Cited by 92Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutCoaching Methods and ImpactStress and Burnout Research

Physician Coaching to Enhance Well-being: A Qualitative Analysis of a Pilot Intervention

Schneider, Suzanne, Kingsolver, Karen, Rosdahl, Jullia·2014·EXPLORE

Abstract

Context Physicians in the United States increasingly confront stress, burnout, and other serious symptoms at an alarming level. As a result, there is growing public interest in the development of interventions that improve physician resiliency.Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate the perceived impact of Physician Well-being Coaching on physician stress and resiliency, as implemented in a major medical center.Study design Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 physician-participants, and three coaches of a Physician Well-being Coaching pilot focused on three main areas: life context, impacts of coaching, and coaching process.Participants Interviewees were physicians who completed between three and eight individual coaching sessions between October 2012 and May 2013 through the Physician Well-being Coaching pilot program.Analysis Qualitative content analysis of the 11 physician interviews and three coach interviews using Atlas.ti to generate patterns and themes.Results Physician Well-being Coaching helped participants increase resilience via skill and awareness development in the following three main areas: (1) boundary setting and prioritization, (2) self-compassion and self-care, and (3) self-awareness. These insights often led to behavior changes and were perceived by physicians to have indirect but positive impact on patient care.Conclusions Devaluing self-care while prioritizing the care of others may be a significant, but unnecessary, source of burnout for physicians. This study suggests that coaching can potentially help physicians alter this pattern through skill development and increased self-awareness. It also suggests that by strengthening physician self-care, coaching can help to positively impact patient care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.explore.2014.08.007

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schneider, S., Kingsolver, K., & Rosdahl, J.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Schneider, Suzanne
Venue
EXPLORE
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
372-379
ISSN
1550-8307 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006699298
Cited by
92
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
9.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • EXPLORE (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
The Arnold P. Gold Foundation (186606, 5K12EY016333)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Coaching Methods and Impact
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
physician well-being, burnout, resilience, physician stress, self-care, self-compassion, boundary setting, priority setting, self-awareness, coaching interventions, patient care
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Awareness, Burnout, Professional, Empathy, Health, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Personal Satisfaction, Physicians, Pilot Projects, Self Care, Stress, Psychological, United States, Program Evaluation, Qualitative Research, Resilience, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review