This paper reviews the conceptual foundation of mindfulness-based eating awareness training (MB-EAT). It provides an overview of key therapeutic components as well as a brief review of current research. MB-EAT is a group intervention that was developed for treatment of binge eating disorder (BED) and related issues. BED is marked by emotional, behavioral and physiological disregulation in relation to food intake and self-identity. MB-EAT involves training in mindfulness meditation and guided mindfulness practices that are designed to address the core issues of BED: controlling responses to varying emotional states; making conscious food choices; developing an awareness of hunger and satiety cues; and cultivating self-acceptance. Evidence to date supports the value of MB-EAT in decreasing binge episodes, improving one's sense of self-control with regard to eating, and diminishing depressive symptoms.

Highly stressed employees are subject to greater health risks, increased cost, and productivity losses than those with normal stress levels. To address this issue in an evidence-based manner, worksite stress management programs must be able to engage individuals as well as capture data on stress, health indices, work productivity, and health care costs. In this randomized controlled pilot, our primary objective was to evaluate the viability and proof of concept for two mind-body workplace stress reduction programs (one therapeutic yoga-based and the other mindfulness-based), in order to set the stage for larger cost-effectiveness trials. A second objective was to evaluate 2 delivery venues of the mindfulness-based intervention (online vs. in-person). Intention-to-treat principles and 2 (pre and post) × 3 (group) repeated-measures analysis of covariance procedures examined group differences over time on perceived stress and secondary measures to clarify which variables to include in future studies: sleep quality, mood, pain levels, work productivity, mindfulness, blood pressure, breathing rate, and heart rate variability (a measure of autonomic balance). Two hundred and thirty-nine employee volunteers were randomized into a therapeutic yoga worksite stress reduction program, 1 of 2 mindfulness-based programs, or a control group that participated only in assessment. Compared with the control group, the mind-body interventions showed significantly greater improvements on perceived stress, sleep quality, and the heart rhythm coherence ratio of heart rate variability. The two delivery venues for the mindfulness program produced basically equivalent results. Both the mindfulness-based and therapeutic yoga programs may provide viable and effective interventions to target high stress levels, sleep quality, and autonomic balance in employees.

Primary Objective: Review the operational definitions of health and wellness coaching as published in the peer-reviewed medical literature. Background: As global rates of preventable chronic diseases have reached epidemic proportions, there has been an increased focus on strategies to improve health behaviors and associated outcomes. One such strategy, health and wellness coaching, has been inconsistently defined and shown mixed results. Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)—guided systematic review of the medical literature on health and wellness coaching allowed for compilation of data on specific features of the coaching interventions and background and training of coaches. Results: Eight hundred abstracts were initially identified through PubMed, with 284 full-text articles ultimately included. The majority (76%) were empirical articles. The literature operationalized health and wellness coaching as a process that is fully or partially patient-centered (86% of articles), included patient-determined goals (71%), incorporated self-discovery and active learning processes (63%) (vs more passive receipt of advice), encouraged accountability for behaviors (86%), and provided some type of education to patients along with using coaching processes (91%). Additionally, 78% of articles indicated that the coaching occurs in the context of a consistent, ongoing relationship with a human coach who is trained in specific behavior change, communication, and motivational skills. Conclusions: Despite disparities in how health and wellness coaching have been operationalized previously, this systematic review observes an emerging consensus in what is referred to as health and wellness coaching; namely, a patient-centered process that is based upon behavior change theory and is delivered by health professionals with diverse backgrounds. The actual coaching process entails goal-setting determined by the patient, encourages self-discovery in addition to content education, and incorporates mechanisms for developing accountability in health behaviors. With a clear definition for health and wellness coaching, robust research can more accurately assess the effectiveness of the approach in bringing about changes in health behaviors, health outcomes and associated costs that are targeted to reduce the global burden of chronic disease.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of integrative health (IH) coaching on psychosocial factors, behavior change, and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods Fifty-six patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to either 6 months of IH coaching or usual care (control group). Coaching was conducted by telephone for fourteen 30-minute sessions. Patients were guided in creating an individualized vision of health, and goals were self-chosen to align with personal values. The coaching agenda, discussion topics, and goals were those of the patient, not the provider. Preintervention and postintervention assessments measured medication adherence, exercise frequency, patient engagement, psychosocial variables, and A1C. Results Perceived barriers to medication adherence decreased, while patient activation, perceived social support, and benefit finding all increased in the IH coaching group compared with those in the control group. Improvements in the coaching group alone were also observed for self-reported adherence, exercise frequency, stress, and perceived health status. Coaching participants with elevated baseline A1C (≥7%) significantly reduced their A1C. Conclusions A coaching intervention focused on patients’ values and sense of purpose may provide added benefit to traditional diabetes education programs. Fundamentals of IH coaching may be applied by diabetes educators to improve patient self-efficacy, accountability, and clinical outcomes.

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.