• Harjit Singh, Gerard A Kennedy, and Ieva Stupans.
• The School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
• Patient Prefer Adher. 2020 Jan 1; 14: 147714921477-1492.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this review was to evaluate the modalities (e.g., face-to-face, telephone or electronic) of pharmacist health coaching providing the greatest improvement in patient outcomes, to enable a more comprehensive evaluation to be done and quality decision-making around health coaching modalities to be undertaken by pharmacists.MethodsThis systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. CINHAL, EMBASE, PubMed, PsychINFO and SCOPUS were searched (2000-2019). Included articles were reviewed for the modality used to health coach, the training provided, and the outcomes.ResultsTwelve papers met the eligibility criteria. A majority of studies included involved a combination of modalities of pharmacist health coaching. Four papers referred to face-to-face sessions, and one study used telephone coaching. In each paper, coaching led to an improvement in clinical and non-clinical health outcomes.ConclusionThe training provided to health coaches varied and in some cases was not reported. Inconsistencies in reports led to difficulties when comparing study outcomes. Therefore, conclusions about the modality providing the greatest improvement in patient outcomes and the most pragmatic health coaching modality are not possible. Studies that document the training, the modality, the outcomes and the cost benefits of coaching by pharmacists are warranted to enable a more comprehensive evaluation to be done and quality decision-making around health coaching modalities to be undertaken by pharmacists.© 2020 Singh et al.

4 keywords...

hide…