Back

Health Coaching 2.0: Redefining a Key Lifestyle Medicine Intervention, PrioMed Pilot Program Evaluation

Langinkoski, A.; Hamalainen, J.; Rapo, K.; Rinta, M.; Aroviita, P.; Venojarvi, M.

2024-06-11 public and global health
10.1101/2024.06.10.24308710 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPreventing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is a global health priority, as they remain the leading cause of mortality globally, responsible for over 40 million deaths each year. Health coaching has demonstrated potential to improve lifestyle behaviors and health outcomes, yet its practical application is limited by inconsistent definitions and training standards. ObjectiveThis brief report evaluates the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a systematically defined health coaching model--PrioMed(R)--that translates the coaching process into evidence-based Behavior Change Techniques (BCTs), providing a structured and teachable framework for healthcare delivery. MethodsA single-arm pilot study (n = 25) was conducted in private healthcare in Finland. Two registered nurses without prior coaching experience were trained for three half-day sessions and used a 25-page manual to deliver PrioMed(R) coaching across seven phone-based sessions over six months. Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys, including the PROMIS-10 Global Health instrument. Paired-sample t tests and Cohens d were used to assess changes in physical and mental health T-scores. ResultsParticipants (mean age 61.9 years, 76% female) showed significant improvements in self-reported health. Physical health increased by +5.72 T-points (p < .001, d = 1.31) and mental health by +4.43 T-points (p < .001, d = 0.83), both indicating large effect sizes. ConclusionsRedefining health coaching through an explicit BCT framework appears feasible, teachable, and capable of generating meaningful health improvements within limited coaching time. The PrioMed(R) model offers a replicable approach for digital and nurse-led lifestyle interventions that warrants further evaluation in controlled trials and more diverse real-world populations.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.