ArticlePatient education and counseling2021
Development of an observational tool to assess health coaching fidelity.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of observational coding systems to assess patient-healthcare professional interactions.Patient education and counseling · 2025Pooled it
- Integrating mind-body processes and motivational interviewing in health coaching: enhancing support for health behavior change.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Pilot study of implementing the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic systems in Survivorship (SHARE-S) program in coordination with clinical care.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- A Rubric to Assess the Design and Intervention Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Health and Wellness Coaching.American journal of lifestyle medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study describes the development of the Health Coaching Index (HCI), an observational tool for assessing fidelity to implementing health coaching practical skills.
methodsInitial HCI items were developed, adapted following cognitive interviews, and refined during coding training. Participants (n = 42) were trainees who completed a National Board for Health and Wellness Coaching (NBHWC)-approved training program and coached a standardized patient. Interrater reliability for the HCI was determined by calculating interclass correlations from ten videos coded by three raters. Construct validity was evaluated from 42 recordings using Spearman's Rho between HCI and Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) codes.
resultsThe interclass correlation (ICC) for HCI total score was 0.81, considered an excellent level of inter-rater agreement. Some significant correlations between HCI and RIAS codes supported construct validity (e.g., patient activation: Rho = 0.32; empathy: Rho = 0.36).
conclusionThe HCI total score can reliably be used to assess fidelity to health coaching skills, and the HCI has construct validity similar to the RIAS as a measure of patient activation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Adoption and further study of the HCI tool will allow for a more consistent implementation of health coaching skills, and may facilitate more robust training of health coaches for clinical practice and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.