Client-centred coaching in the paediatric health professions: a critical scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Coaching is mainstream in business and is expanding into paediatric health care. With the focus on evidence-informed health practice, it is imperative to identify the key active components of interventions. Coaching is by definition a complex intervention with numerous components. The purpose of this critical review is to determine how coaching is currently defined, its prevalence in paediatric health care services and the frequency of the active components of coaching and to consider the findings of research to date. METHOD: A critical review of the literature was conducted. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were based on the International Coach Federation, which stipulates that coaching is a collaborative process that involves client-centred goal setting, facilitation, self-discovery and capacity building. Seventeen studies were selected for thorough review. RESULTS: Throughout the literature, there was inconsistency in how coaching was defined. Studies included various components, but overall the literature lacked cohesion. CONCLUSION: To advance the field, a list of components that foster client engagement was developed along with a comprehensive definition of coaching involving affective, behavioural and cognitive components and a path of research necessary to evaluate this complex intervention. Implications for Rehabilitation A comprehensive approach to coaching involves consideration of multiple components. A coaching approach can enhance engagement in rehabilitation interventions. The operationalization of holistic ABC coaching that encapsulates the important components, which are affective, behavioural and cognitive in nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".