9040 Background: Oncology faculty in academic medicine navigate a multitude of demands spanning clinical care, research, teaching, and administrative pressures. These forces are the impetus for the implementation of targeted interventions to enhance leadership capabilities. Coaching is a robust intervention and has been recognized as well-suited to meet faculty needs. Despite this recognition and increasing adoption, the impact of coaching on key outcomes in both research and clinical spaces remains underexplored. We leveraged Intentional Change Theory (ICT) to guide our evaluation of an internal coaching program within a large academic hospital in the South-Central United States. ICT articulates how alignment of one’s ideal self with their professional goals yields sustained personal transformation and is a useful guide for professional coaching. Methods: Through this conceptual framework, we employed a quasi-experimental approach to evaluate the impact of coaching on the research outcomes: clinical trials activated and h-index increase, as well as its components (new publications and new citations). Further, we investigated the impact of coaching on the clinical outcomes of Work Adjusted Relative Value Units (RVUs) and patient experience scores (Press Ganey Care Provider Scores). We conducted this study among a sample of clinical oncology faculty who participated in coaching (N = 189) and N = 200 matched peers who were eligible for but had not yet participated in coaching between 2018 and 2022. Results: Analyses revealed coaching positively impacted certain research productivity metrics; notably, faculty who participated in coaching were found to have greater increases in h-index ( F (1, 379) = 7.27, p = .007, η2 = .02, Coached M = 2.52, SD = 4.16; Comparison M = 1.69, SD = 1.77), new publications ( F (1, 318) = 6.26, p = .013, η2 = .02; Coached = M = 10.81, SD = 11.54; Comparison M = 8.06, SD = 10.18), and new citations ( F (1, 379) = 7.43, p = .007, η2 = .02; Coached M = 891.79, SD = 1,598.05; Comparison M = 509.47, SD = 1,054.25) in comparison to faculty who had not engaged with a coach. However, no significant differences were detected between groups in regard to clinical outcomes as measured by Work Adjusted Relative Value Units (RVUs) ( F (1, 304) = 2.06, p = .15, η2 = .007; Coached M = 6,316.48, SD = 3,558.46; Comparison M = 6,352.38, SD = 3,975.66), and patient experience scores ( F (1,150) = 0.91, p = .34, η2 = .006; Coached M = 95.35, SD = 6.41; Comparison M = 96.22, SD = 3.32), or the research outcome of clinical trial activations ( F (1,382) = 0.05, p = .83, η2 = .00; Coached M = .73, SD = 1.62; Comparison M = .49, SD = 1.42). Conclusions: Findings suggest coaching can be an effective intervention to enhance certain research outcomes reliant on self-regulation and individual motivation. Yet, initial evidence suggests coaching may be less well-positioned to influence outcomes prone to institutional constraints and governance.
Herron et al. (Thu,) studied this question.