Premium
Effectiveness of a nurse‐led, face‐to‐face health coaching intervention in enhancing activation and secondary outcomes of primary care users with chronic conditions
Author(s) -
MorenoChico Cibeles,
Roy Callista,
MonforteRoyo Cristina,
GonzálezDe Paz Luis,
NavarroRubio Maria D.,
Gallart FernándezPuebla Alberto
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
research in nursing and health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.836
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1098-240X
pISSN - 0160-6891
DOI - 10.1002/nur.22132
Subject(s) - medicine , coaching , intervention (counseling) , quality of life (healthcare) , health coaching , chronic care , anxiety , physical therapy , randomized controlled trial , self management , primary care , nursing , family medicine , psychology , psychiatry , machine learning , psychotherapist , computer science
Prevalence of chronic diseases and multimorbidity is rising, and it remains unclear what the best strategy is for activating people with chronic conditions in their self‐care. We designed a two‐group quasi‐experimental time series trial to examine the effectiveness of a nurse‐led, face‐to‐face, individually‐tailored health coaching (HC) intervention in improving patient activation and secondary outcomes ( self‐efficacy, quality of life, anxiety and depression symptoms, medication adherence, hospitalization and emergency visits ) among primary care users with chronic conditions. A total of 118 people with chronic conditions were recruited through a primary care center and allocated to either the intervention group (IG) ( n = 58) or control group (CG) ( n = 60). The IG received a nurse‐led individually‐tailored HC intervention involving 4–6 face‐to‐face multicomponent sessions covering six core activation topics. The CG received usual primary care. Data were collected at baseline, after the intervention (6 weeks after baseline for controls) and at 6 and 12 months from baseline. Compared with controls, the IG had significantly higher patient activation scores after the intervention (73.29 vs. 66.51, p = .006). However, this improvement was not maintained at follow‐up and there were no significant differences in secondary outcomes across the study period. HC may be an effective strategy for achieving short‐term improvements in the activation of primary care users with chronic conditions. Further studies with different methodological approaches are needed to elucidate how HC may improve and sustain changes in patient activation.