Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32904668›Full record

ReviewPatient preference and adherence2020

Does the Modality Used in Health Coaching Matter? A Systematic Review of Health Coaching Outcomes.

Harjit Singh, Gerard A Kennedy, Ieva Stupans

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Assessing the Acceptability of a Co-Produced Long COVID Intervention in an Underserved Community in the UK.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Harjit SinghThe School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1070-5448
Gerard A KennedyThe School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ieva StupansThe School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8193-6905

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this review was to evaluate the modalities (e.g., face-to-face, telephone or electronic) of pharmacist health coaching providing the greatest improvement in patient outcomes, to enable a more comprehensive evaluation to be done and quality decision-making around health coaching modalities to be undertaken by pharmacists.

methodsThis systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. CINHAL, EMBASE, PubMed, PsychINFO and SCOPUS were searched (2000-2019). Included articles were reviewed for the modality used to health coach, the training provided, and the outcomes.

resultsTwelve papers met the eligibility criteria. A majority of studies included involved a combination of modalities of pharmacist health coaching. Four papers referred to face-to-face sessions, and one study used telephone coaching. In each paper, coaching led to an improvement in clinical and non-clinical health outcomes.

conclusionThe training provided to health coaches varied and in some cases was not reported. Inconsistencies in reports led to difficulties when comparing study outcomes. Therefore, conclusions about the modality providing the greatest improvement in patient outcomes and the most pragmatic health coaching modality are not possible. Studies that document the training, the modality, the outcomes and the cost benefits of coaching by pharmacists are warranted to enable a more comprehensive evaluation to be done and quality decision-making around health coaching modalities to be undertaken by pharmacists.

Indexed as

coachinghealthmodalitiespharmacy

Identifiers

PMID32904668
PMCPMC7457552

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.