Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31438937›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Effects of non-medical health coaching on multimorbid patients in primary care: a difference-in-differences analysis.

Vishalie Shah, Jonathan Stokes, Matt Sutton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Impact of a case-management intervention for reducing emergency attendance on primary care: randomised control trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. The Role of the Health Coach in a Global Pandemic.Global advances in health and medicine · 2021
    Article
  11. 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.

Vishalie ShahUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK. vishalie.shah@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4833-8102
Jonathan StokesUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Matt SuttonUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Horizon 2020 634288
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth systems, globally, are attempting to strengthen primary care to promote a population-health management approach to care provision, incentivising prevention and self-management. This paper evaluates the "Enhanced Primary Care" model implemented in a geographical region in England. Enhanced Primary Care introduces a new non-medical role, health coaches, to the traditional primary care team to provide additional support for patients with chronic conditions. We evaluate effects of health coaching on patient outcomes using a quasi-experiment.

methodsWe estimate the programme's effects on health status (EQ-5D-5L, physical functioning, psychological wellbeing, and resilience), health behaviour (smoking habit), experience of care (person-centeredness and continuity of care), and health care (primary care) utilisation using data from 3.5 million respondents to the national GP Patient Surveys between 2013 and 2017. We use a weighted difference-in-differences design to compare changes in outcomes over time between intervention practices and comparable control practices in the rest of England. We conduct our main analysis on multimorbid patients and additional analysis on all patients to assess population-level effects.

resultsFor multimorbid patients, we find reductions in psychological wellbeing (short and medium term) of -0.0174 (95% confidence interval -0.0283 to -0.0065), relative difference -2% from the pre-intervention mean; and person-centeredness (short term) of -0.0356 (-0.0530 to -0.0183), -4%. We find no significant effects on other outcome measures. For population-level effects, in the short term we find reductions in primary care utilisation of -0.0331 (-0.0448 to -0.0214), -5%. All other outcomes are not consistently statistically significant.

conclusionsOur results show that there is very little effect of health coaching on patient experience and outcomes in the short-to-medium term (up to 14 months). Introduction of Enhanced Primary Care was associated with slightly lower psychological wellbeing and person-centeredness amongst multimorbid patients (it might be initially difficult for patients to adjust to the model). However, it was also associated with a decline in primary care visits at the population-level (potentially freeing up practitioner time for more complex patients). The results raise important questions regarding primary care workforce changes advocated in the NHS Long Term Plan, and the time horizon of any benefits of prevention strategies.

Indexed as

MentoringAdultAgedEnglandFemaleHealth BehaviorHealth PersonnelHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultimorbidityMultiple Chronic ConditionsPrimary Health CareChronic diseaseDifference-in-differencesHealth coachingMultimorbidityPopulation healthPrevention strategiesPrimary careSelf-managementTask-shiftingWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID31438937
PMCPMC6704561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.