Download Report

Participant Experience of Workplace Wellness Coaching
Aimee Hubbard BA,1 Jennifer Ridgeway MPP,2 Julie Hathaway MS,3 Jason Egginton MPH, 4 Heather Preston MS, 1
Karleah Bradley BS,1 Emily Mettler BA, 5 Kerry Olsen M.D., 6 Matthew Clark Ph.D., 7 Kristin Vickers Ph.D., LP 7
Healthy Living Program1; Department of Health Science Research 2; Patient Education3 ; Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery4 ; Dan Abraham Healthy Living
Center5; Otorhinolaryngology6; Department of Psychiatry and Psychology 7
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
Abstract
Statement of the problem: Workplace wellness
coaching (WC) aims to improve employee health and
motivation, but there is a lack of published research
on participant perspective of the experience,
including factors that support or hinder personal
change. The perspective of the participant is needed
to better understand the coaching experience and to
improve the effectiveness of WC programs.
Methods
• The volunteers for this study were selected from a larger 100
participant study that evaluated wellness coaching
• To evaluate possible gender differences men were
oversampled.
• 30 participates were invited to participate, and 27 completed
an interview.
Intervention: 12-week on-site WC program using
motivational inquiry techniques
Sample Size and Composition: 27 adult employees
of a medical center (mean age 42.9 years, 89%
female)
Analysis Method: Interviews were audio recorded
and transcribed. Two unaffiliated investigators
analyzed transcripts using coding and categorizing
techniques and thematic analysis.
Results: Key themes emerged focused on personal
connections and accountability in the coaching
relationship and attitudinal and behavioral changes
attributed to coaching. Participants described
increased confidence, changed approaches to
wellness, and increased self-compassion. However,
initial participant expectations differed from the
intention of a WC model.
Conclusions: This study provides an understanding
of what was most valued by participants and how
coaching might impact behavior change. These
findings can inform coach trainings and the design of
future quantitative evaluations of WC programs.
Not
Interviewed Interviewed Total
(N=27)
(N=73)
(N=100)
Age (mean)
Race (%
white)
BMI (mean)
Marital
Status
(%married/
living with
partner)
Educational
attainment
What impact did wellness coaching have on you, if any?
• Participants attributed successful experiences to
What was most helpful about participating in wellness
coaching?
What was least helpful about participating in wellness
coaching?
Describe your relationship with your coach.
Has wellness coaching impacted your motivation?
p-value
41.8
.62a
24 (88.9%) 66 (90.4%)
90
(90%)
1.00b
27 (100%)
94
(94%)
0.19b
42.9
Sex (%
women)
Discussion
How has wellness coaching impacted your ideas about
wellness?
How has wellness coaching impacted your health behavior?
Table 1: Demographics
Study Design: Individual in-person interview
Measures Utilized: Semi-structured interview
informed by WC objectives
outcomes.1
Table 2: Interview Guide
33.1
41.5
67(91.8%)
32.0
32.3
0.54a
Has wellness coaching impacted your confidence in your
ability to make change related to wellness?
Now that you are finished with wellness coaching, what will
happen?
What would you say to someone considering participating in
wellness coaching?
Table 3: Interview Domains and
Themes
Wellness Coaching
Relationship
٥
٥
19(70.4%)
46(63%)
65(64.1)
0.49c
٥
High
School
0(0.0%)
College/
University 16(59.3%)
Graduate
School
10(37%)
PostGraduate 1(3.7%)
4(5.5%)
• Some participants expected a more directive
coaching experience. There is a need for coaches
and participants to openly discuss expectations and
roles at the start of the program and continuously
elicit feedback through out the program about the
balance of directive versus collaborative feedback.
• Outcomes emphasized the program’s impact on
attitudes, motivation and processes of behavior
change such as goal setting, cognitive change in
mindset and overcoming barriers. These findings
suggest new methods of assessing goals and
outcomes may be needed to supplement those
traditionally measured by researchers and expected
by employer sponsoring worksite programs, such as
weight loss.
• Study Limitations:
•Despite an attempt to oversample men, the
Interpersonal behaviors or
characteristics of wellness coaches
created a positive experiences and
for some an unexpected personal
connection
Wellness coaches fostered
collaboration and active participation
Participants were motivated by
feelings of accountability to their
wellness coaches
majority of participants were educated white
women, limiting the ability to generalize.
•Future research should consider the perception of
those who did not engage in wellness coaching or
who did not complete the full program.
References
4(4%)
Expectations and Impact
of Wellness Coaching
٥
43(58.9%) 59(59%)
٥
22(30.1%) 32(32%)
4(5.5%)
personal connections that fostered trust. These
findings are in line with those of Wolver and
colleagues3 who found that (integrative health)
coaches saw themselves as confidants and allies.
5(5%)
Note: a is unequal variance t-test, b is Fisher’s exact test,
and c is Chi- square test.
Changing Attitudes and
Approach to Wellness
٥
٥
٥
The collaborative approach to
wellness coaching was not what
some participants expected
Outcomes varied from person to
person and were cognitive and
interpersonal as well as behavioral
Participants gained confidence to
become healthier, learned to set
attainable goals, and became more
compassionate with themselves
Participants were able to reprioritize
their wellness
Some participants expanded their
definition of wellness
1. Clark M, Bradley K, Jenkins S. The Effectiveness of
2.
3.
Wellness Coaching for Improving Quality of Life.
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2014;89(11): 1537–1544
Ridgeway J, Hubbard A, Hathaway J, et al.
Understanding Participant Perspectives of Workplace
Wellness Coaching. Health Behavior and Policy
Review. 2014;1(3): 218-228.
Wolver R, Caldwell K, Wakefield J, et al. Integrative
health coaching: an organizational case study.
Explore (NY). 2011;7(1):30-36
© 2014 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research