Is lifestyle coaching a potential cost-effective intervention to address the backlog for mental health counselling? A Rapid Review

Introduction

The World Health Organisation defines mental health as “a state of well-being in which the individual realises their abilities, can cope with everyday stresses of life, can work productively and is able to contribute to his or her community” [2]. The concept of mental health has changed in recent years, moving away from a purely clinical or medicalised approach to more focus on supporting people with mental disorders to cope well with life by developing self-care and self-management strategies [3]. This is reflected in the diversification in mental health service provision, with many current services moving away from traditional clinically based open-ended counselling approaches, to techniques which are more fixed-term, problem focused and action-orientated, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). In more recent years the use of a coaching approach has also been used for managing mental health [4–6].

The use of coaching techniques within a sports or corporate environment are well established [7,8]. In recent years coaching techniques have also been applied to health and wellbeing [9]. Coaching in a corporate environment uses a short- to medium-term collaborative working relationship between a coach and client to identify and optimise the client’s personal strengths, recourses, positive states and behaviours. It uses a combination of goal setting and positive psychological approaches to facilitate the clients’ personal growth, functioning and wellbeing [10]. The definition of health and wellness coaching, also called lifestyle coaching, is still broad. However, similar to coaching in a corporate environment, the approach is based upon positive psychology and behaviour change theory, is patient-and goal-focused and often utilises established behavioural techniques, such as CBT and mindfulness-based interventions [11,12]. Although there is overlap with the aims and techniques of coaching and counselling, the underlying approaches are different (see figure 1). Lifestyle coaching is more collaborative, forward-thinking and goal orientated, with less focus on the intrinsic processing of feelings or unconscious behaviour addressed with counselling [13,14]. Although lifestyle coaching is not specifically designed to be used with non-clinical populations, research suggests that 25-50% of the general public who received lifestyle coaching had clinical levels of mental health conditions. More specific working populations have higher rates of clinically significant mental health conditions than the general public [14]. In addition, a meta-analysis of positive psychology studies, which included individual, group and self-help coaching interventions, showed a significant positive impact on individuals’ subjective and psychological wellbeing [15].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: General differences between coaching and counselling [25]

There may also be other factors that would make the use of lifestyle coaching an effective treatment for mental health conditions. Lifestyle coaching is often shorter-term as it is focused on specific goals, compared to a more open-ended physiotherapy approach [14]. Shorter treatment periods may unlock staff resources and enable more people to be treated over the same time period. Lifestyle coaching does not have the stigma that can be associated with more traditional treatment for a mental health condition, so it may reduce barriers to seeking help [16]. The training process for lifestyle coaches is considerably shorter than the years of training to become a psychotherapy practitioner, which would make it quicker to recruit more lifestyle or recovery coaches.

With the inexorable rise of people living with long-term conditions, the National Health Service (NHS) is moving towards making self-care a priority, supporting people to manage their conditions, make informed treatment choices and avoid complications [17]. Although Health Coaching is one of the key NHS interventions to manage self-care, much of the evaluation work to date has focused on programme design, implementation and process evaluation, rather than evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment [18]. Therefore, the aim of this rapid review was to assess whether there was evidence for the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle coaching interventions for common mental health disorders that could support the NHS health coaching approach.

Common mental health disorders (CMD) include depression, generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Although there is considerable variation in the severity of CMD, many of these disorders are associated with significant long-term disability and often with ongoing cycles of relapse and remission. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic around one in six adults (17%) met the criteria for a common mental health disorder [19,20].

The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CCG41 indicator guidance for people suffering from depression and anxiety states that talking therapies are important to recovery for all ages but particularly for those over 65 due to a lack of representation in services for this demographic [21]. NICE guidelines for CMD provide a number of treatment pathways patients can choose from in collaboration with their healthcare professional. An independent NICE guideline committee developed a guideline to treat and manage depression in adults. Patients suffering from less severe depression can include both the use of psychotropic medication as well as psychological treatments, including CBT, interpersonal therapy (IPT), behavioural therapy, psychotherapy, self-help and support groups in their initial treatment [22]. Despite psychological interventions generally being preferred by patients, due to limited availability, the most common treatment method for CMD in primary care is medication [23].

Although most of the evidence used to develop the NICE guidelines was mental health-specific (focusing on depression), general NICE guidance for improved treatment of common mental health disorders focuses on improved access to services, including local care pathways in a range of settings and alternative modes of delivery (for example, telephone and online services). The single economic study included in the NICE evidence review reported that a more formalised stepped care CBT treatment for adults with common mental health disorders resulted in a higher number of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) at a lower cost than the more open-ended care as usual [24].

Results

The database search yielded 2807 study articles, 778 of which were duplicates. The remaining 2029 titles and abstracts were screened, with 37 study articles meeting the criteria for this review. Following a full-text screening, a further 27 papers were excluded due to lack of relevance. Study designs that did not include an economic analysis (n=12) or studies that did not include interventions to treat common mental health conditions such as talking therapy (n=15) did not meet the inclusion criteria. Following full text screening of the remaining results, ten study articles were included in the final rapid review (See Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. PRISMA study selection flowchart (Page et al>, 2021)

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Evidence divided by study intervention type

All ten study articles included in this rapid review were peer-reviewed. Nine of the study articles were primary studies, and the methodologies of the included studies were randomised controlled trial (RCT) (n=4), economic evaluation (n=3), quasi-experimental design (n=2), and a systematic review (n=1).

The Economic evaluations included in this rapid review consist of Cost-effectiveness analysis (n=7), cost-benefit analysis (n=1), cost-utility analysis (n=1) and stated preference using the contingent valuation method (n=1).

All ten included study articles are of a moderate to high quality, according to the JBI quality appraisal checklists [31–40] (See Appendix 3).

This rapid review found no evidence of economic evaluation of coaching or counselling interventions in Wales or the rest of the UK. The countries included in this rapid review were from the OECD. Countries included Netherlands (n=3), USA (n=2), Canada (n=2), Norway (n=1), Germany (n=1), Sweden (n=1), and South Korea (n=1).

One study article relates to the theme of coaching for mental health disorders [33].

Four study articles relate to the theme of CBT [31,34,38,41], and five study articles relate to the theme of Counselling, therapy and standard mental health treatment [35–37,39,40].

Five of the study articles are in a workplace setting [33,34,36,37,41]. Although this review did not find economic evidence for the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle coaching, this review demonstrates that similar approaches using talking therapies such as CBT are cost-effective treatments for some mental health disorders. The following discussion on the papers included give a more detailed overview of findings.

Discussion

This rapid review set out to determine whether lifestyle coaching is a cost-effective alternative to counselling for mental health conditions within the NHS, particularly in light of the backlog or of referrals post-pandemic. Despite a comprehensive search strategy, limited evidence of economic evaluations of lifestyle coaching for mental health were found. This rapid review also found no economic evaluations of mental health interventions in the UK. However, the included economic evaluations were from OECD countries which are comparable to the UK [43].

Treatment/Therapy as usual (TAU) was mentioned frequently as a comparator in the cost analyses. However, TAU intervention was either inconsistent or not mentioned throughout the different study settings. Examples of TAU include:

• ○ 53 minutes sessions using therapy strategies which are client-centred, psychodynamic, family and cognitive intervention [31].

• ○ Any intervention offered by a primary care centre or care facility [42].

• ○ Care from a multidisciplinary team comprised of a psychologist, psychiatrist, family therapist and social workers [35].

Positive recovery-focused therapies, including recovery coaching (a type of lifestyle coaching focused on mental health) have also begun to be used to treat mental health disorders in recent years [44–46]. This approach has been already used in one NHS trust in Devon [47]. The use of CBT, mindfulness-based therapies, and self-help interventions (all of which can be used in lifestyle coaching) have already been identified as effective treatments for common mental health disorders [23]. In addition, a meta-analysis of randomised control trials reported that specific positive psychology interventions, including lifestyle coaching, solution coaching and self-management techniques, can enhance subjective and psychological well-being and reduce depressive symptoms [15]. It must be acknowledged that there are limitations to using a coaching approach for mental health. The effectiveness of coaching is dependent on people’s motivation and desire to improve areas of their life [47]. People with severe mental health problems may feel stuck in their current state, not feeling able to act positively within their problem situation [48]. Shechtman et al (2019) conducted a 12-week intervention comparing two groups of Israeli parents of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). One group attended weekly coaching sessions with a trained coach, while the other read a self-help book with coaching techniques [49]. Both parental groups reported higher competence and efficacy. However, the group that attended therapy sessions reported a greater improvement in coping with children’s negative emotions than the control group. The drop-out rate for the self-help intervention was over twice that of the coaching intervention (23% and 10%, respectively). This discrepancy in drop-out rates suggests that one-to-one coaching is more effective than self-guided study. Participants are more likely to adhere to the full course with one-to-one coaching.

Six of the ten study articles included in this rapid review evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CBT for common mental health conditions. Traditional psychotherapy and counselling are based on the medical/clinical model of practice that relies on diagnosis and pathology [50]. This approach regards the person as a “patient” and focuses predominantly on resolving problems that have already been established. Although this methodology is still used with severe mental health conditions, many counselling approaches have moved away from the “patient” approach in recent years. For example, the technique of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) focuses on specific symptoms or problems and tends to be more time-limited than traditional approaches [51]. There is also the sub-discipline of Coaching Psychology which utilises established psychological theories and models of lifestyle coaching to enhance well-being and performance [52].

There have been concerns raised about the lack of professional-wide training or clear governing practice of coaching for mental health. Although a valid concern, a recent scoping review to address these concerns reported positive outcomes for the use of coaching for mental health difficulties [4].

Common mental health disorders, such as depression, stress and anxiety, are associated with a range of symptoms that often lead to adverse health, social and economic consequences for the individual affected and society [53]. Prior to the pandemic, the lack of service provision for specialised mental healthcare within the NHS and the need to develop alternative approaches had already been highlighted [54]. The initial and long-term effect of the pandemic on people’s wellbeing and mental health has been widely reported throughout the UK. The level of mental health issues almost tripled in the first few months of the pandemic (rising from 12% pre-pandemic to 28%), with the numbers of problems reported and the proportion of severe problems still significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels [55]. To deal with this increased demand, the need to implement effective alternative strategies to manage demand for support for mental health conditions mental healthcare within the NHS is now imperative.

Conclusion

This rapid review found that CBT is cost-effective in dealing with common mental health issues such as PTSD, depression, anxiety and stress among a number of different populations and study settings. Incorporating CBT as an intervention for mental health conditions has the potential to reduce the need for medication, welfare and support services. The overlapping techniques of coaching for common mental health issues is more goal focused and aligns with the NHS’ Universal Personalised Care framework which fosters a co-productive intervention for treating common mental health issues.

This rapid review also demonstrates that online coaching as a stress-management intervention within occupational healthcare is cost-effective and cost-saving. However, there is little evidence on whether lifestyle coaching is a cost-effective alternative to available treatments with the potential to alleviate the pressures NHS mental health currently faces. To address this, we propose a feasibility RCT study approach that would enable the evaluation of both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle coaching to address the current mental health care services backlog.

Contributors

The review was conceived by AM, RG, KP and RTE, and the protocol was developed by AM, RG and KP; searches were undertaken by AM and RG; article screening was carried out by RG and KP with mediation by AM; quality appraisal was undertaken by AM, RG and KP; data were interpreted by all authors; the manuscript was drafted by AM and RG and critically reviewed by all authors.

Funding

This review is to compliment the Emotion Mind Dynamic study [67]. The researchers who contributed towards this review are funded by Health and Care Economics Cymru, which is funded by Health and Care Research Wales, Welsh Government.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study does not involve human participants.