Lifestyle medicine for optimising brain health: perspectives and acceptability across the lifespan

Understanding how Australians perceive brain health and the acceptability of engaging in lifestyle medicine activities to enhance it, is crucial for promoting the widespread adoption of such approaches. As lifestyle activities can enhance brain health across the lifespan, this study aimed to investigate how such perspectives differ with age. One thousand and nineteen Australian adults (64.01% female; aged 18–90 years, M age = 49.78, SD = 18.23) completed an online survey investigating perspectives towards brain health, the acceptability of lifestyle medicine to improve brain health, and factors influencing engagement in lifestyle medicine activities. The survey reflected the seven components of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) and brief text-responses were used to assess factors influencing engagement. Differences in participants’ responses were explored by age (i.e. early (18–39), middle (40–59), and late adulthood (over 60)). While most participants reported understanding the concept of brain health (92.6%) and believed it to be important (91.9%), less than half felt they had insight into the status of their own brain health (44.7%). Most participants reported feeling positive about using lifestyle medicine to enhance brain health (affective attitude, 79.4%) and that this approach aligned with their personal values (ethicality, 75.1%). They understood how lifestyle medicine worked (intervention coherence, 89.4%) and believed it to be effective (perceived effectiveness, 86.7%). Fewer participants found the burden of engaging in lifestyle medicine activities (55.5%), what they would have to give up (opportunity cost, 43.5%), and their self-efficacy to engage (self-efficacy 64.9%) to be acceptable. Participants in early adulthood found engaging in lifestyle medicine activities to be more acceptable across affective attitude, ethicality, intervention coherence, and perceived effectiveness, while older adults reported them to be less burdensome. The most common factors influencing engagement were a lack of time due to competing priorities, a need for access to cost-effective facilities and services, and having positive social influences. Australian adults view lifestyle medicine as an acceptable approach to enhancing brain health. There is, however, an appreciation of the time, resource, and social challenges associated with making long-term healthy lifestyle changes, which differ with age. Individual and public health programs seeking to enhance brain health through lifestyle medicine activities should be tailored to address the unique needs and perspectives of each age group.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Public Health
Published
2026-10-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-29533-0
Primary Topic
Health, psychology, and well-being
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Lifestyle medicine for optimising brain health: perspectives and acceptability across the lifespan

Murat Yücel, Rachel Petukhova, Rebecca Anne Segrave, Joseph Pitt et al.
BMC Public Health
Health, psychology, and well-being
article

Lifestyle medicine for optimising brain health: perspectives and acceptability across the lifespan

Murat Yücel, Rachel Petukhova, Rebecca Anne Segrave, Joseph Pitt, Karyn Richardson, Sam Hughes
article en

Abstract

Understanding how Australians perceive brain health and the acceptability of engaging in lifestyle medicine activities to enhance it, is crucial for promoting the widespread adoption of such approaches. As lifestyle activities can enhance brain health across the lifespan, this study aimed to investigate how such perspectives differ with age. One thousand and nineteen Australian adults (64.01% female; aged 18–90 years, M age = 49.78, SD = 18.23) completed an online survey investigating perspectives towards brain health, the acceptability of lifestyle medicine to improve brain health, and factors influencing engagement in lifestyle medicine activities. The survey reflected the seven components of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) and brief text-responses were used to assess factors influencing engagement. Differences in participants’ responses were explored by age (i.e. early (18–39), middle (40–59), and late adulthood (over 60)). While most participants reported understanding the concept of brain health (92.6%) and believed it to be important (91.9%), less than half felt they had insight into the status of their own brain health (44.7%). Most participants reported feeling positive about using lifestyle medicine to enhance brain health (affective attitude, 79.4%) and that this approach aligned with their personal values (ethicality, 75.1%). They understood how lifestyle medicine worked (intervention coherence, 89.4%) and believed it to be effective (perceived effectiveness, 86.7%). Fewer participants found the burden of engaging in lifestyle medicine activities (55.5%), what they would have to give up (opportunity cost, 43.5%), and their self-efficacy to engage (self-efficacy 64.9%) to be acceptable. Participants in early adulthood found engaging in lifestyle medicine activities to be more acceptable across affective attitude, ethicality, intervention coherence, and perceived effectiveness, while older adults reported them to be less burdensome. The most common factors influencing engagement were a lack of time due to competing priorities, a need for access to cost-effective facilities and services, and having positive social influences. Australian adults view lifestyle medicine as an acceptable approach to enhancing brain health. There is, however, an appreciation of the time, resource, and social challenges associated with making long-term healthy lifestyle changes, which differ with age. Individual and public health programs seeking to enhance brain health through lifestyle medicine activities should be tailored to address the unique needs and perspectives of each age group.

BMC Public Health
QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (AU), Monash University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Health, psychology, and well-being
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.