Demystifying diabetes health coaching: A scoping review unveiling the 'who' and 'where' of health coaching for adults with type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a complex chronic condition that requires ongoing self-management. Diabetes health coaching interventions provide personalized healthcare programming to address physical and psychosocial aspects of diabetes self-management. AIMS: This scoping review aims to explore the contexts and settings of diabetes health coaching interventions for adults with T2D, using the RE-AIM framework. METHODS: A search was completed in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Emcare, Embase and Cochrane. Included citations described adults with exclusively T2D who had received a health coaching intervention. Citations were excluded if they focused on any other types of diabetes or diabetes prevention. RESULTS: A total of 3418 records were identified through database and manual searches, with 29 citations selected for data extraction. Most health coaching interventions were delivered by health professionals, many employed lay health workers and a few included peer coaches. While many health coaching interventions were delivered remotely, in-person intervention settings were distributed among primary care, community health settings and non-healthcare sites. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review suggest that diabetes health coaching may be implemented by a variety of providers in different settings. Further research is required to standardize training and implementation of health coaching and evaluate its long-term effectiveness.

Technology-Enabled Collaborative Care for Type-2 Diabetes and Mental Health (TECC-D): Findings From a Mixed Methods Feasibility Trial of a Responsive Co-Designed Virtual Health Coaching Intervention.

Introduction: Type-2 diabetes (T2D) is a complex chronic condition associated with a lower quality of life due to disease specific distress. While there is growing support for personalized diabetes programs, care for mental health challenges is often fragmented and limited by access to psychiatry, and integration of care. The use of communication technology to improve team based collaborative care to bridge these gaps is promising but untested. Methods: We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the co-designed Technology-Enabled Collaborative Care for Diabetes and Mental Health (TECC-D) program. Participants included adults aged ≥18 years who had a clinical diagnosis of T2D, and self-reported mental health concerns. Results: 31 participants completed the 8-week virtual TECC-D program. Findings indicate that the program is feasible and acceptable and indicate that there is a role for virtual diabetes and mental health care. Discussion: The TECC-D program, designed through an iterative co-design process and supported by innovative, responsive adaptations led to good uptake and satisfaction. Conclusion: The TECC-D model is a feasible and scalable care solution that empowers individuals living with T2D and mental health concerns to take an active role in their care.

Clinical guidance for e-cigarette (vaping) cessation: Results from a modified Delphi panel approach.

Individuals seek help to stop their use of e-cigarettes from their healthcare practitioners. However, there is a paucity of published work addressing e-cigarette cessation methods empirically, and what evidence that is available is weak. Therefore, we developed an expert informed clinical resource to guide practitioners helping their clients quit using e-cigarettes. We conducted a modified Delphi process between September and December 2021 to reach consensus on clinical recommendations for e-cigarette cessation. Expert and Peer Panel members (n = 28) voted and provided feedback on the recommendations through three rounds of structured surveys, a discussion board, and one intermediate survey. The penultimate knowledge products underwent usability testing and were finalized based on user feedback. The Expert Panel maintained a 100% response rate for rounds 1 and 2 and 96% for round 3; the Peer Panel achieved a 100% response rate for all three rounds of the modified Delphi process. Consensus was reach on 24 recommendations and 2 statements spanning eight domains: severity and dependence; general approaches; treatment approaches; dual use; pharmacotherapy strategies; behavioural therapy strategies; harm reduction; and relapse prevention. Two additional 'no agreement' statements that did not reach consensus are included in the guidance resource. The recommendations were also contextualized for the following groups: adults; youth; people who are pregnant, breastfeeding and/or chestfeeding; and people with mental illness and/or substance use issues. The recommendations listed in the resource provide general clinical guidance on e-cigarette cessation to assist healthcare practitioners in the treatment planning process.

Scoping review of guidance on cessation interventions for electronic cigarettes and dual electronic and combustible cigarettes use.

BACKGROUND: Although evidence-based smoking cessation guidelines are available, the applicability of these guidelines for the cessation of electronic cigarette and dual e-cigarette and combustible cigarette use is not yet established. In this review, we aimed to identify current evidence or recommendations for cessation interventions for e-cigarette users and dual users tailored to adolescents, youth and adults, and to provide direction for future research. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and grey literature for publications that provided evidence or recommendations on vaping cessation for e-cigarette users and complete cessation of cigarette and e-cigarette use for dual users. We excluded publications focused on smoking cessation, harm reduction by e-cigarettes, cannabis vaping, and management of lung injury associated with e-cigarette or vaping use. Data were extracted on general characteristics and recommendations made in the publications, and different critical appraisal tools were used for quality assessment. RESULTS: A total of 13 publications on vaping cessation interventions were included. Most articles were youth-focused, and behavioural counselling and nicotine replacement therapy were the most recommended interventions. Whereas 10 publications were appraised as "high quality" evidence, 5 articles adapted evidence from evaluation of smoking cessation. No study was found on complete cessation of cigarettes and e-cigarettes for dual users. INTERPRETATION: There is little evidence in support of effective vaping cessation interventions and no evidence for dual use cessation interventions. For an evidence-based cessation guideline, clinical trials should be rigorously designed to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural interventions and medications for e-cigarette and dual use cessation among different subpopulations.