OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of motivational interviewing-based health coaching on a chronically ill group of participants compared with non-participants. Specifically, measures that could be directly attributed to a health coaching intervention on chronic illness were assessed. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study design. SETTING: A large medical university in the north-west United States. METHODS: One hundred and six chronically ill programme participants completed a health risk survey instrument prior to enrolment and again at approximately 8 months. Outcomes were compared with 230 chronically ill non-participants who completed the survey twice over a similar time frame. Inverse probability of treatment weights were used in conjunction with the propensity score to correct for selection bias. RESULTS: Compared with non-participants, programme participants improved their self-efficacy (P = 0.01), patient activation (P = 0.02), lifestyle change score (P = 0.01) and perceived health status (P = 0.03). Fewer participants increased their stages of change risk over time than non-participants (P < 0.01), and more participants decreased their stages of change risk over time than non-participants (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: These results support motivational interviewing-based health coaching as an effective chronic care management intervention in impacting outcome measures that could also serve well as a proxy in the absence of other clinical or cost indices.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of motivational interviewing-based health coaching on a chronically ill group of participants compared with non-participants. Specifically, measures that could be directly attributed to a health coaching intervention on chronic illness were assessed. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study design. SETTING: A large medical university in the north-west United States. METHODS: One hundred and six chronically ill programme participants completed a health risk survey instrument prior to enrolment and again at approximately 8 months. Outcomes were compared with 230 chronically ill non-participants who completed the survey twice over a similar time frame. Inverse probability of treatment weights were used in conjunction with the propensity score to correct for selection bias. RESULTS: Compared with non-participants, programme participants improved their self-efficacy (P = 0.01), patient activation (P = 0.02), lifestyle change score (P = 0.01) and perceived health status (P = 0.03). Fewer participants increased their stages of change risk over time than non-participants (P < 0.01), and more participants decreased their stages of change risk over time than non-participants (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: These results support motivational interviewing-based health coaching as an effective chronic care management intervention in impacting outcome measures that could also serve well as a proxy in the absence of other clinical or cost indices.
Authors: Richard L Skolasky; Anica M Maggard; David Li; Lee H Riley; Stephen T Wegener Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Jermy-Leigh B Domingo; Andrea L Macabeo; Mairine Kaiko-George; Denise K Ropa; Thessalonica K Sandi; Olivia A Pascual; Cori L Takesue; Diana Mv Shaw; Joseph W Humphry Journal: Hawaii J Med Public Health Date: 2019-06
Authors: Rae Jean Proeschold-Bell; Dori M Steinberg; Jia Yao; David E Eagle; Timothy W Smith; Grace Y Cai; Elizabeth L Turner Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: David H Thom; Jessica Wolf; Heather Gardner; Denise DeVore; Michael Lin; Andy Ma; Ana Ibarra-Castro; George Saba Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Roberto Benzo; Kristin Vickers; Paul J Novotny; Sharon Tucker; Johanna Hoult; Pamela Neuenfeldt; John Connett; Kate Lorig; Charlene McEvoy Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Christine S Ritchie; Thomas K Houston; Joshua S Richman; Heather J Sobko; Eta S Berner; Benjamin B Taylor; Amanda H Salanitro; Julie L Locher Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Richard L Skolasky; Lee H Riley; Anica M Maggard; Saaniya Bedi; Stephen T Wegener Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2013-06-29 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Tabor E Flickinger; Gary Rose; Ira B Wilson; Hannah Wolfe; Somnath Saha; Philip Todd Korthuis; Michele Massa; Stephen Berry; Michael Barton Laws; Victoria Sharp; Richard D Moore; Mary Catherine Beach Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-05-04