Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25984418›Full record

ArticleGlobal advances in health and medicine2015

National training and education standards for health and wellness coaching: the path to national certification.

Meg Jordan, Ruth Q Wolever, Karen Lawson, Margaret Moore

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Global advances in health and medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Role of the Health Coach in a Global Pandemic.Global advances in health and medicine · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Training in health coaching skills for health professionals who work with people with progressive neurological conditions: A realist evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

4 authors.

Meg JordanUnited States.
Ruth Q WoleverUnited States.
Karen LawsonUnited States.
Margaret MooreUnited States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this article is twofold: (1) to announce the findings of the job task analysis as well as national training and education standards for health and wellness coaching (HWC) that have been developed by the large-scale, collaborative efforts of the National Consortium for Credentialing Health and Wellness Coaches (NCCHWC) and (2) to invite commentary from the public. The rapid proliferation of individuals and organizations using the terms of health and/or wellness coaches and the propagation of private industry and academic coach training and education programs endeavoring to prepare these coaches has created an urgent and pressing need for national standards for use of the term health and wellness coach, as well as minimal requirements for training, education, and certification. Professionalizing the field with national standards brings a clear and consistent definition of health and wellness coaching and accepted practice standards that are uniform across the field. In addition, clear standards allow for uniform curricular criteria to ensure a minimal benchmark for education, training, and skills and knowledge evaluation of professional health and wellness coaches.

Indexed as

certificationcoachingHealth and wellness coachstandards

Identifiers

PMID25984418
PMCPMC4424935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.