Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To collect health and wellness coaching (HWC) literature related to treatment of obesity and Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) for systematic assessment using a novel rubric.

Data Source

Pubmed, CINAHL, and PsychInfo

Study Inclusion and Exclusion

Given 282 articles retrieved, only randomized and controlled trials meeting a HWC criteria-based definition were included; studies with intervention <4 months or <4 sessions were excluded.

Data Extraction

Rubric assessment required details of two theoretical frameworks (i.e., study design and HWC intervention design) be extracted from each included paper.

Data Synthesis

Data were derived from a 28-item rubric querying items such as sampling characteristics, statistical methods, coach characteristics, HWC strategy, and intervention fidelity.

Results

29 articles were reviewed. Inter-rater rubric scoring yielded high intraclass correlation (r = .85). Rubric assessment of HWC literature resulted in moderate scores (56.7%), with study design scoring higher than intervention design; within intervention design, T2D studies scored higher than obesity.

Conclusions

A novel research design rubric is presented and successfully applied to assess HWC research related to treatment of obesity and T2D. Most studies reported beneficial clinical findings; however, rubric results revealed moderate scores for study and intervention design. Implications for future HWC research are discussed.

Keywords

Health coaching wellness coaching obesity type 2 diabetes behavior change dietary guidelines exercise

“Rather than simply making general comments, we sought to develop a tool to bring consistency and objectivity to assessing HWC.”

Health and wellness coaching (HWC) is an intervention strategy, promoting healthy behavioral change and thereby minimizing potential for adverse health outcomes.^1-3 More specifically, HWC is a patient-centric process supporting individualized goals often related to eating well, exercising regularly, managing stress effectively, and identifying important resources to promote healthful living.⁴ An extensive and growing evidence-base for HWC exists describing prospects for both treating and preventing these disorders.^5,6 However, methodological questions related to HWC research exist. While a systematic review has shed some light on the definition of HWC,⁷ the HWC strategies applied during intervention are of particular concern in the present study.⁸ A systematic and effective assessment in this area of extant HWC literature is lacking.

There are over 100 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HWC interventions.^5,6 RCTs are widely considered the gold standard of original research required for advancing medical knowledge. However, RCTs can contain design shortcomings (e.g., uncontrolled concomitant treatments, underpowered, selection bias) impacting study quality and the unbiased results that are sought.^9,10 There are many evaluations of the quality of RCTs (e.g., psychological interventions by Temple et al.¹¹). Such evaluations of research allow policymakers, and clinicians, to make informed decisions about implementing psychological treatments in clinical services. Though assessment of quality for psychological interventions exists,^9-11 such inspection of HWC research does not. As HWC moves toward becoming an important and credible health and medical intervention, it seems reasonable and potentially valuable to develop a systematic means to assess relevant RCTs.

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the quality of RCTs in HWC research. Because a review of all available RCTs would not be feasible, this work will focus on some of the most pressing present health crises, obesity and T2D.^12,13 Obesity increases the risk of various cardiovascular diseases and other comorbid symptoms and diseases, while T2D is a chronic disease leading to life-threatening health consequences (e.g., atherosclerosis, renal failure, blindness).^14,15 Moreover, these disorders are linked, with obesity and subsequent insulin resistance leading to the development of T2D.¹⁵ Effective prevention and management of these conditions is necessary for optimization of well-functioning and successful contemporary healthcare systems. Therefore, it is essential to have credible research describing effective interventions for obesity and T2D. Such evidence may enable future HWC researchers and practitioners to learn from best practices in HWC research and provide valuable information for evidence-based practice.

To achieve the purpose of the present study, a comprehensive scoring system for HWC research was developed and applied. The HWC Research Design Rubric (HWC-RDR) with supportive criteria is introduced, and the evaluative review of obesity and T2D literature is presented. We chose obesity and T2D because there is a critical mass of research with these conditions being the most frequently studied in HWC literature.^5,6 Data from the HWC-RDR are used to illustrate the strengths of, and challenges to, HWC literature.

Methods

Overview

This project was completed in three phases. First, a systematic review of the health coaching literature produced RCTs describing HWC as an intervention for obesity and T2D. Second, a research scoring rubric was developed and then selected RCTs were assessed (for study design and HWC intervention design) using the rubric. Finally, rubric-generated data were inspected and analyzed to show trends and allow discussion of HWC research. Greater detail on these three methodological phases is provided below.

Literature Search Strategy

A two-part strategy was used to locate relevant HWC literature. First, all eligible articles in the Compendium of HWC Literature related to obesity and T2D were identified.^5,6 In total, 41 randomized studies in obesity and T2D were part of the original compendium. This set of studies was complemented by articles from personal libraries, for a total of 105. Second, a professional librarian using search strategies previously applied for the Compendium review,⁵ identifying recent articles (i.e., published after the compendium) to add to that literature. In the search, 177 additional abstracts were identified. All papers retrieved from the compendium and the new search were filtered using HWC inclusion criteria as applied previously.⁵ After the review of abstracts and removal of duplicates, 209 records were excluded. The remaining 73 articles were screened for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were as follows: The study had to be an RCT and the intervention of the RCTs had to have at least four coaching sessions over a four-month period allowing ample time for behavior change and providing an opportunity for coach-patient relationship development.⁴ As seen in the accompanying PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1), ultimately, 29 RCTs (18 obesity and 11 T2D) were included for review.

Figure 1.

PRISMA diagram showing article selection process.

Development of HWC Research Design Rubric

In general, the rubric was developed using previously established research quality assessment tools and input from HWC subject-matter experts. The HWC-RDR was designed for use with all HWC research and questions are not specific to obesity and T2D. There are two theoretical frameworks shaping the HWC-RDR: (A) Study Design, and (B) Intervention Design with each section having three subcategories.

A. Study Design Rubric

The study design framework was developed by reviewing recent articles on the evaluation of RCTs in psychological disorders (i.e., emotional distress in breast cancer;¹¹ eating disorder prevention;⁹ depression and neurosis.¹⁰ The aim was to generate a brief set of questions covering the most important aspects of HWC study design. The main conceptual areas included (1) the acquisition of participants (i.e., recruitment type, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, reporting sample characteristics, sample size determination), (2) RCT design (i.e., allocation, concealment, blinding, control of confounding treatment, outcome measure quality), and (3) statistical analyses (i.e., baseline comparison, intent-to-treat analysis, appropriate analysis, control for covariates). The study design section included 15 questions—scoring range 0–1 for 7 questions and 0–2 for 8 questions, with a total maximum design score of 23 (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Health and Wellness Coaching Research Design Rubric: Study Design Criteria.

1.Participant Recruitment	2.Random Allocation	3.Allocation Concealment	4.Assessor Blinding	5.Exclusion/Inclusion Criteria	6.#Excluded/Withdrawn Reported
0 = Convenience1 = Random	0 = Non-Random1 = Cluster Random2 = True Random	0 = not reported or not concealed1 = concealed	0 = not reported or aware1 = unaware	0 = no or not reported1 = Yes	0 = no or not reported1 = Yes
7.Sample Characteristics	8.Sample Size Determination	9.Active Controls	10.Baseline	11.Intent-to-treat	12.Quality of Outcome
0 = no or not reported1 = Yes	0 = not reported1 = mentioned2 = power analysis	0 = not reported, no, or usual care1 = Yes, low fidelity2 = Yes, high fidelity/sham	0 = not checked1 = not equivalent2 = equivalent	0 = no or not reported1 = Yes	0 = not validated1 = established but weak details2 = Validated
13.Appropriateness of Statistics	14.Control of Covariates	15. Confounding Treatment
0 = not clear1 = not fully justified2 = well justified	0 = no or not reported2 = Yes	0 = present1 = standardized across groups2 = no confounders

Abbreviations: HWC, Health and Wellness Coaching.

B. Intervention Design Rubric

Most items for the HWC intervention design framework were derived from the job task analysis of HWC.⁴ Input and discussion from HWC subject-matter experts were also sought and incorporated into item formation. The intervention design questions represented three main conceptual areas: (1) Coach qualities (i.e., education, training, and experience); (2) HWC program definition and design (i.e., client centered, goal setting, accountability, personal relationship, session length and number, and program duration); and (3) Adherence to HWC strategy (i.e., using established behavior change principles and ensuring fidelity of HWC application). The intervention design section included 13 questions with 0–2 response scores for a maximum score of 26 (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Health and Wellness Coaching Research Design Rubric: Intervention Design Criteria.

1.Coach Training	2.Coach Certification	3.Coach Academic Degree	4.Coach Clinical Experience	5.Coaching Experience	6.Personal Delivery	7.Coaching Frequency
0 = not reported1 = Trained but not NBHWC2 = NBHWC training or equivalent	0 = not reported1 = certified but not NBHWC equivalent2 = NBHWC or equivalent	0 = not reported or none1 = A.S. in healthcare2 = B.S. in healthcare	0 = not reported or none1 = 2 y in healthcare clinic2 = >2 y in healthcare clinic	0 = not reported or none1 = <1 y2 = >1 y	0 = not reported1 = group or >1 coach2 = 1 coach	0 = not reported or <1/mo1 = 1/mo for 3–6 mo2 = 2x/mo for >3 mo

8. Duration of Sessions	9.Duration of Program	10. Client centered	11.Coaching Process Defined	12. Client Coaching Adherence	13.Coaching Supervision
0 = not reported or <15 min1 = 15-25 min2 = >25 min	0 = not reported or <3mo1 = 3mo but <6 mo2 = >6 mo	0 = not reported or not done1 = Health coach designated goals2 = client directed goals	0 = not reported1 = partially with behavior change theory2 = comprehensive description of behavior change program	0 = not reported or <50%1 = 50-75%2 = >75%	0 = not reported or done1 = team meeting 1/mo2 = mentorship regularly

Abbreviations: HWC, Health and Wellness Coaching; NB, National Board.

Reviewing Process and Reliability Check

All studies were reviewed by all authors and general scoring system questions clarified before applying the HWC Research Design Rubric. Subsequently, the first author scored all articles using the study design questions from the rubric. The second author scored all articles using the rubric’s intervention design questions. The third author scored all included articles using all rubric questions. The third author scores were compared to the first two authors’ scores using intraclass correlation coefficients which yielded very good ratings of agreement (ICC = .85; CI95% = .68-.93).

Data Summary and Statistical Analysis

After scoring all included articles with the HWC-RDR, variables represented with continuous data were summarized as means, medians, and standard deviations. All categorical data were expressed in counts and percentages. Before parametric statistics were performed, normality and appropriate assumptions for each test were checked. For comparison of continuous data between obesity and diabetes studies, independent t-test with Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated. Relationships between variables were assessed via Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Alpha was set at .05 and statistical analyses were conducted using JASP .14.1 or SPSS 27. To assist discussion of best research practices, the top three rubric scoring obesity and T2D papers were identified and used to illustrate study and intervention design highlights.

Results

Descriptive

There were 29 peer-reviewed RCTs selected for review and HWC-RDR scoring, including 18 obesity and 11 T2D studies. Table 3 provides methodological highlights and outcome summary for all included articles.^16-44 The studies’ average HWC intervention time was 11.55 months (SD = 6.64, range = 3–24, median = 12). The average study sample size was 338.48 participants (SD = 390.26, range = 25–1755, median = 190). Only one included study (3.4%) was published before 2010. More than half of the studies (N = 16, 55.1%) were conducted between 2015 and 2018 (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Overview of Included Studies.

Diabetes	Population Studied	Sample (N)	Length (mo)	HC Sessions	Coaching Delivery	A1c	Weight/BMI
Chapman et al. (2018)	Community health center adults	588	18	41	Both	(+)
Cinar et al. (2018)	Adults, 30+ yrs old	302	12	5–7	Both	(+)
Fischer et al. (2012)	Low-income adults	762	20		Telephonic	0
Kempf et al. (2017)	Overweight or obese adults	202	12	12	Telephonic	(+)	(+)
Nishita et al. (2012)	Adults, 25+ yrs old, on 2+ DM meds	190	12	14	In-person	0	(+)
Patja et al. (2012)	Adults, 45+ yrs old	1129	12	11	Telephonic	0
Walker et al. (2011)	Urban adults	526	12	Up to 10	Telephonic	(+)
Wayne et al. (2015)	Lower socioeconomic status adults	131	6		Telephonic (and smart phone)	(+)	(+)
Willard–Grace et al. (2015)	Low-income adults	441	12	12.4	Both	(+)
Wolever et al. (2010)	Adults on DM medication, 1+ yrs	52	6	14	Telephonic	(+)
Young et al. (2014)	Rural community adults	101	9	5	Telephonic

Obesity	Description	Sample N	Length (mo)	HC Sessions	Coaching Delivery	Weight/BMI
Alencar et al. (2017)	Obese adults	25	3	12	Video conference call	(+)
Allman–Farinelli et al. (2016)	Young adults	250	9	7	Telephonic (text messages)	(+)
Annesi et al. (2016)	Adult obese women	110	24	32	In-person (individual-groups)	(+)
Appel et al. (2011)	Adults with 1+ CVD risk factors	415	24	33–49	Telephonic arm and In-person arm (individual-groups)	(+)
Ball et al. (2011)	Obese adolescents	46	5	16	In-person	(+)
Godino et al. (2016)	Overweight and obese young adults	404	24	Up to 10	Telephonic (social media, text, email)	(+)
Hersey et al. (2012)	Overweight and obese adults	1755	18	18	Telephonic	(+)
Huber et al. (2015)	Obese adults from primary care practice	90	6	7	Telephonic	(+)
Johnson et al. (2018)	Obese adults	30	4	12	Video conference and in-person arms	(+)
Leahey et al. (2013)	Obese adults, 40–60 yrs old	44	6	12	In-person groups (professional, peer and mentor)	(+)
Lin et al. (2016)	Middle aged women-metabolic syndrome risk	115	3	12	Telephonic
McCarthy et al. (2017)	Overweight and obese soldiers	435	3	Up to 3	Telephonic (or email)	0
Nguyen et al. (2013)	Overweight and obese adolescents	151	24	26	Both (indiviual-groups)	0
Rimmer et al. (2009)	Obese AA women with mobility disabilities	92	6	30	Telephonic (monthly support groups)	(+)
Rimmer et al. (2013)	Adults with physical disabilities	102	9	25	Telephonic	(+)
Simpson et al. (2015)	Obese adults	166	12	15	Both	(+)
Steinberg et al. (2017)	Overweight and obese AA women	184	12	12	Telephonic
Taveras et al. (2017)	At risk children	721	12	6	Telephonic or video call (texting)	0

Abbreviations: HC = Health coaching; BMI = body mass index; A1c = glycosylated hemoglobin; + = beneficial significant finding; 0 = no change; AA = African American.

HWC Research Design Rubric Scores

Total HWC-RDR score is the sum of study design and intervention design scores from all rubric items. Average total HWC-RDR score across all studies was 27.8/49 (SD = 4.73, range = 16–35, median = 28) or 56.7%. This overall score indicates moderate ranking for this HWC literature base describing intervention for obesity and T2D. The evaluated studies were better at general study design characteristics than planning and describing application of HWC. This is not surprising given that HWC is a relatively new clinical approach and evolving as an allied healthcare field.^45,46 Strengths and weaknesses for study design and intervention design, are described and discussed below.

The mean overall HWC-RDR score for obesity studies was 26.3 (SD = 4.99) and for diabetes was 30.1 (SD = 3.24). These data showed sufficient normality (i.e., non-significant Shapiro–Wilk tests) and homogeneity of variance (i.e., insignificant Levene’s test) to warrant use of parametric statistics. Obesity studies showed a significantly lower total research design rubric score than diabetes studies (t₍₂₇₎ = 2.22, p = .035, Cohen’s d = .85, mean difference = 3.76, CI95% = .28–7.23). This difference was a function of intervention design scores and is discussed below.

A. Study Design Scores

Average study design score for the 29 studies was 15.1/23 (SD = 2.42, range = 9–19, median = 15) or 65.6%. When looked at by condition, the mean study design score for obesity studies was 14.60 (SD = 2.66) and for diabetes was 15.3 (SD = 2.30). These data showed sufficient normality (i.e., non-significant Shapiro–Wilk tests) and homogeneity of variance (i.e., insignificant Levene’s test) to warrant use of parametric statistics. Study design scores did not differ significantly between obesity and diabetes studies (t₍₂₇₎ = .75, p = .46, Cohen’s d = .23) indicating similarity in research design.

Table 4 provides study design scoring for each HWC-RDR question while Table 5 presents rubric scoring raw data by article. For study design, low overall mean scores (<30%) were reported for recruitment, concealment, blinding, and intent-to-treat questions. High overall mean scores (>70%) were reported for allocation, statistics, covariates, and confounders while moderate scores (>30 <70%) were found for the remaining study design rubric questions.

Table 4.

Health and Wellness Coaching Research Design Rubric Scores by Item.

Rubric Question	Diabetes Data	Obesity Data	Overall
Study Design	(M + SD)	(M = SD)	(M + SD)
1. Recruitment	.09 +.30	.00 +.00	.03 +.19
2. Allocation	1.82 +.041	1.94 +.24	1.90 +.31
3. Concealment	.18 +.41	.22 +.43	.21 +.41
4. Blinding	.18 +.41	.33 +.49	.28 +.46
5. In/Exclusion	1.00 +.00	1.00 +.00	1.00 +.00
6. In/Ex reported	1.00 +.00	.94 +.24	.97 +.19
7. Sample	1.00 +.00	.94 +.24	.97 +.19
8. Power	1.27 +1.01	1.22 +.81	1.24 +.87
9. Controls	.55 +.82	.72 +.58	.66 +.67
10. Baseline	1.27 +1.01	1.22 + .94	1.24 +.95
11. Intent-to-Treat	.73 +.47	.83 +.038	.79 +.41
12. Outcomes	1.00 +.00	1.06 +.24	1.03 +.19
13. Statistics	1.67 +.51	1.83 +.38	1.76 +.44
14. Covariates	1.09 +1.05	1.67 +.77	1.45 +.91
15. Confounders	1.82 +.41	1.39 +.85	1.55 +.74

INTERVENTION DESIGN
1. Coach training	1.00 +.00	.65 +.49	.79 +.42
2. Certification	.00 +.00	.00 +.00	.00 +.00
3. Education	1.55 +.82	1.29 +.92	1.39 +.86
4. Clinical experience	.91 +.54	.41 +.62	.61 +.63
5. Coaching experience	.27 +.64	.12 +.33	.18 +.48
6. Method of delivery	1.73 +.47	1.47 +.72	1.57 +.63
7. Session frequency	1.36 +.67	1.53 +.72	1.46 +.69
8. Session duration	1.18 +.98	.59 +.71	.82 +.86
9. Program length	2.00 +.00	1.65 +.49	1.79 +.42
10. Client-centered	1.73 +.47	1.24 +.75	1.43 +.69
11. Coaching defined	1.46 +.52	1.06 +.66	1.21 +.63
12. Session adherence	1.27 +.91	.65 +.86	.89 +.92
13. Supervision/Fidelity	1.00 +.78	.53 +.87	.71 +.86

Table 5.

Health and Wellness Coaching Research Design Rubric Scores by Randomized Controlled Trials.

Diabetes	Design Score (23)	Intervention Score (26)	Total Score (53)
Chapman et al. (2018)	14	14	28
Cinar et al. (2018)	15	17	32
Fischer et al. (2012)	17	12	29
Kempf et al. (2017)	19	12	31
Nishita et al. (2012)	15	19	34
Patja et al. (2012)	15	19	34
Walker et al. (2011)	13	10	24
Wayne et al. (2015)	14	17	31
Willard–Grace et al. (2015)	17	12	29
Wolever et al. (2010)	12	21	33
Young et al. (2014)	9	17	26

OBESITY	Design Score (23)	Intervention Score (26)	Total Score (53)
Alencar et al. (2017)	15	9	24
Allman–Farinelli et al. (2016)	19	8	27
Annesi et al. (2016)	11	8	19
Appel et al. (2011)	19	14	33
Ball et al. (2011)	15	16	31
Godino et al. (2016)	17	6	23
Hersey et al. (2012)	16	10	26
Huber et al. (2015)	13	14	27
Johnson et al. (2018)	11	8	19
Leahey et al. (2013)	16	13	29
Lin et al. (2016)	16	15	31
McCarthy et al. (2017)	13	3	16
Nguyen et al. (2013)	18	8	26
Rimmer et al. (2009)	16	12	28
Rimmer et al. (2013)	15	15	30
Simpson et al. (2015)	16	19	35
Steinberg et al. (2017)	16	8	24
Taveras et al. (2017)	14	12	26

B. Intervention Design Scores

Average intervention design scores for the 29 studies was 12.9/26 (SD = 4.30, range = 3–21, median = 13) or 49.6%. Looking by condition, the mean for obesity studies was 11.3 (SD = 4.07) and diabetes studies was 15.5 (SD = 3.62). These data showed sufficient normality (i.e., non-significant Shapiro–Wilk tests) and homogeneity of variance (i.e., insignificant Levene’s test) to warrant use of parametric statistics. Obesity studies showed significantly lower HWC intervention design scores compared to diabetes (t₍₂₇₎ = 2.97, p = .0006, Cohen’s d = 1.14, mean difference = 4.45, CI95% = 1.38–7.53) indicating better HWC intervention design for T2D than obesity studies. Rubric scores were better on nearly every intervention design item in the T2D studies with noticeably greater scores on session duration, adherence, and fidelity questions. It is not clear why intervention design scores were better in the T2D studies. Future HWC research should model the best of these for optimization of interventions design in all HWC studies.

Table 4 provides HWC intervention design rubric scoring for each question while Table 5 provides intervention design raw data and scoring for each study. Examining intervention design questions, method of delivery, frequency, program length, and client-centered rubric questions rated overall high mean scores. Moderate overall mean scores were reported for questions related to coach training, education, clinical experience, coaching definition, session adherence, and intervention fidelity. Low overall mean intervention design scores were found for certification and coaching experience questions.

To allow clinical application or methodological replication, it is necessary to elaborate details of an intervention trial. Specific to HWC, Hill et al.⁸ and Olsen and Nesbit,⁴⁷ called for the need to clearly describe the intervention. Simpson et al³¹ provided an excellent description of intervention components and coaching theory. For many papers, however, a low intervention design score was often related to inadequate description of the HWC coaches and strategy. Regarding coaching background, very few studies described coaching experience, and none had coaches with certification. National board certification (NBC-HWC⁴⁸) was only established in 2017, so it was not surprising none of the included RCTs mentioned this valued but recently recognized national credential. Only 2/18 (11.1%) obesity and 2/11 (18.2%) T2D studies described employing health coaches with ample coaching experience. Wolever et al.⁴³ had a very thorough description of coach background and training. This is valuable because using well-trained and experienced coaches seems essential to providing a quality intervention.

Publication Year, Sample Size, Intervention Length

Total HWC-RDR score was negatively related to publication year (r = −.43, p = .02, CI95% = −.07 to −.69) indicating more recent publications were associated with lower overall HWC Research Design Rubric scores. Non-significant correlations were found between total rubric score and sample size (r = −.36, p = .06) and intervention length (r = .04, p = .85).

It is interesting to note that the best scoring articles from this review were conducted in the late 2000s and early 2010s. A negative correlation between year of publication and rubric score implies a decline in quality of study design in recent publications. One possible explanation is the recent increase in internet publications contributing to quality decline⁴⁹ while pressure to publish may also be lowering research quality.⁵⁰ Alternatively, this may represent a small sample anomaly with a timeline of only 10 years reflected in the analysis.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the quality of RCTs focusing on HWC in obesity and T2D. Using the generated HWC-RDR, the evaluation revealed key strengths and areas of improvements for future research. The HWC-RDR is a usable instrument in this context. A key strength is that evaluates the study design element as well as the intervention design, which are both critical to the quality of an RCT in HWC. The usability of the rubric extends past the fields of obesity and T2D and may also be given consideration when designing new RCTs in the field across a range of disorders.

The reviewed RCTs in the present studies revealed several study design strengths. For example, with over 300 participants on average, most examined studies were well powered to detect small to medium effect sizes. Sample sizes were, in most studies, well justified using a priori power analyses. While participant recruitment was mostly via convenient sampling, most studies used random assignment to groups as opposed to cluster random sampling. It is also worth noting that top scoring articles recruited from primary care^19,31 or clinical settings.²⁰ Recruiting from a place of sufficient patient flow rather than a less centralized approach (e.g., posters, online ads) appears an important study design characteristic. One consideration for future improvement may be the inclusion of underrepresented or minoritized groups, as only 3 studies^36,41,42 focused on a lower economic status population. Data from diverse samples may provide a more externally valid picture of the effectiveness of HWC.

The review of the studies also included areas for study design improvements. For example, strategies to blind researchers and participants for allocation or measurement purposes were rarely applied in these studies. An exception was Ball et al.,²⁰ who had a biostatistician perform randomization to groups and only revealed this information to intervention providers, but not to the participants or research team. Appel and colleagues¹⁹ also blinded assessors to condition by training these staff without allocation knowledge to perform necessary measurements. While a HWC study can never be fully blinded (i.e., coaches and participants inherently know they are involved in treatment), it is valuable to apply available blinding strategies to limit potential for bias towards intervention effectiveness. For most included studies, statistical analyses were well justified and often controlled for important covariates. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed in many of these RCTs. These studies were conducted in several countries (e.g., US, Canada, Denmark, Turkey), enhancing cross-cultural generalizability of findings. In summary, many of these RCTs applied well-conceived study design characteristics.

In terms of intervention design, the reviewed studies generally scored well on number and duration of HWC sessions and program length. This finding is undoubtedly related to our requirement of a minimal program length (i.e., 4 months) and number of sessions for inclusion consideration. These variables provided good potential for a successful coaching process while allowing development of a coach-patient relationship.^3,4 Adherence to a health coaching strategy and monitoring of health coaching integrity/fidelity were questions receiving moderate rubric scores. Monitoring HWC integrity involves assessing coaching quality (e.g., use of open-ended questions, active listening skills, reflection techniques) and use of specific behavioral change techniques (e.g., motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy).^4,31,51 Only 4/18 (22.2%) obesity studies and 2/11 (18.2%) T2D studies reported assessing coaching intervention fidelity which is best done by recording and rating coaching sessions. This process was occasionally done^20,39 with Nashita et al.³⁸ transcribing randomly identified sessions and having coach quality rating of sessions by three independent researchers. Wolever et al.⁴³ also described and performed a form of HWC intervention check. Fidelity evaluation of motivational interviewing,⁵² applied in several MI-focused HWC studies,^20,31,53 is an excellent example of assessing intervention integrity. For example, Sohl and colleagues⁵¹ recently developed the Health Coaching Index (HCI), an observational tool to assess health coaching fidelity, which may assist in designing and monitoring more effective interventions.

The selected literature, describing HWC intervention effects for obesity and T2D, presents largely positive clinical results. The evaluation of these RCTs, using the HWC-RDR, yielded moderate scores for both theoretical frameworks as well as for overall score. These findings help us to better understand this HWC research, making it possible to suggest these methodological strategies for adoption consideration by future HWC studies:

1. Fully and carefully describe coach characteristics (e.g., training, education, experience, certification) and the HWC intervention (e.g., behavior change strategies).

2. Assess HWC intervention fidelity, using intervention checks and established tools (e.g., HCI),⁵⁰ to ascertain proper delivery of the service

3. Isolate the HWC intervention using controls whenever possible. When HWC is programmatically combined with other lifestyle interventions (e.g., planned dietary change or exercise), the pure effect of HWC becomes difficult to understand.

4. Use allocation concealment and assessor blinding as these methodological techniques are often easy to apply.

5. Use intent-to-treat analysis to allow a fair and unbiased reporting of HWC treatment results. Data can be presented both as “completers” and intent-to-treat analyses.

Application of these research design recommendations should improve the consistency and quality of future HWC research. Accordingly, the HWC-RDR can be useful to not only assess existing research, but also for informing the design of future study. Ideally, the HWC-RDR will evolve and become a better tool for these purposes. The hope is an expanding, high-quality literature base will better define the scope and best practices required to optimize effectiveness of HWC intervention for obesity, T2D, and other lifestyle-related disorders.

Limitations

The present work presented a novel rubric, which may benefit from further testing. While we assessed the reliability of the rubric through inter-rater scoring and expert input, efforts to provide a higher level of validation should be made with future use. Additionally, we chose to limit our analysis to obesity and T2D studies. This may have jeopardized the generalizability of the present findings as it is also possible studies of other patient populations (e.g., depression or cancer) may score differently using the HWC-RDR. Future research in those patient populations may reveal more generalizable information and should be the target of future research. Scoring bias may also have been introduced by limiting the included studies to RCTs. Other research designs (e.g., case series or pre-post cohort studies) may provide important information about the effectiveness of HWC interventions. However, rubric scores may be different for non-RCT designs and we did not examine these studies. In summary, the HWC-RDR should be a useful tool that will benefit from additional validation and more widespread application. We invite others to test the HWC-RDR and make modifications if needed. For example, some may argue that the concept of coaching fidelity is only marginally captured in the scale (e.g., by the item “Supervision/Fidelity”) because not all components of fidelity may be covered (e.g., autonomy, agency).⁵¹ Future work in this area may be warranted. Nonetheless, it is our hope that the systematic examination of published HWC research in the present study and the HWC-RDR will be provide practical implications to HWC practitioners and researchers.

Conclusions

The primary objective of this study was to assess HWC research done with obese and T2D patients. Rather than simply making general comments, we sought to develop a tool to bring consistency and objectivity to assessing HWC. The HWC-RDR is a 28-item rubric permitting systematic evaluation of HWC research strengths and weaknesses within two theoretical frameworks (i.e., study design and intervention design). Other clinical fields have applied similar evaluative processes to their evidence-base.^9-11 Assessment of literature can be valuable to future research, particularly with an emerging field such as HWC.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Sebastian Harenberg

Gary A. Sforzo

References

Uusitupa

Khan

Viguiliouk

, et al. Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes by lifestyle changes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2019;11:2611.

Kennel

. Health and wellness coaching improves weight and nutrition behaviors. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2018;12:448-450.

Pirbaglou

Katz

Motamed

Pludwinski

Walker

Ritvo

. Personal health coaching as a Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus self-management strategy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32:1613-1626.

Wolever

Jordan

Lawson

Moore

. Advancing a new evidence-based profession in healthcare: Job task analysis for health coaches. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:205.

Sforzo

Kaye

Todorova

, et al. Compendium of the health and wellness coaching. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2017;12:436-447.

Sforzo

Kaye

Harenberg

, et al. Compendium of the health and wellness coaching: 2019 Addendum. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2019;14:155-168.

Wolever

Simmons

Sforzo

, et al. A systematic review of the literature on health and wellness coaching: Defining a key behavioral intervention in healthcare. Glob Adv Health Med. 2013;2:38-57.

Hill

Richardson

Skouteris

. Do we know how to design effective health coaching interventions: A systematic review of the state of the literature. Am J Health Promot. 2015;29:e158-e168.

Watson

Goodman

McLagan

, et al. Quality of randomized controlled trials in eating disorder prevention. Int J Eat Disord. 2017;50:459-470.

10.

Moncrieff

Churchill

Drummond

McGuire

. Development of a quality assessment instrument for trials of treatments for depression and neurosis. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2001;10:126-133.

11.

Temple

Salmon

Tudur Smith

Huntley

Byrne

Fisher

. The questionable efficacy of manualized psychological treatments for distressed breast cancer patients: An individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2020;80:101883.

12.

International Diabetes Federation . IDF Diabetes Atlas. 8th ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2019. http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas

13.

Fleming

Robinson

, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2013. Lancet. 2014;384:766-781.

14.

Shulman

. Ectopic fat in insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and cardiometabolic disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1131-1141.

15.

Noakes

. So what comes first: The obesity or the insulin resistance? And which is more important? Clin Chem. 2018;64:7-9.

16.

Alencar

Johnson

Mullur

Gray

Gutierrez

Korosteleva

. The efficacy of a telemedicine-based weight loss program with video conference health coaching support. J Telemed Telecare. 2019;25:151-157.

17.

Allman-Farinelli

Partridge

McGeechan

, et al. A mobil health lifestyle program for prenvetion of weight gain in young adults (TXT2BFiT): Nine-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4:e78.

18.

Annesi

Johnson

Tennant

Porter

Mcewen

. Weight loss and the prevention of weight regain: Evaluation of a treatment model of exercise self-regulation generalizing to controlled eating. Perm J. 2016;20:4-17.

19.

Appel

Clark

Yeh

, et al. Comparative effectiveness of weight-loss interventions in clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1959-1968.

20.

Ball

GDC

Mackenzie-Rife

Newton

, et al. One-on-one lifestyle coaching for managing adolescent obesity: Findings from a pilot, randomized controlled trial in a real-world setting. Paediatr Child Health. 2011;16:345-350.

21.

Godino

Merchant

Norman

, et al. Using social and mobile tools for weight loss in overweight and obese young adults (Project SMART): A 2-year parallel group randomized controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endo. 2016;4:747-755.

22.

Hersey

Khavjou

Strange

, et al. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a community weight management intervention: A randomized controlled trial of the health weight management demonstration. Prev Med. 2012;54:42-49.

23.

Huber

Shapiro

Wieland

, et al. Telecoaching plus a portion control plate for weight care management: A randomized trial. Trials. 2015;16:323.

24.

Johnson

Alencar

Coakley

, et al. Telemedicine-based health coaching is effective for inducing weight loss and improving metabolic markers. Telemed E-Health. 2018;25(2):85-92.

25.

Leahey

Wing

. A randomized controlled pilot study testing three types of health coaches for obesity treatment: Professional, peer, and mentor. Obesity. 2013;21:928-934.

26.

Lin

Chiang

McLean

, et al. Effects of telephone-based motivational interviewing in lifestyle modification program on reducing metabolic risks in middle-age and older women with metabolic syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;60:12-23.

27.

McCarthy

Elshaw

Szekely

Hobbs

. A randomized controlled trial of nurse coaching vs. herbal supplementation for weight reduction in soldiers. Mil Med. 2017;182:274-280.

28.

Nguyen

O’Connor

Steinbeck

, et al. Two-year outcomes for an adjunctive telephone coaching and electronic contact intervention for adolescent weight-loss maintenance: The Loozit randomized controlled trial. Int J Obes. 2013;37:468-472.

29.

Rimmer

Rauworth

Wang

Heckerling

Gerber

. A randomized controlled trial to increase physical activity and reduce obesity in a predominantly African American group of women with mobility disabilities and severe obesity. Prev Med. 2009;48:473-479.

30.

Rimmer

Wang

Pellegrini

Lullo

Gerber

. Telehealth weight management intervention for adults with physical disabilities: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;92:1084-1094.

31.

Simpson

McNamara

Shaw

, et al. A feasibility randomized controlled trial of a motivational interviewing-based intervention for weight loss maintenance in adults. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:50-378.

32.

Steinberg

Christy

Batch

, et al. Preventing weight gain improves sleep quality among black women: Results from a RTC. Ann Behav Med. 2017;51:555-566.

33.

Taveras

Marshall

Sharifi

, et al. Comparative effectiveness of clinical-community child obesity interventions: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:e171325.

34.

Chapman

Browning

Enticott

, et al. Effect of a health coach intervention for the management of individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in China: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. Front Public Health. 2018;6:1-14.

35.

Cinar

Freeman

Schou

. A new complementary approach for oral health and diabetes management: Health coaching. Int Dent J. 2018;68:54-64.

36.

Fischer

Eisert

Everhart

, et al. Nurse run, telephone-based outreach to improve lipids in people with diabetes. Am J Manag Care. 2012;18:77-84.

37.

Kempf

Altpeter

Berger

, et al. Efficacy of the telemedical lifestyle intervention program TeLiPro in advanced states of Type 2 Diabetes: A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2017;40:863-871.

38.

Nashita

Cardazone

Uehara

Tom

. Empowered diabetes management: Life coaching and pharmacist counseling for employed adults with diabetes. Health Educ Behav. 2012;40:581-591.

39.

Patja

Absetz

Auvinen

, et al. Health coaching by telephony to support self-care in chronic diseases: Coninical outcomes from the TERVA randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:147.

40.

Walker

Shmukler

Ullman

Blanco

Scollan-Koliopoulus

Cohen

. Results of a successful telephonic intervention to improve diabetes control in urban adults: A randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:2-7.

41.

Wayne

Perez

Kaplan

Ritvo

. Health coaching reduces hemoglobin A1c in Type 2 diabetic patients from a lower socioeconomic status community: A randomized controlled trial. Med Internet Res. 2015;17:10.

42.

Willard-Grace

Chen

Hessler

, et al. Health coaching by medical assistants to improve control of diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia in low-income patients: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13:130-138.

43.

Wolever

Dreusicke

Fikkan

, et al. Integrative health coaching for patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Educat. 2010;36:629-639.

44.

Young

Miyamoto

Ward

Dharmar

Tang-Feldman

Berglund

. Sustained effects of a nurse coaching intervention via telehealth to improve health behavior change in diabetes. Telemed J E-Health. 2014;20:828-834.

45.

Jordan

Wolever

Lawson

Moore

. National training and education standards for health and wellness coaching: The path to national certification. Glob Adv Health Med. 2015;4:46-56.

46.

Smith

Lake

Simmons

Perlman

Wroth

Wolever

. Integrative health coach training: A model for shifting the paradigm toward patient centricity and meeting new national prevention goals. Glob Adv Health Med. 2013;2:66-74.

47.

Olsen

Nesbitt

. Health coaching to improve healthy lifestyle behaviors: An integrative review. Am J Health Promot. 2010;25:e1-e12.

48.

National Board of Health and Wellness Coaching. www.nbhwc.org.

49.

Crowe

Carlyle

. Is open access sufficient? A review of quality of open-access nursing journals. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2015;24:59-64.

50.

Sarewitz

. The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature. 2016;533:147.

51.

Sohl

Lee

Davidson

, et al. Development of an observational tool to assess health coaching fidelity. Patient Educ Counsel. 2021;104(3):642-648.

52.

Kramer Schmidt

Andersen

Nielsen

Moyers

. Lessons learned from measuring fidelity with the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity code (MITI4). J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019;97:59-67.

53.

Linden

Butterworth

Prochaska

. Motivational interviewing-based health coaching as a chronic care intervention. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;16:166-174.

A Rubric to Assess the Design and Intervention Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Health and Wellness Coaching

Abstract

Objective

Data Source

Study Inclusion and Exclusion

Data Extraction

Data Synthesis

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Methods

Overview

Literature Search Strategy

Development of HWC Research Design Rubric

A. Study Design Rubric

B. Intervention Design Rubric

Reviewing Process and Reliability Check

Data Summary and Statistical Analysis

Results

Descriptive

HWC Research Design Rubric Scores

A. Study Design Scores

B. Intervention Design Scores

Publication Year, Sample Size, Intervention Length

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References