4.5 Article

The effects of nurse -led health coaching on health -related quality of life and clinical health outcomes among frequent attenders: A quasi -experimental study

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 103, Issue 8, Pages 1554-1561

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.02.026

Keywords

Chronic diseases; Coaching; Health promotion; Nurse; Patient; Primary health care; Quality of life

Funding

  1. city of Oulu

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A B S T R A C T Objective: To evaluate the effects of the nurse -led health coaching on health -related quality of life and clinical health outcomes among frequent attenders in primary healthcare. Methods: A quasi -experimental study design. A total of 110 patients were enrolled in the study. The experimental group (n = 52) received nurse -led health coaching and the control group (n = 58) received the usual care at primary health care centres in Finland. The data were collected before the intervention and 12 months via a questionnaire of health -related quality of life and clinical health outcomes as measured by health -coaching nurses. Results: This study found frequent attenders have low health -related quality of life. The nurse -led health coaching showed no differences in health -related quality of life between the experimental and control groups. However, the nurse -led health coaching had statistically signi ficant effects on the blood pressure and health -related quality of life among the experimental participants, especially in emotional role limitation and energy. Conclusions: This study suggests that nurse -led health coaching may lead to an improvement in the health -related quality of life and blood pressure among frequent attenders. Practice Implications: The health -coaching sessions with own health -coaching nurses and action plans support the frequent attenders'health promotion goals and implementation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available