Health coaching for parents of children with developmental disabilities: a systematic review

Abstract

Aim To determine the level of evidence on the effectiveness of health coaching for parents of children with disabilities. Method A systematic review approach, comprised of a comprehensive, librarian‐guided literature search; transparent study selection and data extraction; quality assessment; and synthesis of sufficiently similar data (per population, intervention nature, and overall level of evidence for each outcome using standard definitions) was undertaken. Results Twenty‐eight studies (13 randomized clinical trials) were included. Three health coaching approaches were identified: child‐targeted (most commonly applied), parent‐targeted, and a mixed approach. Overall, there is an insufficient‐to‐limited level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of these approaches. Interpretation High‐quality clinical trials using the parent‐targeted coaching approach are warranted. What this paper adds Health coaching parents of children with disabilities is an emergent practice. Child‐targeted, parent‐targeted, or mixed health coaching approaches exist. The child‐targeted health coaching approach is currently most applied. Parents of children with autism spectrum disorder are the most common recipients.

BRIGHT Coaching: A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of a Developmental Coach System to Empower Families of Children With Emerging Developmental Delay

“…In this paper, we have presented the background and design for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing a BRIGHT Coaching program to usual care for families of preschool-aged children with emerging developmental delays. In light of: (1) several conceptual innovations, accessibility, and patient/family-centeredness of the newly developed BRIGHT coaching model; (2) the shortcomings of current health care service delivery models and their consequences (e.g., long waiting periods, duplication in services, perceived lack of access to credible, accessible knowledge that empowers families (5, 6); (3) the lack of high quality evidence on the effectiveness of health coaching for parents of children with developmental challenges or disabilities despite the surge in use and application of coaching in clinical settings (31, 32), we believe the time is right to conduct a high-quality clinical trial of this size, scope and nature. We foresee that the results will be widely generalizable and applicable outside the context of the RCT and will contribute to the anticipated shifts in health care service delivery models for families.…”

Fathers Matter: Enhancing Healthcare Experiences Among Fathers of Children With Developmental Disabilities

“…However, despite the increasing involvement of fathers in caregiving, as well as its important and positive contribution to child development, research in the field of childhood-onset disability is still primarily focused on mothers (10)(11)(12). For instance, while the applications of family-centered approaches involving parents are on the rise, these are mainly directed toward and largely used by mothers (13). The need to consider fathers, however, and the challenges this can present are increasingly recognized (10).…”

Early Intervention Service Delivery via Telehealth During COVID-19: A Research-Practice Partnership

“…Research shows that telehealth may be an efficacious model to serve families in EI ( Cason, 2009 ; 2011 ), including families of young children with various neurodevelopmental conditions including autism spectrum disorders ( Sutherland et al, 2018 ) and Fragile X Syndrome (e.g., Hall et al, 2020 ). Coaching delivered through telehealth has been shown to significantly improve child participation and parent self-efficacy ( Little et al, 2018 ), and be highly acceptable to families ( Wallisch et al, 2019 ). However, data on the efficacy of coaching delivered via telehealth for families of young children with neurodevelopmental conditions has largely been based in research studies with strict interventionist training and participants who are interested in research (e.g., Ciupe & Salisbury, 2020 ), potentially reducing the generalizability of findings.…”