics. Firstly, there is a paucity of research directly comparing brief lifestyle interventions with traditional intensive interventions, which are typically characterized by longer duration and higher frequency. Further three-arm randomized controlled trials (brief vs. intensive vs. no intervention) are warranted to determine whether brief lifestyle interventions can achieve outcomes comparable to those of traditional intensive interventions. Secondly, a notable observation is that few studies provide a clear definition of the term “brief”, and some even omit details on duration and frequency of the intervention [13, 30, 48]. Although existing studies have implemented interventions lasting less than 15 min and involving no more than five sessions, it remains unclear whether this constitutes the optimal dosage for effectiveness. This uncertainty complicates the determination of the most appropriate duration and frequency for achieving meaningful outcomes. A dose–response meta-analysis could help address this gap. Thirdly, current theory-based research on brief lifestyle interventions often relies on the TTM as a theoretical framework [30, 45, 59–61, 75]. Future studies could explore the integration of the TTM, the 5A model and the 5R model to guide the development of brief lifestyle interventions in a more comprehensive manner. Alternatively, researchers could investigate the guiding role of other behavior change theories in brief lifestyle interventions to facilitate conceptual improvement and updates. Furthermore, brief lifestyle interventions are primarily applied in the field of NCDs. There is a need to explore their potential extension to other disease domains.

Strengths and limitations

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study synthesizing the antecedents, defining attributes and consequences into a conceptualization of brief lifestyle interventions in the context of NCDs, providing an operational definition for the implementation of the concept. Secondly, we strictly followed the PRISMA statement [83] in reporting the systematic search process, which may improve the quality of data considerably. Furthermore, the search strategies employed “brief intervention” and similar terms to ensure the comprehensive retrieval of all studies related to brief lifestyle interventions in the domain of NCDs, with additional manual supplementation for completeness. Additionally, we used Walker and Avant’s concept analysis method which is widely recognized as the most employed framework in such analyses. This method not only enhances research replicability in the field but also provides a more linear and structured approach compared to alternative models, aiding in the construction of a clear and straightforward presentation of the research process and findings [84]. Meanwhile, the definition and the concept model of brief lifestyle interventions were developed through discussions with multiple stakeholders, including healthcare providers and patients with NCDs or unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, to ensure the practicality and clinical applicability of the concept.

There are some limitations with this concept analysis. First, selection bias may exist in the current review because only articles published in English were included. Secondly, restricting inclusion criteria to empirical literature might have provided a more objective outcome, but not limiting the type of studies broadened the scope of the analysis. Thirdly, the definition derived from this study may be specifically applicable to brief lifestyle interventions in the field of NCDs and may not be generalized to other domains. Meanwhile, based on the definition of “healthy lifestyle” by WHO [38], brief lifestyle interventions in the included studies only focused on diet and physical activity, so the current definition may not be generalizable to other lifestyle domains, such as alcohol consumption and smoking. Finally, the term “brief lifestyle intervention” is evolving, which can be problematic when conducting concept analysis because defining attributes are traditionally determined based on their repetition in the literature. As such, some attributes that are mentioned less frequently but potentially significant may be overlooked.

Conclusion

This study aims to clarify and provide a definition of brief lifestyle interventions in the NCDs context. Based on a systematic search of literature and an analysis guided by Walker and Avant’s method, we identified the antecedents, defining attributes and consequences of brief lifestyle interventions. The findings could potentially establish a common reference point for the term and provide guidance for the effective implementation of the intervention by healthcare providers in healthcare settings. Additionally, we presented recommendations for clinical practice and future research. The research on brief lifestyle interventions is evolving, so we anticipate that this concept will continue to be updated and refined in the future.

Supplementary Information

12889_2025_23744_MOESM1_ESM.docx^{(14.4KB, docx)}

Additional file 1: Search strategies. Search strategies in seven electronic databases.

12889_2025_23744_MOESM2_ESM.docx^{(31KB, docx)}

Additional file 2: Characteristics of included studies. Characteristics of 49 included studies including author, date, country, design of the study, provider and recipient of brief lifestyle intervention, etc.

12889_2025_23744_MOESM3_ESM.docx^{(275.3KB, docx)}

Additional file 3: PRISMA 2020 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 Checklist and PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts Checklist.

Acknowledgements

None.

Abbreviations

5A model: Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange
5R model: Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, Repetition
NCDs: Noncommunicable diseases
NICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
TTM: Transtheoretical Model
PRESS: Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies
PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
TIDieR: Template for Intervention Description and Replication
WHO: World Health Organization

Authors’ contributions

BLW, QS and MLX conceived and designed the study. BLW, QS screened, extracted and analyzed data from studies and wrote the manuscript. All authors made critical revisions to the manuscript and approved the final version. All authors agree to be accountable for their own contributions and ensure that questions related to the work are appropriately addressed and resolved.

Funding

This work was supported by Health High-level Talent Support Program of Hunan Province of China (No.20230457).

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

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

Binglu Wang and Quan Shen contributed equally to this work.

Contributor Information

Meili Xiao, Email: xiaomeili79@126.com.

Jun Lei, Email: leijunbao@csu.edu.cn.

References

1.World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases. Accessed 18 Feb 2024.
2.Wang Y, Wang X, Wang C, Zhou J. Global, regional, and national burden of cardiovascular disease, 1990–2021: results from the 2021 global burden of disease study. Cureus. 2024;16(11):e74333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.GBD 2021 Diabetes Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes from 1990 to 2021, with projections of prevalence to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2023;402(10397):203–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.GBD 2019 Chronic Respiratory Diseases Collaborators. Global burden of chronic respiratory diseases and risk factors, 1990–2019: an update from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;59:101936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Zhao J, Xu L, Sun J, Song M, Wang L, Yuan S, Zhu Y, Wan Z, Larsson S, Tsilidis K, et al. Global trends in incidence, death, burden and risk factors of early-onset cancer from 1990 to 2019. BMJ Oncol. 2023;2(1):e000049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Ezzati M, Riboli E. Behavioral and dietary risk factors for noncommunicable diseases. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(10):954–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Katzmarzyk PT, Friedenreich C, Shiroma EJ, Lee IM. Physical inactivity and non-communicable disease burden in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(2):101–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Kerr J, Anderson C, Lippman SM. Physical activity, sedentary behaviour, diet, and cancer: an update and emerging new evidence. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(8):e457–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Browne S, Minozzi S, Bellisario C, Sweeney MR, Susta D. Effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving dietary behaviours among people at higher risk of or with chronic non-communicable diseases: an overview of systematic reviews. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73(1):9–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Dinas PC, On Behalf Of The Students Of Module Introduction To Systematic R, Karaventza M, Liakou C, Georgakouli K, Bogdanos D, Metsios GS. Combined effects of physical activity and diet on cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2024;16(11):1749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11.Sagastume D, Siero I, Mertens E, Cottam J, Colizzi C, Peñalvo JL. The effectiveness of lifestyle interventions on type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes incidence and cardiometabolic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from low- and middle-income countries. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;53:101650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Zhao X, Forbes A, Ghazaleh HA, He Q, Huang J, Asaad M, Cheng L, Duaso M. Interventions and behaviour change techniques for improving physical activity level in working-age people (18–60 years) with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2024;160:104884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.GonzÁLez-Becerra K, GonzÁLez-Cantero JO, MartÍN-Moreno AM, BarrÓN-Cabrera E, Mora-JimÉNez A, MartÍNez-LÓPez E. Brief intervention as strategy treatment that improves nutritional adherence in obesity: a pilot study. Rev Mex Endocrinol Metab Nutr. 2023;10(2):68–75. [Google Scholar]
14.Mitchell J, Hardeman W, Pears S, Vasconcelos JC, Prevost AT, Wilson E, Sutton S. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention delivered in NHS health checks (VBI trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17(1):303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Schumacher TL, Burrows TL, Rollo ME, Spratt NJ, Callister R, Collins CE. Effectiveness of a brief dietetic intervention for hyperlipidaemic adults using individually-tailored dietary feedback. Healthcare (Basel). 2016;4(4):75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16.Orrow G, Kinmonth AL, Sanderson S, Sutton S. Effectiveness of physical activity promotion based in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2012;344:e1389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Whatnall MC, Patterson AJ, Ashton LM, Hutchesson MJ. Effectiveness of brief nutrition interventions on dietary behaviours in adults: a systematic review. Appetite. 2018;120:335–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Laws RA, Kemp LA, Harris MF, Davies GP, Williams AM, Eames-Brown R. An exploration of how clinician attitudes and beliefs influence the implementation of lifestyle risk factor management in primary healthcare: a grounded theory study. Implement Sci. 2009;4: 66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Sweeney FF, Flynn SM, Ludlow A, Dillon N, Ennis M, Argent R, Kelly S, Mellon L, De Brún A, Hanratty M, et al. A blended model to support brief interventions in primary care: a qualitative study of usability and acceptability of HealthEir in community pharmacy. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2023;19(5):807–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Flocke SA, Clark A, Schlessman K, Pomiecko G. Exercise, diet, and weight loss advice in the family medicine outpatient setting. Fam Med. 2005;37(6):415–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Lamming L, Pears S, Mason D, Morton K, Bijker M, Sutton S, Hardeman W. What do we know about brief interventions for physical activity that could be delivered in primary care consultations? A systematic review of reviews. Prev Med. 2017;99:152–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.World Health Organization. Integrated brief interventions for noncommunicable disease risk factors in primary care: the manual: BRIEF project. https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289058551. Accessed 18 Feb 2024.
23.Walker LO, Avant KC. Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing. 6th ed. Pearson: Prentice Hall; 2012. [Google Scholar]
24.Fibbins H, Ward PB, Curtis J, Watkins A, Lederman O, Morell R, Rosenbaum S. Effectiveness of a brief lifestyle intervention targeting mental health staff: analysis of physical fitness and activity in the Keeping Our Staff in Mind study. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2020;6(1): e000761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: University of York; 2009. [Google Scholar]
26.Fitzpatrick JJ, Kazer MWE. Nursing Concept Analysis. 3rd ed. Springer: Springer Publishing Company; 2012. [Google Scholar]
27.McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman DG, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDier) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. [Google Scholar]
30.Croskey O, Clark MK. Individualized diet conversation in primary care: a pilot intervention. Nurse Pract. 2023;48(4):38–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Golledge J, Yip L, Venn A, Leicht AS, Jenkins JS, Fiatarone Singh MA, Reid CM, Ademi Z, Parmenter BJ, Moxon JV, et al. Effect of brief counseling by allied health professionals on step count of people with peripheral artery disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2023;8(4):394–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Physical activity: brief advice for adults in primary care. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph44/chapter/1-Recommendations. Accessed 18 Feb 2024.
33.Gc V, Wilson EC, Suhrcke M, Hardeman W, Sutton S. Are brief interventions to increase physical activity cost-effective? A systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(7):408–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Green ET, Cox NS, Arden CM, Warren CJ, Holland AE. What is the effect of a brief intervention to promote physical activity when delivered in a health care setting? A systematic review. Health Promot J Austr. 2023;34(4):809-24. [DOI] [PubMed]
35.Bennett PN, Wang W, Moore M, Nagle C. Care partner: a concept analysis. Nurs Outlook. 2017;65(2):184–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Babwah T, Roopchan V, Baptiste B, Ali A, Dwarika K. Exercise prescriptions given by GPs to sedentary patients attending chronic disease clinics in health centres - The effect of a very brief intervention to change exercise behavior. J Family Med Prim Care. 2018;7(6):1446–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Gallegos-Carrillo K, García-Peña C, Salmerón J, Salgado-de-Snyder N, Lobelo F. Brief counseling and exercise referral scheme: a pragmatic trial in Mexico. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(2):249–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.World Health Organization. A healthy lifestyle - WHO recommendations. https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/a-healthy-lifestyle---who-recommendations. Accessed 18 Feb 2024.
39.Armit CM, Brown WJ, Marshall AL, Ritchie CB, Trost SG, Green A, Bauman AE. Randomized trial of three strategies to promote physical activity in general practice. Prev Med. 2009;48(2):156–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Lai A, Stewart S, Wan A, Thomas C, Tse J, Ho D, Chan S, Lam TH. Development and feasibility of a brief zero-time exercise intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour and enhance physical activity: a pilot trial. Health Soc Care Community. 2019;27(4):e233–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Marcus AC, Heimendinger J, Wolfe P, Fairclough D, Rimer BK, Morra M, Warnecke R, Himes JH, Darrow SL, Davis SW, et al. A randomized trial of a brief intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intake: a replication study among callers to the CIS. Prev Med. 2001;33(3):204–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Pears S, Bijker M, Morton K, Vasconcelos J, Parker RA, Westgate K, Brage S, Wilson E, Prevost AT, Kinmonth AL, et al. A randomised controlled trial of three very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Bolognesi M, Nigg CR, Massarini M, Lippke S. Reducing obesity indicators through brief physical activity counseling (PACE) in Italian primary care settings. Ann Behav Med. 2006;31(2):179–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Furber S, Monger C, Franco L, Mayne D, Jones LA, Laws R, Waters L. The effectiveness of a brief intervention using a pedometer and step-recording diary in promoting physical activity in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance. Health Promot J Austr. 2008;19(3):189–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Graf C, Schlepper S, Bauer C, Ferrari N, Frank S, Gartner L, Gehring S, Henke R, Lehmacher W, Steffen HM, et al. Feasibility and acceptance of exercise recommendations (10,000 steps a day) within routine German health check (Check-up 35/GOÄ29)-study protocol. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Oliver D, Andrews K. Brief intervention of low carbohydrate dietary advice: clinic results and a review of the literature. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2021;28(5):496–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Mansi S, Milosavljevic S, Tumilty S, Hendrick P, Baxter GD. Use of pedometer-driven walking to promote physical activity and improve health-related quality of life among meat processing workers: a feasibility trial. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Freene N, Davey R, McPhail SM. Frequency of a very brief intervention by physiotherapists to increase physical activity levels in adults: a pilot randomised controlled trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2019;11:6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Gc VS, Suhrcke M, Hardeman W, Sutton S, Wilson ECF. Cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis of brief interventions to promote physical activity in primary care. Value Health. 2018;21(1):18–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12(1):38–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Mcleod J. An Introduction to Counselling. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2013. [Google Scholar]
52.Patcharatrakul T, Juntrapirat A, Lakananurak N, Gonlachanvit S. Effect of structural individual low-FODMAP dietary advice vs. Brief advice on a commonly recommended diet on IBS symptoms and intestinal gas production. Nutrients. 2019;11(12):2856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
53.Pinto BM, Goldstein MG, Ashba J, Sciamanna CN, Jette A. Randomized controlled trial of physical activity counseling for older primary care patients. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(4):247–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Christian JG, Bessesen DH, Byers TE, Christian KK, Goldstein MG, Bock BC. Clinic-based support to help overweight patients with type 2 diabetes increase physical activity and lose weight. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(2):141–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Mills K, Griffin SJ, Sutton S, Usher-Smith JA. Development and usability testing of a very brief intervention for personalised cancer risk assessment to promote behaviour change in primary care using normalisation process theory. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2020;21: e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Gardiner PA, Eakin EG, Healy GN, Owen N. Feasibility of reducing older adults’ sedentary time. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(2):174–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Hardeman W, Mitchell J, Pears S, Van Emmenis M, Theil F, Gc VS, Vasconcelos JC, Westgate K, Brage S, Suhrcke M, et al. Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS health checks in England: the VBI randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2020;17(3):e1003046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Harland J, White M, Drinkwater C, Chinn D, Farr L, Howel D. The Newcastle exercise project: a randomised controlled trial of methods to promote physical activity in primary care. BMJ. 1999;319(7213):828–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Thornton J, Nagpal T, Reilly K, Stewart M, Petrella R. The “miracle cure”: how do primary care physicians prescribe physical activity with the aim of improving clinical outcomes of chronic disease? A scoping review. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2022;8(3): e001373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Papini CB, Campos L, Nakamura PM, Brito BTG, Kokubun E. Cost-analysis and cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in Brazilian primary health care: a randomised feasibility study. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2021;26(11):5711–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Purath J, Miller AM. Predictors of improvement in women’s physical activity. Womens Health. 2005;42(3):57–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Waite I, Grant D, Mayes J, Greenwood S. Can a brief behavioural change intervention encourage hospital patients with low physical activity levels to engage and initiate a change in physical activity behaviour? Physiotherapy. 2020;108:22–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Bull FC, Milton KE. A process evaluation of a “physical activity pathway” in the primary care setting. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Kearney M, Bradbury C, Ellahi B, Hodgson M, Thurston M. Mainstreaming prevention: prescribing fruit and vegetables as a brief intervention in primary care. Public Health. 2005;119(11):981–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Thatcher R, Gregory N, Cheung WY, Dunseath GJ, Parsons SN, Goodwin M, Luzio SD. Brief lifestyle interventions for prediabetes in primary care: a service evaluation. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23(1): 45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Jagannathan R, Ziolkowski SL, Weber MB, Cobb J, Pham N, Long J, Anand S, Lobelo F. Physical activity promotion for patients transitioning to dialysis using the “Exercise is Medicine” framework: a multi-center randomized pragmatic trial (EIM-CKD trial) protocol. BMC Nephrol. 2018;19(1):230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Williams SL, Michie S, Dale J, Stallard N, French DP. The effects of a brief intervention to promote walking on theory of planned behavior constructs: a cluster randomized controlled trial in general practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(5):651–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Epel ES, Hartman A, Jacobs LM, Leung C, Cohn MA, Jensen L, Ishkanian L, Wojcicki J, Mason AE, Lustig RH, et al. Association of a workplace sales ban on sugar-sweetened beverages with employee consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and health. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(1):9–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69.Glasgow RE, Toobert DJ, Hampson SE. Effects of a brief office-based intervention to facilitate diabetes dietary self-management. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(8):835–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70.Peterson JA. Get moving! Physical activity counseling in primary care. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2007;19(7):349–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Tripette J, Gando Y, Murakami H, Kawakami R, Tanisawa K, Ohno H, Konishi K, Tanimoto M, Tanaka N, Kawano H, et al. Effect of a 1-year intervention comprising brief counselling sessions and low-dose physical activity recommendations in Japanese adults, and retention of the effect at 2 years: a randomized trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2021;13(1):133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72.Djuric Z, Ellsworth JS, Ren J, Sen A, Ruffin MTT. A randomized feasibility trial of brief telephone counseling to increase fruit and vegetable intakes. Prev Med. 2010;50(5–6):265–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73.Gans KM, Burkholder GJ Jr, Risica PM, Harrow B, Lasater TM. Cost-effectiveness of minimal contact education strategies for cholesterol change. Ethn Dis. 2006;16(2):443–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74.O’Sullivan TL, Fortier MS, Faubert C, Culver D, Blanchard C, Reid R, Hogg WE. Interdisciplinary physical activity counseling in primary care: a qualitative inquiry of the patient experience. J Health Psychol. 2010;15(3):362–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Anokye NK, Lord J, Fox-Rushby J. Is brief advice in primary care a cost-effective way to promote physical activity? Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(3):202–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Pears S, Morton K, Bijker M, Sutton S, Hardeman W. Development and feasibility study of very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care. BMC Public Health. 2015;15: 333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Glasgow RE, La Chance PA, Toobert DJ, Brown J, Hampson SE, Riddle MC. Long-term effects and costs of brief behavioural dietary intervention for patients with diabetes delivered from the medical office. Patient Educ Couns. 1997;32(3):175–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78.Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(13):716–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79.Son KY, Lee CM, Cho B, Lym YL, Oh SW, Chung W, Lee JS, Park D, Kim HS. Effect of additional brief counselling after periodic health examination on motivation for health behavior change [corrected]. J Korean Med Sci. 2012;27(11):1285–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80.Dysinger WS. Lifestyle medicine prescriptions. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2021;15(5):555–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81.Tariq MNM, Stojanovska L, Dhaheri ASA, Cheikh Ismail L, Apostolopoulos V, Ali HI. Lifestyle interventions for prevention and management of diet-linked non-communicable diseases among adults in Arab Countries. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;11(1):45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
82.Clark M, Hampson SE, Avery L, Simpson R. Effects of a tailored lifestyle self-management intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Br J Health Psychol. 2004;9(Pt 3):365–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84.Endacott R. Clarifying the concept of need: a comparison of two approaches to concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25(3):471–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

12889_2025_23744_MOESM1_ESM.docx^{(14.4KB, docx)}

Additional file 1: Search strategies. Search strategies in seven electronic databases.

12889_2025_23744_MOESM2_ESM.docx^{(31KB, docx)}

12889_2025_23744_MOESM3_ESM.docx^{(275.3KB, docx)}

Additional file 3: PRISMA 2020 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 Checklist and PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts Checklist.

Data Availability Statement

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

[CR1] 1.World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases. Accessed 18 Feb 2024.

[CR2] 2.Wang Y, Wang X, Wang C, Zhou J. Global, regional, and national burden of cardiovascular disease, 1990–2021: results from the 2021 global burden of disease study. Cureus. 2024;16(11):e74333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR3] 3.GBD 2021 Diabetes Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes from 1990 to 2021, with projections of prevalence to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2023;402(10397):203–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR4] 4.GBD 2019 Chronic Respiratory Diseases Collaborators. Global burden of chronic respiratory diseases and risk factors, 1990–2019: an update from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;59:101936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR5] 5.Zhao J, Xu L, Sun J, Song M, Wang L, Yuan S, Zhu Y, Wan Z, Larsson S, Tsilidis K, et al. Global trends in incidence, death, burden and risk factors of early-onset cancer from 1990 to 2019. BMJ Oncol. 2023;2(1):e000049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR6] 6.Ezzati M, Riboli E. Behavioral and dietary risk factors for noncommunicable diseases. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(10):954–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR7] 7.Katzmarzyk PT, Friedenreich C, Shiroma EJ, Lee IM. Physical inactivity and non-communicable disease burden in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(2):101–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR8] 8.Kerr J, Anderson C, Lippman SM. Physical activity, sedentary behaviour, diet, and cancer: an update and emerging new evidence. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(8):e457–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR9] 9.Browne S, Minozzi S, Bellisario C, Sweeney MR, Susta D. Effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving dietary behaviours among people at higher risk of or with chronic non-communicable diseases: an overview of systematic reviews. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73(1):9–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR10] 10.Dinas PC, On Behalf Of The Students Of Module Introduction To Systematic R, Karaventza M, Liakou C, Georgakouli K, Bogdanos D, Metsios GS. Combined effects of physical activity and diet on cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2024;16(11):1749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[CR11] 11.Sagastume D, Siero I, Mertens E, Cottam J, Colizzi C, Peñalvo JL. The effectiveness of lifestyle interventions on type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes incidence and cardiometabolic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from low- and middle-income countries. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;53:101650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR12] 12.Zhao X, Forbes A, Ghazaleh HA, He Q, Huang J, Asaad M, Cheng L, Duaso M. Interventions and behaviour change techniques for improving physical activity level in working-age people (18–60 years) with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2024;160:104884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR13] 13.GonzÁLez-Becerra K, GonzÁLez-Cantero JO, MartÍN-Moreno AM, BarrÓN-Cabrera E, Mora-JimÉNez A, MartÍNez-LÓPez E. Brief intervention as strategy treatment that improves nutritional adherence in obesity: a pilot study. Rev Mex Endocrinol Metab Nutr. 2023;10(2):68–75. [Google Scholar]

[CR14] 14.Mitchell J, Hardeman W, Pears S, Vasconcelos JC, Prevost AT, Wilson E, Sutton S. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention delivered in NHS health checks (VBI trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17(1):303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR15] 15.Schumacher TL, Burrows TL, Rollo ME, Spratt NJ, Callister R, Collins CE. Effectiveness of a brief dietetic intervention for hyperlipidaemic adults using individually-tailored dietary feedback. Healthcare (Basel). 2016;4(4):75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[CR16] 16.Orrow G, Kinmonth AL, Sanderson S, Sutton S. Effectiveness of physical activity promotion based in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2012;344:e1389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR17] 17.Whatnall MC, Patterson AJ, Ashton LM, Hutchesson MJ. Effectiveness of brief nutrition interventions on dietary behaviours in adults: a systematic review. Appetite. 2018;120:335–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR18] 18.Laws RA, Kemp LA, Harris MF, Davies GP, Williams AM, Eames-Brown R. An exploration of how clinician attitudes and beliefs influence the implementation of lifestyle risk factor management in primary healthcare: a grounded theory study. Implement Sci. 2009;4: 66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR19] 19.Sweeney FF, Flynn SM, Ludlow A, Dillon N, Ennis M, Argent R, Kelly S, Mellon L, De Brún A, Hanratty M, et al. A blended model to support brief interventions in primary care: a qualitative study of usability and acceptability of HealthEir in community pharmacy. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2023;19(5):807–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR20] 20.Flocke SA, Clark A, Schlessman K, Pomiecko G. Exercise, diet, and weight loss advice in the family medicine outpatient setting. Fam Med. 2005;37(6):415–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR21] 21.Lamming L, Pears S, Mason D, Morton K, Bijker M, Sutton S, Hardeman W. What do we know about brief interventions for physical activity that could be delivered in primary care consultations? A systematic review of reviews. Prev Med. 2017;99:152–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR22] 22.World Health Organization. Integrated brief interventions for noncommunicable disease risk factors in primary care: the manual: BRIEF project. https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289058551. Accessed 18 Feb 2024.

[CR23] 23.Walker LO, Avant KC. Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing. 6th ed. Pearson: Prentice Hall; 2012. [Google Scholar]

[CR24] 24.Fibbins H, Ward PB, Curtis J, Watkins A, Lederman O, Morell R, Rosenbaum S. Effectiveness of a brief lifestyle intervention targeting mental health staff: analysis of physical fitness and activity in the Keeping Our Staff in Mind study. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2020;6(1): e000761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR25] 25.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: University of York; 2009. [Google Scholar]

[CR26] 26.Fitzpatrick JJ, Kazer MWE. Nursing Concept Analysis. 3rd ed. Springer: Springer Publishing Company; 2012. [Google Scholar]

[CR27] 27.McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR28] 28.Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman DG, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDier) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR29] 29.Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. [Google Scholar]

[CR30] 30.Croskey O, Clark MK. Individualized diet conversation in primary care: a pilot intervention. Nurse Pract. 2023;48(4):38–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR31] 31.Golledge J, Yip L, Venn A, Leicht AS, Jenkins JS, Fiatarone Singh MA, Reid CM, Ademi Z, Parmenter BJ, Moxon JV, et al. Effect of brief counseling by allied health professionals on step count of people with peripheral artery disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2023;8(4):394–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR32] 32.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Physical activity: brief advice for adults in primary care. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph44/chapter/1-Recommendations. Accessed 18 Feb 2024.

[CR33] 33.Gc V, Wilson EC, Suhrcke M, Hardeman W, Sutton S. Are brief interventions to increase physical activity cost-effective? A systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(7):408–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR34] 34.Green ET, Cox NS, Arden CM, Warren CJ, Holland AE. What is the effect of a brief intervention to promote physical activity when delivered in a health care setting? A systematic review. Health Promot J Austr. 2023;34(4):809-24. [DOI] [PubMed]

[CR35] 35.Bennett PN, Wang W, Moore M, Nagle C. Care partner: a concept analysis. Nurs Outlook. 2017;65(2):184–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR36] 36.Babwah T, Roopchan V, Baptiste B, Ali A, Dwarika K. Exercise prescriptions given by GPs to sedentary patients attending chronic disease clinics in health centres - The effect of a very brief intervention to change exercise behavior. J Family Med Prim Care. 2018;7(6):1446–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR37] 37.Gallegos-Carrillo K, García-Peña C, Salmerón J, Salgado-de-Snyder N, Lobelo F. Brief counseling and exercise referral scheme: a pragmatic trial in Mexico. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(2):249–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR38] 38.World Health Organization. A healthy lifestyle - WHO recommendations. https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/a-healthy-lifestyle---who-recommendations. Accessed 18 Feb 2024.

[CR39] 39.Armit CM, Brown WJ, Marshall AL, Ritchie CB, Trost SG, Green A, Bauman AE. Randomized trial of three strategies to promote physical activity in general practice. Prev Med. 2009;48(2):156–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR40] 40.Lai A, Stewart S, Wan A, Thomas C, Tse J, Ho D, Chan S, Lam TH. Development and feasibility of a brief zero-time exercise intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour and enhance physical activity: a pilot trial. Health Soc Care Community. 2019;27(4):e233–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR41] 41.Marcus AC, Heimendinger J, Wolfe P, Fairclough D, Rimer BK, Morra M, Warnecke R, Himes JH, Darrow SL, Davis SW, et al. A randomized trial of a brief intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intake: a replication study among callers to the CIS. Prev Med. 2001;33(3):204–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR42] 42.Pears S, Bijker M, Morton K, Vasconcelos J, Parker RA, Westgate K, Brage S, Wilson E, Prevost AT, Kinmonth AL, et al. A randomised controlled trial of three very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR43] 43.Bolognesi M, Nigg CR, Massarini M, Lippke S. Reducing obesity indicators through brief physical activity counseling (PACE) in Italian primary care settings. Ann Behav Med. 2006;31(2):179–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR44] 44.Furber S, Monger C, Franco L, Mayne D, Jones LA, Laws R, Waters L. The effectiveness of a brief intervention using a pedometer and step-recording diary in promoting physical activity in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance. Health Promot J Austr. 2008;19(3):189–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR45] 45.Graf C, Schlepper S, Bauer C, Ferrari N, Frank S, Gartner L, Gehring S, Henke R, Lehmacher W, Steffen HM, et al. Feasibility and acceptance of exercise recommendations (10,000 steps a day) within routine German health check (Check-up 35/GOÄ29)-study protocol. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR46] 46.Oliver D, Andrews K. Brief intervention of low carbohydrate dietary advice: clinic results and a review of the literature. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2021;28(5):496–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR47] 47.Mansi S, Milosavljevic S, Tumilty S, Hendrick P, Baxter GD. Use of pedometer-driven walking to promote physical activity and improve health-related quality of life among meat processing workers: a feasibility trial. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR48] 48.Freene N, Davey R, McPhail SM. Frequency of a very brief intervention by physiotherapists to increase physical activity levels in adults: a pilot randomised controlled trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2019;11:6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR49] 49.Gc VS, Suhrcke M, Hardeman W, Sutton S, Wilson ECF. Cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis of brief interventions to promote physical activity in primary care. Value Health. 2018;21(1):18–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR50] 50.Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12(1):38–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR51] 51.Mcleod J. An Introduction to Counselling. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2013. [Google Scholar]

[CR52] 52.Patcharatrakul T, Juntrapirat A, Lakananurak N, Gonlachanvit S. Effect of structural individual low-FODMAP dietary advice vs. Brief advice on a commonly recommended diet on IBS symptoms and intestinal gas production. Nutrients. 2019;11(12):2856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[CR53] 53.Pinto BM, Goldstein MG, Ashba J, Sciamanna CN, Jette A. Randomized controlled trial of physical activity counseling for older primary care patients. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(4):247–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR54] 54.Christian JG, Bessesen DH, Byers TE, Christian KK, Goldstein MG, Bock BC. Clinic-based support to help overweight patients with type 2 diabetes increase physical activity and lose weight. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(2):141–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR55] 55.Mills K, Griffin SJ, Sutton S, Usher-Smith JA. Development and usability testing of a very brief intervention for personalised cancer risk assessment to promote behaviour change in primary care using normalisation process theory. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2020;21: e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR56] 56.Gardiner PA, Eakin EG, Healy GN, Owen N. Feasibility of reducing older adults’ sedentary time. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(2):174–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR57] 57.Hardeman W, Mitchell J, Pears S, Van Emmenis M, Theil F, Gc VS, Vasconcelos JC, Westgate K, Brage S, Suhrcke M, et al. Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS health checks in England: the VBI randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2020;17(3):e1003046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR58] 58.Harland J, White M, Drinkwater C, Chinn D, Farr L, Howel D. The Newcastle exercise project: a randomised controlled trial of methods to promote physical activity in primary care. BMJ. 1999;319(7213):828–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR59] 59.Thornton J, Nagpal T, Reilly K, Stewart M, Petrella R. The “miracle cure”: how do primary care physicians prescribe physical activity with the aim of improving clinical outcomes of chronic disease? A scoping review. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2022;8(3): e001373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR60] 60.Papini CB, Campos L, Nakamura PM, Brito BTG, Kokubun E. Cost-analysis and cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in Brazilian primary health care: a randomised feasibility study. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2021;26(11):5711–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR61] 61.Purath J, Miller AM. Predictors of improvement in women’s physical activity. Womens Health. 2005;42(3):57–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR62] 62.Waite I, Grant D, Mayes J, Greenwood S. Can a brief behavioural change intervention encourage hospital patients with low physical activity levels to engage and initiate a change in physical activity behaviour? Physiotherapy. 2020;108:22–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR63] 63.Bull FC, Milton KE. A process evaluation of a “physical activity pathway” in the primary care setting. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR64] 64.Kearney M, Bradbury C, Ellahi B, Hodgson M, Thurston M. Mainstreaming prevention: prescribing fruit and vegetables as a brief intervention in primary care. Public Health. 2005;119(11):981–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR65] 65.Thatcher R, Gregory N, Cheung WY, Dunseath GJ, Parsons SN, Goodwin M, Luzio SD. Brief lifestyle interventions for prediabetes in primary care: a service evaluation. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23(1): 45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR66] 66.Jagannathan R, Ziolkowski SL, Weber MB, Cobb J, Pham N, Long J, Anand S, Lobelo F. Physical activity promotion for patients transitioning to dialysis using the “Exercise is Medicine” framework: a multi-center randomized pragmatic trial (EIM-CKD trial) protocol. BMC Nephrol. 2018;19(1):230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR67] 67.Williams SL, Michie S, Dale J, Stallard N, French DP. The effects of a brief intervention to promote walking on theory of planned behavior constructs: a cluster randomized controlled trial in general practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(5):651–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR68] 68.Epel ES, Hartman A, Jacobs LM, Leung C, Cohn MA, Jensen L, Ishkanian L, Wojcicki J, Mason AE, Lustig RH, et al. Association of a workplace sales ban on sugar-sweetened beverages with employee consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and health. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(1):9–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR69] 69.Glasgow RE, Toobert DJ, Hampson SE. Effects of a brief office-based intervention to facilitate diabetes dietary self-management. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(8):835–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR70] 70.Peterson JA. Get moving! Physical activity counseling in primary care. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2007;19(7):349–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR71] 71.Tripette J, Gando Y, Murakami H, Kawakami R, Tanisawa K, Ohno H, Konishi K, Tanimoto M, Tanaka N, Kawano H, et al. Effect of a 1-year intervention comprising brief counselling sessions and low-dose physical activity recommendations in Japanese adults, and retention of the effect at 2 years: a randomized trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2021;13(1):133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR72] 72.Djuric Z, Ellsworth JS, Ren J, Sen A, Ruffin MTT. A randomized feasibility trial of brief telephone counseling to increase fruit and vegetable intakes. Prev Med. 2010;50(5–6):265–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR73] 73.Gans KM, Burkholder GJ Jr, Risica PM, Harrow B, Lasater TM. Cost-effectiveness of minimal contact education strategies for cholesterol change. Ethn Dis. 2006;16(2):443–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR74] 74.O’Sullivan TL, Fortier MS, Faubert C, Culver D, Blanchard C, Reid R, Hogg WE. Interdisciplinary physical activity counseling in primary care: a qualitative inquiry of the patient experience. J Health Psychol. 2010;15(3):362–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR75] 75.Anokye NK, Lord J, Fox-Rushby J. Is brief advice in primary care a cost-effective way to promote physical activity? Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(3):202–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR76] 76.Pears S, Morton K, Bijker M, Sutton S, Hardeman W. Development and feasibility study of very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care. BMC Public Health. 2015;15: 333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR77] 77.Glasgow RE, La Chance PA, Toobert DJ, Brown J, Hampson SE, Riddle MC. Long-term effects and costs of brief behavioural dietary intervention for patients with diabetes delivered from the medical office. Patient Educ Couns. 1997;32(3):175–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR78] 78.Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(13):716–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR79] 79.Son KY, Lee CM, Cho B, Lym YL, Oh SW, Chung W, Lee JS, Park D, Kim HS. Effect of additional brief counselling after periodic health examination on motivation for health behavior change [corrected]. J Korean Med Sci. 2012;27(11):1285–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR80] 80.Dysinger WS. Lifestyle medicine prescriptions. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2021;15(5):555–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR81] 81.Tariq MNM, Stojanovska L, Dhaheri ASA, Cheikh Ismail L, Apostolopoulos V, Ali HI. Lifestyle interventions for prevention and management of diet-linked non-communicable diseases among adults in Arab Countries. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;11(1):45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[CR82] 82.Clark M, Hampson SE, Avery L, Simpson R. Effects of a tailored lifestyle self-management intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Br J Health Psychol. 2004;9(Pt 3):365–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR83] 83.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR84] 84.Endacott R. Clarifying the concept of need: a comparison of two approaches to concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25(3):471–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Towards a better understanding of brief lifestyle interventions in noncommunicable diseases: a concept analysis

Binglu Wang

Quan Shen

Meili Xiao

Shujuan Zhu

Jia Qu

ENuo Peng

Jun Lei

Abstract

Background

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Supplementary Information

Background

Methods

Design

Select a concept

Determine the aim of the analysis

Identify all uses of the concept: literature search

Data sources

Data selection

Data extraction and analysis

Results

Study selection

Fig. 1.

Characteristics of the included studies

Uses of the concept

Defining attributes

Focus: healthy lifestyle

Participants: healthcare providers and patients

Form: counseling

Process: assessment and feedback

Characteristic: time-limited

Cases

Model case

Contrary case

Antecedents

Necessity and importance of lifestyle interventions

Important role of healthcare providers in patients’ lifestyle changes

Urgent need for a brief, cost-effective and easier-to-implement intervention

Consequences

Consequences related to patients

Consequences related to healthcare providers

Consequences related to healthcare system

Related concepts

Table 1.

Brief lifestyle counseling

Brief lifestyle advice

Brief lifestyle motivational interview

Lifestyle prescription

Definition of the concept

Fig. 2.

Discussion

Implications for clinical practice and future research

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Supplementary Information

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Authors’ contributions

Funding

Data availability

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Footnotes

Contributor Information

References

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles