Diabetes Coaching for Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes: A state-of-the-science review and rationale for a coaching model

Abstract

Diabetes coaching is emerging as an important role in self-management and care. The conceptualization of coaching, and how to implement and evaluate coaching has not been articulated in the literature. The aim of the study was to review the literature to: (i) identify the components of coaching using a validated framework, including the description of the role of technology; (ii) describe the implementation and evaluation measures for diabetes coaching; and (iii) propose a diabetes coaching model for future implementation. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsychINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to January 2015. Two evaluators independently screened and extracted data from eligible studies for descriptions of coaching. Eight trials met the selection criteria, with no consistency in the core components of coaching. However, elements noted across all studies included goal setting, diabetes knowledge acquisition, individualized care, and frequent follow-up. Only two studies leveraged technology for coaching communication purposes. Diabetes coaching is an intervention that can support the ongoing and complex needs of patients; however, implementation and evaluation strategies are limited in the literature. A diabetes coaching model is presented, derived from components identified throughout the literature with direction for implementation and evaluation approaches, and optimal integration into the healthcare system.

Full text

REVIEW ARTICLE
Diabetes coaching for individuals with type 2 diabetes: A
state-of-the-science review and rationale for a coaching
model
Diana SHERIFALI
Faculty of Health Sciences, Diabetes Care and Research Program, Hamilton Health Sciences, and McMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis
Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
Correspondence
Diana Sherifali, HSC-3N28F, McMaster
University, 1280 Main Street West, L8S
4K1, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Tel: +1 905 525 9140 extn 21435
Fax: +1 905 521 8834
Email: dsherif@mcmaster.ca
Received 24 October 2016; revised 15
December 2016; accepted 9
January 2017.
doi: 10.1111/1753-0407.12528
Abstract
Diabetes coaching is emerging as an important role in self-management and
care. The conceptualization of coaching, and how to implement and evaluate
coaching has not been articulated in the literature. The aim of the study was to
review the literature to: (i) identify the components of coaching using a vali-
dated framework, including the description of the role of technology;
(ii) describe the implementation and evaluation measures for diabetes coach-
ing; and (iii) propose a diabetes coaching model for future implementation.
The EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health
Literature (CINAHL), PsychINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Con-
trolled Trials databases were searched from inception to January 2015. Two
evaluators independently screened and extracted data from eligible studies for
descriptions of coaching. Eight trials met the selection criteria, with no consist-
ency in the core components of coaching. However, elements noted across all
studies included goal setting, diabetes knowledge acquisition, individualized
care, and frequent follow-up. Only two studies leveraged technology for coach-
ing communication purposes. Diabetes coaching is an intervention that can
support the ongoing and complex needs of patients; however, implementation
and evaluation strategies are limited in the literature. A diabetes coaching
model is presented, derived from components identified throughout the litera-
ture with direction for implementation and evaluation approaches, and optimal
integration into the healthcare system.
Keywords: coaching, model, systematic review, type 2 diabetes.
Introduction
Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are
responsible for overseeing the day-to-day management
of their diabetes; improving their self-management
knowledge and skills are foundational to diabetes care.
Unfortunately, the engagement of individuals with
T2DM in self-management programs has been marred
by the following barriers: (i) time-limited education and
support; (ii) minimal case management or individua-
lized care; and (iii) limited access and availability of
specialized diabetes programs.
1–8
Diabetes education
programs typically offer self-management classes of
short duration and generally do not provide long-term
support based on an individual’s needs and goals.
Rather, individuals in need of diabetes education and
Highlights
•This review critically examines the literature to provide an evidence-based model of diabetes coaching, com-
prising self-management education, case management, behavior change, and psychosocial support.
•This paper identifies implementation and evaluation measures, as well as opportunities to implement technol-
ogy to facilitate coaching.
Journal of Diabetes 9(2017), 547–554
© 2017 Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 547

support turn to other avenues for self-management edu-
cation and support that may not always be effective
(e.g. non-specialized healthcare providers), efficient
(e.g. appointment with primary care provider or hospi-
tal visit when in crisis), or evidence based
(e.g. unreliable websites).
8,9
A growing body of evidence pertaining to health
coaching for chronic conditions, including T2DM, sug-
gests that individuals achieve better health outcomes
with health coaching than with traditional education
and support programs.
10–15
Health coaching has
emerged from motivational interviewing techniques and
has been described as helping the individual to achieve
his or her goals by facilitating the learning process
within a framework of behavioral change, and by pro-
viding support and resources in order to improve a
patient’s own health.
16,17
Health coaches support
patients by increasing their motivation and enhancing
self-efficacy, reducing perceived or real barriers to tak-
ing action, promoting problem solving skills, allowing
individuals to choose an area on which to concentrate
efforts for change, and providing tailored feedback or
customized recommendations to individuals who are at
risk.
18–24
Techniques used in the coaching approach
include active listening, working with the patient’s
agenda, recognizing patient beliefs, values and readiness
for change, and behavioral change modification.
23–30
Health coaching has been shown to improve clinical
health outcomes (i.e. glycemic control), medication or
treatment adherence, healthcare utilization
(i.e. emergency department visits), and adherence to
evidence-based practices.
9,16,17,31
Despite the increase in literature pertaining to diabetes
coaching, the conceptualization of a coaching model,
how to leverage technology with this role, and how to
evaluate the implementation and effects of coaching
have not been articulated in the literature. The aim of
the present study was to review the diabetes coaching lit-
erature to identify the components of coaching using a
validated framework, including the description of the
role of technology used to facilitate coaching, describe
the implementation and evaluation measures for diabe-
tes coaching and, based on the evidence, to propose a
diabetes coaching model for future implementation.
Methods
Search strategy
The search strategy used in the present study was based on
a previous review on the effectiveness of diabetes coach-
ing.
31
In consultation with a medical librarian, a search
strategy was developed based on an analysis of MeSH
terms and key text words from 1946 onwards. A start date
of 1946 was intentionally chosen because it would include
the inception of various databases. Specifically, the search
strategy included combining diabetes coaching terms such
as “counseling,”“coaching,”“diabetes mellitus,”
“telemedicine,”and “consultations”with methodological
terms, and the English, published, peer-reviewed literature
wassearchedinelectronicdatabases(MEDLINE,
EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied
Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Central Reg-
ister of Trials, and PsychINFO. Reference lists from rele-
vant meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical
guidelines were also examined. Appendix I includes the full
search strategy across the various databases.
Study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment
All citations retrieved were reviewed using predeter-
mined eligibility criteria. Studies were included if they
written in English, published in a peer-reviewed journal
between January 1946 and 20 January 2015 and met
the following criteria: (i) were a randomized controlled
trial (RCT); (ii) reported data on adults aged ≥18 years
with T2DM; (iii) reported a diabetes coaching interven-
tion (in addition to usual care or self-management edu-
cation or support); (iv) the diabetes coaching was
conducted by a health professional; and (v) reported a
mean change in glycemic control to assess clinical effec-
tiveness of coaching (i.e. HbA1c). Studies were excluded
from the present analysis if: (i) they reported data on
subjects aged <18 years or who did not have T2DM;
(ii) they reported data on pregnant women;
(iii) coaching was not the primary intervention; (iv) they
did not report a change in HbA1c; (v) the study was
not a RCT or used a quasi-randomization methodol-
ogy, including cluster randomization; and (vi) there was
no statement that informed consent was obtained.
Title and abstracts were reviewed for relevance by the
lead investigator and assistants (Virginia Viscardi and
Johnny Wei Bai); full text inclusion and data extraction
were performed by VV and JWB, who resolved dis-
agreements through discussion. Data were extracted by
VV and JWB using a standard format; in cases of dis-
agreements, consensus was reached after discussion.
Items extracted pertained to study and intervention
characteristics, including implementation and evalua-
tion measures. More specifically, intervention character-
istics for each study were extracted using the Template
for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR)
checklist to ensure adequate reporting of the diabetes
coaching intervention, including whether technology
was used and how.
32
Specifically, the 12-item TIDieR
checklist includes: a brief name of the coaching
548 © 2017 Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Diabetes coaching review and model D. SHERIFALI

intervention, why and what materials were used, what
(procedure), who (provided the procedure or coaching
intervention), how, where, when and how much was
provided, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned)
the procedure was, and how well (actual) the interven-
tion was executed. To identify relevant implementation
and evaluation measures for diabetes coaching, an
adapted version of the intervention fidelity framework
for technology-based behavioral interventions by
DeVito Dabbs et al. was used.
33
Results
Search results
The search yielded 3003 titles and abstracts, with the
full text of 420 of these being reviewed (Fig. 1). Of these
studies, eight RCTs
34–41
were identified that met the
inclusion criteria. These studies were completed in
Turkey,
34
Korea,
35
the US,
36,38,40,41
Finland,
37
and
Australia,
39
reflecting different healthcare systems,
approaches to diabetes management, and view of
patient-centered care and coaching. In the eight studies
included in the present analysis, there were 724 partici-
pants at baseline (study sample sizes ranging from 18 to
101), with 353 receiving a coaching intervention and
371 receiving usual care (control). The mean age of par-
ticipants across all studies ranged from 53.1 to
65.8 years (see Table S1, available as Supplementary
Material to this paper).
Diabetes coaching intervention characteristics
Why, what and who
Generally, the studies included indicated some training of
healthcare professionals for coaching, comprising mainly
procedural training in diabetes content areas, motivational
inquiry, and behavior change. Using the TIDieR checklist,
coaching interventions were extracted to articulate and
understand coaching in each study (Table S2). The ration-
ale or “why”of the coaching interventions across the
included studies was either to directly affect glycemic con-
trol
34,35,39
or to influence glycemic control and/or diabetes
management through self-care behaviors and facilitated
behavior change.
36–38,40,41
All eight studies included an
education component to coaching;
34–41
seven studies
included a behavioral component
34,36–41
and two studies
included affective components to improve psychological
well being.
38,41
More specifically, the “what”of the coach-
ing interventions included goal setting and
attainment,
34,36–41
increasing self-care knowledge
34,38,40
individualized care recommendations,
34–41
and regular
and frequent follow-up.
34–41
Four studies had nurses as
coaches;
35–37,40
the remaining studies enrolled a dietitian,
social worker or psychologist, a medical assistant, and a
dentist.
34,38,39,41
Table 1 summarizes the coaching charac-
teristics in each study.
How, where, when and tailoring
Coaching interventions were deployed using various
strategies. Telephone-only strategies included multiple
sessions with frequency decided upon by either coaches
or participants and flexibility in duration, ranging from
15 to 60 min per session.
37,39,41
A combination of tele-
phone and face-to-face strategies was used in a staged
manner, with coaching commencing with frequent face-
to-face sessions, followed by telephone follow-up later
in the coaching intervention.
34,38,40
Combinations of
Internet, telephone, and face-to-face strategies were
used with the assistance of decision support platforms
(i.e. web-based applications) or the inputting of health
parameters, such as blood pressure, to facilitate coach-
ing discussions and interactions.
35,37
Studies identified that tailoring of coaching inter-
ventions occurred as a result of patient needs,
34,41
patient and provider discussions,
36–40
based on a phy-
sician’s assessment.
35
However, none of the studies
included discussed why patients discontinued the
coaching intervention.
Implementation and evaluation outcomes
Of the eight studies identified, only one identified that
modifications were made to the intervention from the
original plan. Specifically, the study of Frosch et al.
36
Records identified through
database searching
(n = 3003)
ScreeningIncluded Eligibility Identification
Additional records identified
through other sources
(n = 0)
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 1903)
Records screened
(n = 1903)
Records excluded
(n = 1483)
Full-text articles
assessed for eligibility
(n = 420)
Full-text articles
excluded, with reasons
(n = 412)
Studies included in
review
(n = 8)
Figure 1 Diabetes coaching review study flow diagram.
© 2017 Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 549
D. SHERIFALI Diabetes coaching review and model

planned to have coaching initiated with participants
2 weeks following enrolment; however, the mean (
SD) number of days to first contact by a coach was
35.9 32.0 days.
36
No other studies noted modifica-
tions to the intended intervention. Moreover, aside
from one study,
38
none of the studies examined how the
coaching intervention was implemented in the clinical
setting. Ruggiero et al.
38
noted that the medical assis-
tant coach was to follow a protocol for adherence and
would be examined randomly through audits and obser-
vations. However, the authors noted that the proposed
interventions were completed only 85% of the time, and
coaching protocols were followed 92% of the time.
38
Therefore, only Ruggiero et al.
38
reported any interven-
tion fidelity testing for coaching itself, and none of the
coaching interventions that used technology
35,37
pro-
vided any indication of technology intention to use,
adoption or acceptance for technology-based behavioral
interventions, as suggested by DeVito Dabbs et al.
33
All the studies examined physiological outcomes, such
as HbA1c, body mass index, blood pressure, or cholesterol
levels. Notably, of the eight studies, six noted a statistically
significant reduction in HbA1c,
34,35,37–39,41
whereas one
study noted an increase in HbA1c (0.1%)
36
and another
noted a non-significant reduction HbA1c.
40
Only four
studies collected data on self-care outcomes, such as die-
tary patterns, physical activities, medication adherence, or
diabetes knowledge.
36,39–41
Finally, four studies examined
psychosocial outcomes, such as quality of life, empower-
ment, and diabetes-related distress.
38,40,41
Proposed diabetes coaching model
Although there is limited published evidence of a diabe-
tes coaching model, in addition to the use of
technology, a new model for diabetes coaching is pro-
posed to recognize the necessary components and to
support implementation and evaluation. Thus, the pro-
posed diabetes coaching model (Fig. 2) comprises:
(i) personal case management and monitoring, empha-
sizing process of care issues and system navigation
related to diabetes; (ii) diabetes self-management educa-
tion and support, highlighting the need for knowledge,
skill acquisition, and problem solving related to day-to-
day management; (iii) behavior modification, goal set-
ting and reinforcement, using motivational interviewing
and theories to facilitate goal setting, attainment, and
behavior change; and (iv) general psychosocial support,
leveraging active listening and empathy to provide sup-
port. The diabetes coaching model approach is to
Table 1 Characteristics of the coaching interventions used in the eight studies included in the present analysis
References
What How Why
Goal
setting Knowledge Tailoring
Regular
follow-
up Telephone
Telephone
and face
to face Internet
Patient
needs
Both provider
and patient
needs
Physician
assessment
Cinar and Schou
34
×× ×× × ×
Cho et al.
35
×× × ×
Frosch et al.
36
×××× ×
Orsama et al.
37
××× × ×
Ruggiero et al.
38
×× ×× × ×
Varney et al.
39
×××× ×
Whittemore et al.
40
×× ×× × ×
Wolever et al.
41
×××× ×
The characteristics of the studies were evaluated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.
32
The 12-
item TIDieR checklist includes: a brief name, why and what materials were used, what (procedure), who (provided the procedure or coaching
intervention), how, where, when and how much was provided, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned) the procedure was, and how well
(actual) the intervention was executed.
Diabetes
coaching
model
Case
management and
monitoring
Self-
management
education and
support
Behavior
modification
Psychosocial
support
Figure 2 Diabetes coaching model.
550 © 2017 Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Diabetes coaching review and model D. SHERIFALI

provide flexibility and personalization, recognizing that
all four components are necessary for diabetes manage-
ment, but that each component may be required in dif-
ferent amounts and time, based on each individual’s
circumstances. It is also advised that a diabetes coach
be a regulated health professional, preferably a certified
diabetes educator with training and experience in moti-
vational interviewing and behavior modification.
Technology can be leveraged to facilitate each com-
ponent of the diabetes coaching model, either for the
purposes of communication for education or support
(i.e. text messaging, videoconferencing) or for monitor-
ing and observations of real-time biometric data
(i.e. fitness-tracking devices or glucose meters). Finally,
computer programs or smart phone applications are
also available to assist the diabetes coach in triaging the
frequency and/or intensity of follow-up, thus offering
timely and relevant interactions based on an indivi-
dual’s needs.
Finally, with articulation of the necessary compo-
nents of diabetes coaching, it is straightforward to envi-
sion the outcomes that may be assessed with each
component. For personal case management and moni-
toring, process outcomes may detect the effects of
coaching on this particular component, such as comple-
tion of necessary laboratory blood work, vaccinations
obtained, or completing necessary foot assessment. For
self-management education and support, outcomes that
would reflect this cognitive component of coaching may
include summary scales of self-care or knowledge. For
behavior modification, outcomes that would highlight
changes may include dietary pattern scales, physical
activity levels (i.e. accelerometers), or achieving goals.
Finally, for the component of psychosocial support, the
use of treatment satisfaction scales, distress scales, or
quality of life scales may illustrate effects on outcomes
that reflect the affective component of coaching.
Discussion
Diabetes coaching is not a novel health intervention;
rather, it is an intervention that requires further explica-
tion to understand where, when, and how it can support
individuals living with diabetes in an already complex
health system. The present review of the state-of-the-
evidence demonstrates that there is some recognition of
what diabetes coaching entails, but little agreement on
what constitutes diabetes coaching. At a very precur-
sory level, diabetes coaching comprises a variety of stra-
tegies, with most approaches comprising goal setting,
diabetes knowledge acquisition, individualized care,
and frequent follow-up. The proposed diabetes
coaching model reported herein parallels the findings of
Wolever et al.
42
regarding key behavioral interventions
for health and wellness coaching: patient centeredness
and collaboration, encouraging active learning, and
being underscored by behavior change theory and
human motivation. Thus, despite a lack of a consensus
definition of “health coaching,”diabetes coaching par-
allels the literature, with an emphasis on diabetes con-
text in addition to improved health and well being.
Furthermore, most studies included in the present
analysis demonstrated the effectiveness of coaching as
an intervention on glycemic control as an outcome
measure. However, future consideration regarding
coaching evaluation measures may align with compre-
hensive diabetes care measures, such as Healthcare
Effectiveness Data and Information Sets (HEDIS)
43
process outcomes related to achieving glycemic control
targets (HbA1c), retinal eye examinations, screening
and treatment for nephropathy, and achieving optimal
blood pressure control for diabetes according to the
recommended targets.
Finally, the results of the present study also highlight
that diabetes coaching is still exploring the role of tech-
nology, with only two studies leveraging technol-
ogy.
35,37
Moving forward, diabetes coaching may
include sophisticated Internet-based platforms or appli-
cations (apps) that support the collection and analysis
of behaviors and clinical markers to support patient
accountability, initiation, and maintenance of behavior
changes
42
. However, diabetes coaching may also use
technology similar to that used in risk-modification
studies that used technology to support one of the
major components of coaching: education.
42
Therefore,
skills-based training and knowledge acquisition may be
delivered and supported through standardized educa-
tional content via technology, allowing the diabetes
coach to focus on processes and components that
require carefully nuanced and tailored support
and care.
The present study is not without limitations. First,
although multiple databases for diabetes coaching liter-
ature were comprehensively searched, only studies pub-
lished in English were included. Second, only those
studies that demonstrated either clinical or statistical
significance for coaching were included; thus, the pres-
ent review is limited in the reporting of patient-relevant
outcomes in the literature, such as quality of life and/or
self-efficacy. However, the present study does have
strengths. This is the first comprehensive evidence-based
review of diabetes coaching using a complex health
service interventions checklist (i.e. the TIDieR checklist)
to explicate what diabetes coaching is. Second, rigorous
systematic review procedures were used that are
© 2017 Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 551
D. SHERIFALI Diabetes coaching review and model

consistent with conducting high-quality reviews, such as
comprehensive search strategies and citation screening
and data extraction in duplication. Finally, the present
study adds to the growing body of literature related to
diabetes coaching, specifically by describing the compo-
nents of diabetes coaching. As a result of the paucity of
evidence, additional research examining the fidelity of
coaching, including training, implementation, and
adaptation of diabetes coaching across different health
system settings, is also needed to consider the contex-
tual factors that may facilitate or hinder the adoption
and uptake of coaching at a system, clinical or patient
level.
Finally, further research is needed to examine the
structure, process, and impact of coaching on additional
diabetes-related outcomes, such as healthcare utiliza-
tion, quality of life, and self-efficacy.
Acknowledgements
DS is supported by an Early Career Research Award
from Hamilton Health Sciences. The author acknowl-
edges the support of other McMaster Evidence Review
and Synthesis Centre contributors, including Donna
Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Sharon Peck-Reid, Andy Bayer,
Maureen Rice, Meghan Kenny, and Rachel Warren.
The author also acknowledges the support of Virginia
Viscardi and Johnny Wei Bai in screening of the
literature.
Disclosure
None declared.
References
1. Holland SK, Greenberg J, Tidwell L, Malone J,
Mullan J, Newcomer R. Community-based health
coaching, exercise, and health service utilization. J Aging
Health. 2005; 17: 697–716.
2. Shojania KG, Ranji SR, McDonald KM et al. Effects of
quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on
glycemic control: A meta-regression analysis. JAMA.
2006; 296: 427–40.
3. Tricco AC, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM et al. Effectiveness
of quality improvement strategies on the management of
diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet.
2012; 379: 2252–61.
4. Narayan KM, Benjamin E, Gregg EW, Norris SL,
Engelgau MM. Diabetes translation research: Where are
we and where do we want to be? Ann Intern Med. 2004;
140: 958–63.
5. Kogan AJ. Overcoming obstacles to effective care of
type 2 diabetes. Am J Manag Care. 2009; 15 (Suppl.):
S255–62.
6. Hiss RG. The concept of diabetes translation: Addres-
sing barriers to widespread adoption of new science into
clinical care. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24: 1293–6.
7. Shah BR, Booth GL. Predictors and effectiveness of dia-
betes self-management education in clinical practice.
Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 74:19–22.
8. Chan BTB, Harju M. Supply and utilization of health
care services for diabetes. In: Hux JE, Booth GL,
Slaughter PM, Laupacis A (eds). Diabetes in Ontario: An
ICES Practice Atlas. Institute for Clinical Evaluative
Sciences, Toronto, 2003 Available from: http://www.ices.
on.ca/file/DM_Chapter14.pdf, (accessed 19 November
2016).
9. Yu CH, Bahniwal R, Laupacis A, Leung E, Orr MS,
Straus SE. Systematic review and evaluation of web-
accessible tools for management of diabetes and related
cardiovascular risk factors by patients and healthcare
providers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012; 19: 514–22.
10. Norris SL, Nichols PJ, Caspersen CJ et al. The effective-
ness of disease and case management for people with dia-
betes. A systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 22
(Suppl.): 15–38.
11. Leveille SG, Huang A, Tsai SB, Allen M, Weingart SN,
Iezzoni LI. Health coaching via an internet portal for
primary care patients with chronic conditions: A rando-
mized controlled trial. Med Care. 2009; 47:41–7.
12. Palmer S, Tubbs I, Whybrow A. Health coaching to
facilitate the promotion of health behaviour and achieve-
ment of health-related goals. Int J Health Prom Educ.
2003; 41:91–3.
13. Lawson K. Could health coaching build a bridge to a
new system of healthcare? Altern Ther Health Med.
2009; 15:16–8.
14. Hayes E, McCahon C, Panahi MR, Hamre T,
Pohlman K. Alliance not compliance: Coaching strate-
gies to improve type 2 diabetes outcomes. J Am Acad
Nurse Pract. 2008; 20: 155–62.
15. Olsen J, Nesbitt B. Health coaching to improve healthy
lifestyle behaviours: An intergrative review. Am J Health
Promot. 2010; 25:e1–12.
16. Huffman M. Health coaching: A new and exciting tech-
nique to enhance patient self-management and improve
outcomes. Home Healthc Nurse. 2007; 25: 271–4.
17. Wong-Rieger D. Health Coaching for Chronic Conditions
Engaging and Supporting Patients to Self-manage. Insti-
tute for Optimizing Health Outcomes, Toronto, 2011.
White paper
18. Look AHEAD Research Group, Wing RR. Long-term
effects of a lifestyle intervention on weight and cardio-
vascular risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes
mellitus: Four-year results of the Look AHEAD trial.
Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170: 1566–75.
19. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model
of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;
12:38–48.
20. Lindner H, Menzies D, Kelly J, Taylor S, Shearer M.
Coaching for behaviour change in chronic disease: A
552 © 2017 Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Diabetes coaching review and model D. SHERIFALI

review of the literature and the implications for coaching
as a self-management intervention. Aust J Prim Health.
2003; 9: 177–85.
21. Wolever R, Caldwell K, Wakefield J et al. Integrative
health coaching: An organizational case study. Explore
(NY). 2011; 7:30–6.
22. Vale M, Jelinek M, Best J, Santamaria J. Coaching
patients with coronary heart disease to achieve the target
cholesterol: A method to bridge the gap between
evidence-based medicine and the ‘real world’–rando-
mized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55:
245–52.
23. Dwamena F, Holmes-Rovner M, Gaulden CM
et al. Interventions for providers to promote a patient-
centred approach in clinical consultations. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2012; (12): CD003267.
24. Hill-Briggs F, Gemmell L. Problem solving in diabetes
self-management and control: A systematic review of the
literature. Diabetes Educ. 2007; 33: 1032–50.
25. Krishna S, Balas EA, Boren SA, Maglaveras N. Patient
acceptance of educational voice messages: A review of
controlled clinical studies. Methods Inf Med. 2002; 41:
360–9.
26. Marcus BH, Emmons KM, Simkin-Silverman LR
et al. Evaluation of motivationally tailored vs. standard
self-help physical activity interventions at the workplace.
Am J Health Promot. 1998; 12: 246–53.
27. Skinner CS, Campbell MK, Rimer BK, Curry S,
Prochaska JO. How effective is tailored print communi-
cation? Ann Behav Med. 1999; 21: 290–8.
28. Campbell MK, DeVellis BM, Strecher VJ,
Ammerman AS, DeVellis RF, Sandler RS. Improving
dietary behavior: The effectiveness of tailored messages
in primary care settings. Am J Public Health. 1994; 84:
783–7.
29. McDonald PW. Population-based recruitment for quit-
smoking programs: An analytic review of communica-
tion variables. Prev Med. 1999; 28: 545–57.
30. Pearson ML, Mattke S, Shaw R, Ridgely S, Wiseman S.
Patient self-management support programs: An
evaluation. Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-
vices, Santa Monica, CA, 2007 Available from: https://
www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/ptmgmt.
pdf (accessed 26 January 2017). AHRQ Publication
No. 08-0011.
31. Sherifali D, Viscardi V, Bai JW, Ali RM. Evaluating the
effect of a diabetes health coach in individuals with type
2 diabetes. Can J Diabetes. 2016; 40:84–94.
32. Hoffmann T, Glasziou P, Milne R et al. Better reporting
of interventions: Template for intervention description
and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ.
2014; 348: g1687.
33. DeVito Dabbs A, Song MK, Hawkins R et al. An inter-
vention fidelity framework for technology-based beha-
vioural interventions. Nurs Res. 2011; 60: 340–7.
34. Cinar AB, Schou L. Health promotion for patients with
diabetes: Health coaching or formal health education?
Int Dent J. 2014; 64:20–6.
35. Cho JH, Kwon HS, Kim HS, Oh JA, Yoon KH. Effects
on diabetes management of a health care provider
mediated, remote coaching system via a PDA-type gluc-
ometer and the Internet. J Telemed Telecare. 2011; 17:
365–70.
36. Frosch D, Uy F, Ochoa S, Mangione C. Evaluation of a
behaviour support intervention for patients with poorly
controlled diabetes. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 2011–7.
37. Orsama AL, Lahteenmaki J, Harno K et al. Active assis-
tance technology reduces glycosylated hemoglobin and
weight in individauls with type 2 diabetes: Results of a
theory-based randomized trial. Diabetes Technol Ther.
2013; 15: 662–9.
38. Ruggiero L, Moadsiri A, Butler P. Supporting diabetes
self-care in underserved populations: A randomized pilot
study using medical assistant coaches. Diabetes Educ.
2010; 36: 127–31.
39. Varney JE, Weiland TJ, Inder WJ, Jelinek GA. Effect of
hospital-based telephone coaching on glycemic control
and adherence to management guidelines in type 2 diabe-
tes, a randomized controlled trial. Intern Med J. 2014;
44: 890–7.
40. Whittemore R, D’Eramo Melkus G, Sullivan A,
Grey M. A nurse-coaching intervention for women with
type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2004; 30: 795–804.
41. Wolever RQ, Dreusicke M, Fikkan J et al. Integrative
health coaching for patients with type 2 diabetes: A ran-
domized controlled trial. Diabetes Educ. 2010; 36:
629–39.
42. Wolever RQ, Simmons LA, Sforzo GA et al. A system-
atic review of the literature on health and wellness coach-
ing: Defining a key behavioural intervention in
healthcare. Glob Adv Health Med. 2013; 2:38–57.
43. National Committee for Quality Assurance. Comprehen-
sive Diabetes Care: The HEDIS Measure. 2016. Availa-
ble from: http://www.ncqa.org/report-cards/health-plans/
state-of-health-care-quality/2016-table-of-contents/diabe
tes-care (accessed 14 December 2016).
Supporting information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the
online version of this article:
Table S1. Characteristics of studies included in the review.
Table S2. Coaching characteristics.
© 2017 Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 553
D. SHERIFALI Diabetes coaching review and model

Appendix I: Diabetes coaching search strategy
I.Medline-OVID
1946-January 20 2015
1. Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/
2. *counseling/ or directive counseling/
3. coaching.mp.
4. "one on one".tw.
5. (individual* adj2 counsel*).tw.
6. ("face to face" not (face-to-face adj2 interview*)).tw.
7. Telemedicine/
8. *Internet/
9. diabetes specialist nurs*.tw.
10. "telephone counsel?ing".tw.
11. *telephone/
12. 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 10 or 11
13. 1 and 12
14. 9 or 13
15. limit 14 to (comment or editorial or letter or news)
16. 14 not 15
17. limit 16 to English language
EMBASE-OVID
1980-January 20 2015
1. *non insulin dependent diabetes mellitus/
2. directive counseling/ or patient counseling/
3. coaching.mp.
4. "one on one".tw.
5. ("face to face" not (face-to-face adj2 interview*)).tw.
6. diabetes specialist nurs*.tw.
7. Internet/
8. telemedicine/ or teleconsultation/ or telehealth/
9. "telephone counsel?ing".tw.
10. 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 8 or 9
11. non insulin dependent diabetes mellitus/
12. 10 and 11
13. 6 or 12
14. *internet/
15. 1 and 14
16. 13 or 15
17. limit 16 to (book or book series or conference abstract or
editorial or letter or note)
18. 16 not 17
19. limit 18 to English language
PsycInfo-OVID
1967-January 20 2015
1. diabetes mellitus/
2. counseling/ or psychotherapeutic counseling/
3. coaching/
4. coaching.mp.
5. "one on one".tw.
6. (counsel?ing not genetic counsel?ing).tw.
7. ("face to face" not (face-to-face adj2 interview*)).tw.
8. telemedicine/ or computer mediated communication/ or exp
telecommunications media/
9. 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8
10. 1 and 9
11. diabetes specialist nurs*.tw.
12. 10 or 11
13. limit 12 to (chapter or "column/opinion" or "comment/reply" or
editorial or letter)
14. 12 not 13
15. limit 14 to English language
Cochrane Central-OVID
1991-January 20 2015
1. Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/
2. counseling/ or directive counseling/
3. coaching.mp.
4. "one on one".tw.
5. (individual* adj2 counsel*).tw.
6. ("face to face" not (face-to-face adj2 interview*)).tw.
7. Telemedicine/
8. internet/
9. "telephone counsel?ing".tw.
10. telephone/
11. 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10
12. 1 and 11
13. diabetes specialist nurs*.tw.
14. 12 or 13
CINAHL-EBSCO
1982-January 20 2015
S20 S18 NOT S19 Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S19 S18 Limiters - Publication Type: Book,
Book Chapter, Commentary,
Editorial, Letter Search modes -
Boolean/Phrase
S18 S15 OR S16 Limiters - English Language;
Exclude MEDLINE records
Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S17 S15 OR S16 Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S16 TX diabetes specialist
nurs*
Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S15 S13 AND S14 Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S14 (MM "Diabetes Mellitus,
Type 2")
Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S13 S5 OR S6 OR S8 OR
S9 OR S10 OR S11
OR S12
Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S12 TX telephone counsel* Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S11 (MH "Telenursing") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S10 (MH "Telemedicine") OR
(MH "Telehealth")
Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S9 (MM "Internet") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S8 TX face to face NOT TX
face to face N2
interview*
Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S7 TX . (individual*
N2 counsel*).
Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S6 TX coaching OR
one on one
Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S5 MM "Counseling" Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S4 A nurse-coaching
intervention for
women with type 2
diabetes
Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S3 S1 AND S2 Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S2 TX coaching Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
S1 (MH "Diabetes
Mellitus+")
Search modes - Boolean/Phrase
554 © 2017 Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Diabetes coaching review and model D. SHERIFALI