“Anchor Institutions”—universities, hospitals, and other large, place-based organizations—invest in their communities as a way of doing business. Anchor “meds” (anchor institutions dedicated to health) that address social needs and social determinants of health have generated considerable community-based activity over the past several decades. Yet to date, virtually no research has analyzed their current status or effect on community health. To assess the current state and potential best practices of anchor meds, we conducted a search of the literature, a review of Web sites and related public documents of all declared anchor meds in the country, and interviews with 14 key informants. We identified potential best practices in adopting, operationalizing, and implementing an anchor mission and using specific social determinants of health strategies, noting early outcomes and lessons learned. Future dedicated research can bring heightened attention to this emerging force for community health.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveHealth clubs (HC) and personal trainers (PT) are traditional outlets for the promotion of physical activity (PA) and exercise programming. As physicians are increasingly being called on to write exercise prescriptions for their patients, this study sought to investigate the level of integration between the healthcare and fitness systems.DesignAn internet study was designed with five domains to understand physicians’: (1) overall perception of HC, (2) appropriateness and recommendation of HC and PT to their patients, (3) attitude regarding specific aspects of HC, (4) support of patient participation in HC sponsored exercise and (5) elements of HC that physicians would like to know for referral.MethodsAn electronic survey was sent to members of two mailing lists of primary care and sports medicine specialty physicians during 2011–2012.ResultsOn a Likert scale of 1–10 412 physicians reported being familiar with HC (8.9±2.1), indicated a favourable view of HC (7.9±2.2), and believe HC to be an appropriate venue for their patients (7.5±2.3). However, physicians only recommend HC to 41%±28% of their patients and PT for only 21%±21.6% of patients. Physicians ranked expense and convenience as the most problematic elements of HC (8.1±2.1 and 6.3±2.5, respectively). 72% of physicians indicated cost as most concerning when recommending a specific HC.ConclusionHC and PT are a significant implementation system for the promotion of physical activity, yet physicians are concerned with several elements of HC and are not adequately relying on this partnership to promote physical activity to their patients.

No abstract

BACKGROUND:The financial costs and human resource requirements at the school and district level to implement a SARS-CoV-2 screening program are not well known. METHODS:A consortium of Massachusetts public K-12 schools was formed to implement and evaluate a range of SARS-CoV-2 screening approaches. Participating districts were surveyed weekly about their programs, including: type of assay used, individual vs. pooled screening, approaches to return of results and deconvolution of positive pools, number and type of personnel, and hours spent implementing the screening program, and hours spent on program implementation. RESULTS:In 21 participating districts, over 21 weeks from January to June 2021, the positivity rate was 0.0% to 0.21% among students and 0.0% to 0.13% among educators/staff. The average weekly cost to implement a screening program, including assay

No abstract

Apply It!• Understanding the core pillars of Lifestyle Medicine (LM)• Learn how the growth of LM will impact the health and fitness professional (HFP)• Explore the elements used by the HFP in executing his or her portion of the LM prescription• Uncover responsibilities and resources required to be a trusted member of the LM practitioner's team