↓ Skip to main content

Advancing a new evidence-based professional in health care: job task analysis for health and wellness coaches

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Advancing a new evidence-based professional in health care: job task analysis for health and wellness coaches
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1465-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Q. Wolever, Meg Jordan, Karen Lawson, Margaret Moore

Abstract

The pressing need to manage burgeoning chronic disease has led to the emergence of job roles such as health and wellness coaches (HWCs). As use of this title has increased dramatically, so has the need to ensure consistency, quality and safety for health and wellness coaching (HWC) provided in both practice and research. Clear and uniform role definitions and competencies are required to ensure appropriate scope of practice, to allow best practices to emerge, and to support the implementation of well-designed, large scale studies to accumulate a rigorous evidence base. Since the nascent field is replete with heterogeneity in terms of role delineations and competencies, a collaborative volunteer non-profit organization, the National Consortium for Credentialing Health and Wellness Coaches (NCCHWC), has been built over the past six years to support professionalization of the field. In 2014, a professionally led Job Task Analysis (JTA) was conducted with 15 carefully selected subject matter experts (SMEs) with diverse education and professional backgrounds who were practicing HWC in a wide variety of settings. After establishing a thorough list of specific tasks employed during HWC, the expert panel discussed the knowledge and skills necessary to competently perform the tasks. Subsequently, a large validation survey assessed the relative importance and frequency of each identified job task in conducting HWC. The JTA identified 21 job tasks as essential to HWC. In the subsequent validation survey, 4026 practicing health and wellness coaches were invited to rate each of the 21 job tasks in terms of their importance and frequency. A response rate of 25.6 % provided a diverse sample (n = 1031) in terms of background, and represented a wide variety of training programs from academia, industry, the private sector and associations. Per best practices, the subset of practicing HWCs (n = 885) provided importance and frequency ratings to be used to calculate task and domain weights that can serve as a foundation for a NCCHWC national certification examination. This JTA provides a significant step forward in the building of a clear and consistent definition of HWC that will allow for uniform practice standards and enable more stringent methodology to evaluate this promising approach within evidence-based medicine.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 113 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Psychology 13 11%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 32 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,814,181
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,227
of 7,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,273
of 351,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#24
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,883 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.