Participatory action research in the field of neonatal intensive care: developing an intervention to meet the fathers’ needs. A case study

Background: In neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) health care professionals typically give most of their attention to the infants and the mothers while many fathers feel uncertain and have an unmet need for support and guidance. This paper describes and discusses participatory action research (PAR) as a method to improve NICUs’ service for fathers. Our goal is to develop a father-friendly NICU where both the needs of fathers and mothers are met using an approach based on PAR that involves fathers, mothers, interdisciplinary healthcare professionals, and managers. Design and methods: This PAR process was carried out from August 2011 to July 2013 and included participant observations, semi-structured interviews, multi sequential interviews, workshops, focus groups, group discussion, and a seminar. The theoretical framework of validity described by Herr and Anderson’s three criteria; process-, democratic-, and catalytic validity were used to discuss this PAR. Results: Twelve fathers, 11 mothers, 48 health professionals and managers participated in the PAR process. The collaboration ensured the engagement for viable and constructive local changes to be used in designing the concept of the father friendly NICU.Conclusions: This paper contributed new knowledge of how PAR can be used to ensure that participants engaged in the field are involved in the entire process; consequently, this will ensure that the changes are feasible and sustainable

Can life coaching improve health outcomes?: A systematic review of intervention studies

BACKGROUND: In recent years, coaching has received special attention as a method to improve healthy lifestyle behaviours. The fact that coaching has found its way into healthcare and may provide new ways of engaging the patients and making them accountable for their health, justifies the need for an overview of the evidence regarding coaching interventions used in patient care, the effect of the interventions, and the quality of the studies published. However, in order to provide a clear definition of the coaching interventions selected for this review, we have found it necessary to distinguish between health coaching and life coaching. In this review, we will only focus on the latter method and on that basis assess the health related outcomes of life coaching. METHODS: Intervention studies using quantitative or qualitative methods to evaluate the outcome of the life coach interventions were identified through systematic literature searches in PubMed, Embase, Psycinfo, and CINAHL. The quality of the methodology was independently assessed by three of the authors using a criteria list. RESULTS: A total of 4359 citations were identified in the electronic search and five studies were included; two of them were randomized controlled trials and met all quality criteria. The two studies investigating objective health outcomes (HbA1c) showed mixed but promising results, especially concerning the patient group that usually does not benefit from intensified interventions. CONCLUSION: Because of the very limited number of solid studies, this review can only present tendencies for patient outcomes and a preliminary description of an effective life coaching intervention. The coaching method used in these studies aims to improve self-efficacy and self-empowerment. This may explain why the studies including disadvantaged patients showed the most convincing results. The findings also indicate that some patients benefit from being met with an alternative approach and a different type of communication than they are used to from health care personnel. In order to get a closer look at what is in the ‘black box’, we suggest that the description and categorisation of the coaching methods are described more comprehensively, and that research into this area is supplemented by a more qualitative approach