Background: The role of patient engagement as an important risk factor for healthcare outcomes has not been well established. The objective of this article was to systematically review the relationship between patient engagement and health outcomes in chronic disease to determine whether patient engagement should be quantified as an important risk factor in health risk appraisals to enhance the practice of personalized medicine. Methods: A systematic review of prospective clinical trials conducted between January 1993 and December 2012 was performed. Articles were identified through a medical librarian-conducted multi-term search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Additional studies were obtained from the references of meta-analyses and systematic reviews on hypertension, diabetes, and chronic care. Search terms included variations of the following: self-care, self-management, self-monitoring, (shared) decision-making, patient education, patient motivation, patient engagement, chronic disease, chronically ill, and randomized controlled trial. Studies were included only if they: (1) compared patient engagement interventions to an appropriate control among adults with chronic disease aged 18 years and older; (2) had minimum 3 months between pre- and post-intervention measurements; and (3) defined patient engagement as: (a) understanding the importance of taking an active role in one’s health and health care; (b) having the knowledge, skills, and confidence to manage health; and (c) using knowledge, skills and confidence to perform health-promoting behaviors. Three authors and two research assistants independently extracted data using predefined fields including quality metrics. Results: We reviewed 543 abstracts to identify 10 trials that met full inclusion criteria, four of which had ‘high’ methodological quality (Jadad score ≥ 3). Diverse measurement of patient engagement prevented robust statistical analyses, so data were qualitatively described. Nine studies documented improvements in patient engagement. Five studies reported reduction in clinical markers of disease (for example HbA1C). All studies reported improvements in self-reported health status. Conclusions: This review suggests patient engagement should be quantified as part of a comprehensive health risk appraisal given its apparent value in helping individuals to effectively self-manage chronic disease. Patient engagement measures should include assessment of the knowledge, confidence and skills to prevent and manage chronic disease, plus the behaviors to do so.

As rates of preventable chronic diseases and associated costs continue to rise, there has been increasing focus on strategies to support behavior change in healthcare. Health coaching and motivational interviewing are synergistic but distinct approaches that can be effectively employed to achieve this end. However, there is some confusion in the literature about the relationship between these two approaches. The purpose of this review is to describe a specific style of health coaching—integrative health coaching—and motivational interviewing, including their origins, the processes and strategies employed, and the ways in which they are similar and different. We also provide a case example of how integrative health coaching and motivational interviewing might be employed to demonstrate how these approaches are synergistic but distinct from each other in practice. This information may be useful for both researchers and clinicians interested in investigating or using behavior change interventions to improve health and cost outcomes in chronic disease.

A key mitigation strategy to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the development and roll-out of vaccines. However, pregnant and lactating people were not included in initial vaccine trials and this population is hesitant to receive the vaccine, despite contrary recommendations from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Understanding the reasons behind this hesitancy is vital to promote vaccine uptake. We surveyed pregnant people in California from December 2020 to January 2021 (n = 387) to describe cognitions and decision-making regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Using descriptive, regression-based analyses, we examined rates of planned uptake and reasoning among individuals who reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Overall, the pregnant Californians that we surveyed were aware of the COVID-19 vaccines. Of 387 participants, 43% reported planning to get the vaccine as soon as possible. The remaining 57% were hesitant: 27% responded that they would not receive the vaccine. Some demographic features did predict more COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, particularly younger age (AOR = 0.95, p = 0.025) and living in a less urban context (AOR = 0.80, p = 0.041). Essential worker status also was associated with vaccine hesitancy. Having had, or intending to have, a flu vaccine was negatively associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (p < 0.001). The most commonly reported reason for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was “I don’t know enough about the vaccine.” Low levels of self-reported knowledge were highly predictive of hesitancy. Terms like “vaccine hesitance” and “anti-vax” do not adequately characterize decisions regarding delaying COVID-19 vaccination. Rather, these decisions are largely based on the lack of knowledge about the impacts of vaccination on pregnancy, fetal development, and later child wellbeing. This lack of knowledge should be countered by conversations between individual healthcare providers and their pregnant patients, and better inclusion of pregnant people and children in vaccine trials.