A randomized controlled pilot study testing three types of health coaches for obesity treatment: Professional, peer, and mentor

Tricia M Leahey, Rena R Wing, Tricia M Leahey, Rena R Wing

Abstract

Despite their popularity, empirical support for health coaches is limited.

Objective: This study examined the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of three types of coaching models for obesity treatment.

Design and methods: Participants (N = 44) were randomized to 6 months of reduced intensity group behavioral weight loss (rBWL) plus one of three types of health coaches: (i) Professional (rBWL interventionist), (ii) Peer (group members randomly paired and coached one another), or (iii) Mentor (successful weight loser). Groups met weekly for the first 6 weeks, biweekly for the next 6 weeks, and monthly thereafter, for a total of 12 meetings. During weeks that group did not meet, participants emailed their weight loss information to their coach and received feedback. Coaches were trained on appropriate coaching strategies and feedback delivery.

Results: Retention was 95%. Participants emailed their progress to their coach 10.8 ± 1.9 of the 12 weeks that there were no group meetings. Coaches responded with feedback 94% of the time. Percent weight losses at 6 months were 9.6 ± 8.1, 9.1 ± 5.0, and 5.7 ± 5.6 for the Professional, Peer, and Mentor conditions, respectively. More participants in the Professional and Peer conditions lost 10% of their initial body weight (Professional: 56% Peer: 50% and Mentor: 17%), with a statistically significant difference between the Professional and Mentor conditions (P = 0.03).

Conclusion: These preliminary data suggest that combining a rBWL program with health coaching may hold significant promise as a cost-effective obesity treatment paradigm. Larger trials are needed to conclusively determine whether adding coaches improves weight loss outcomes in reduced intensity treatments and to examine which type of coach is most effective.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2012 The Obesity Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Participant weight loss.

References

    1. Brownell KD, Stunkard AJ, McKeon PE. Weight reduction at the work site: a promise partially fulfilled. Am J Psychiatry. 1985;142:47–52.
    1. Levitz LS, Stunkard AJ. A therapeutic coalition for obesity: behavior modification and patient self-help. Am J Psychiatry. 1974;131:423–7.
    1. Katula JA, et al. One-year results of a community-based translation of the Diabetes Prevention Program: Healthy-Living Partnerships to Prevent Diabetes (HELP PD) Project. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1451–7.
    1. Castro CM, et al. Physical activity program delivery by professionals versus volunteers: The TEAM randomized trial. Health Psychol. 2011;30:285–94.
    1. Heisler M, et al. Diabetes control with reciprocal peer support versus nurse care management: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:507–15.
    1. Helgeson VS, Cohen S. Social support and adjustment to cancer: reconciling descriptive, correlational, and intervention research. Health Psychol. 1996;15:135–48.
    1. Anderson RM, et al. Evaluating a problem-based empowerment program for African Americans with diabetes: results of a randomized controlled trial. Ethn Dis. 2005;15:671.
    1. Hibbard MR, et al. Peer support in the community: initial findings of a mentoring program for individuals with traumatic brain injury and their families. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2002;17:112–31.
    1. Malchodi CS, et al. The effects of peer counseling on smoking cessation and reduction. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:504–10.
    1. McPherson SL, Joseph D, Sullivan E. The benefits of peer support with diabetes. Nurs Forum. 2004;39:5–12.
    1. Vale MJ, et al. Coaching patients On Achieving Cardiovascular Health (COACH): a multicenter randomized trial in patients with coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(22):2775–83.
    1. Dennis CL. Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003;40:321–32.
    1. Wadden TA, et al. The Look AHEAD study: a description of the lifestyle intervention and the evidence supporting it. Obesity. 2006;14:737–52.
    1. McTigue KM, et al. Screening and interventions for obesity in adults: summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:933–49.
    1. Leahey TM, et al. A randomized trial testing a contingency-based weight loss intervention involving social reinforcement. Obesity. in press.
    1. Paffenbarger RS, Wing AL, Hyde RT. Physical activity as an index of heart attack risk in college alumni. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;108:161–75.
    1. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plunum; New York: 1985.
    1. Williams GC. Improving patients’ health through supporting the autonomy of patients and providers. In: Deci EL, editor. Handbook of self-determination research. University of Rochester Press; Rochester: 2002. pp. 233–254.
    1. Williams GC, et al. Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70:115–26.
    1. Hox J. Multilevel analysis: techniques and application. Lawrence Erlbaum; Mahwah: 2002.
    1. Wing RR. Behavioral approaches to the treatment of obesity. In: Bray GA, Bouchard C, editors. Handbook of obesity treatment. Marcel Dekker; New York: 2008. pp. 227–248.
    1. Jolly K, et al. Comparison of range of commercial or primary care led weight reduction programmes with minimal intervention control for weight loss in obesity: Lighten Up randomised controlled trial. BMJ. in press.
    1. Latner JD, et al. Effective long-term treatment of obesity: A continuing care model. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:893–8.
    1. Wing RR, Jeffery RW. Benefits of recruiting participants with friends and increasing social support for weight loss and maintenance. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67:132–8.
    1. Williams GC, et al. Variation in perceived competence, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction: relationship to autonomy support from physicians. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57:39–45.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever