ArticleBMC public health2025
Lifestyle counselling by Dutch occupational health professionals and its determinants: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLifestyle medicine has received increasing attention in recent decades, not only in general healthcare but also in occupational health. As part of prevention, Dutch occupational physicians are encouraged to provide lifestyle counselling and refer to lifestyle interventions, such as the Combined Lifestyle Intervention (CLI). However, we do not know to what extent occupational physicians and other occupational health professionals (OHPs) currently practise lifestyle counselling. This study aims to assess the current lifestyle counselling practices of Dutch OHPs and identify the determinants of these practices and of referrals to CLI in particular.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 266 OHPs from two large occupational health centres in the Netherlands. The survey consisted of items and scales based on the Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange (5 A) framework for lifestyle counselling and the Attitude, Social norms, Self-efficacy (ASE) model. Data were analysed by means of descriptive statistics, correlational analyses and hierarchical regression analyses.
resultsThe majority of OHPs (70.3%) assessed their clients' current lifestyle, while 49.1% assessed their clients' motivation to change. 65% of OHPs would like to discuss or advise about lifestyle more often. Stress and physical activity were the most frequent topics covered in the advice for setting of goals (Agree). 59% of variance of lifestyle counselling practices was explained, with self-efficacy and attitude of the OHPs as the most important determinants. More time, training and tools are considered facilitators for lifestyle counselling. Regarding CLI referrals, 28% of OHPs reported referring clients to CLI, with self-efficacy being the key determinant. Also, professional-based barriers (e.g. lack of time, preference for referral to well-known professionals) were determinants of CLI referral.
conclusionWhile a significant number of Dutch OHPs practise lifestyle counselling, there is room for improvement by addressing barriers and enhancing self-efficacy. Training and structural support are recommended to increase the prevalence and quality of lifestyle counselling and referrals to CLI. This study highlights the importance of integrating lifestyle medicine into occupational health to prevent chronic illnesses such as obesity, and improve employee health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.