Impact of wellness intervention coaching for teachers on the coaches themselves

Introduction

Recent reports on public health in the United States continue to indicate worsening trends for adults toward high levels of obesity and other negative health markers that are secondary to modifiable health and wellness behaviors (World Health Organization, 2012). Beyond personal health markers, health and wellness behaviors have organizational impacts (Chang, 2024). For example, many early care and education (ECE) centers are understaffed, resulting in ECE teachers often holding urine for extended periods of time, reducing water intake, and choosing calorically dense and processed foods (Kwon et al., 2022). These unhealthy behaviors could results in a higher risk of developing health conditions, such as urinary tract infections and obesity, leading to increased missed days at work, further understaffing, and other negative organizational impacts (Kwon et al., 2021; Otten et al., 2019).

To mitigate negative effects, behavioral change techniques, such as health and wellness coaching, may positively impact these behaviors (Wolever et al., 2013). For example, health and wellness coaching may positively impact teachers' control over their health outcomes, improving employee self-efficacy and performance (Pousa and Mathieu, 2015; Wolever et al., 2013). Specifically, health and wellness coaching can be used to effectively address health behaviors like physical activity, nutrition, sleep, and stress, all of which may benefit overall organizational wellbeing (Dean, 2009; Frerichs et al., 2015; Rethorn and Pettitt, 2019).

Despite the well-established evidence on the positive effect of wellness coaching on health behaviors of coaching participants, very few studies have examined the impact that coaching has on the coaches themselves. There has been some indication that coaches also benefit psychologically from personal life coaching and professionally from peer coaching (Grant, 2008; Leggett and James, 2016; van Nieuwerburgh and Tong, 2013). However, there is a notable gap in the wellness coaching literature that is worth exploring: to our knowledge, there are no studies available that examine the personal or professional challenges (stressors, burdens, etc.) experienced by the coach.

Our interdisciplinary research team, the Happy Teacher Wellness Intervention, developed and implemented a 10-week holistic wellness intervention using coaching to improve physical, psychological, and professional wellness of educators (i.e., teachers and administrators) in Head Start programs in a Midwest state. In addition to examining the impact of this coaching model on teachers and leaders, we also wanted to understand the personal and professional impacts of wellness coaching on the coaches. Understanding both the benefits and challenges experienced by coaches can offer valuable insights into intervention outcomes and guide future practices, training, and support for coaches and their recipients of coaching.

Materials and methods

Intervention design of original study

This study's protocol and design were reviewed and approved by an institutional review board (IRB) and informed consent was obtained for all participants (teachers in the original study, coaches in this qualitative study).

The coaches in the original study were recruited through multiple pathways, including professional referrals, online postings with application links, and job advertisements on the university's job board. Coaches were required to hold at least a bachelor's degree in a relevant field and have a minimum of 2 years of related professional experience. All participating coaches completed a training session including didactic instruction covering topics such as active listening skills and use of positive psychology tools prior to working with the educators. The training was designed to provide consistent coaching sessions for all teachers, as well as to increase self-efficacy for the coaches. It included evidence-based knowledge about the Coaching in Context model, motivational interviewing, and other theories underlying behavioral change (Simmons and Wolever, 2013; Stober and Grant, 2006). Self-motivation, self-efficacy, and social support are predictors of future health behaviors; thus, coaches were guided to use communication styles which aimed to enhance those factors to encourage positive health-related behaviors (Essery et al., 2017).

The original coaching intervention was implemented across four consecutive semesters from Spring 2023 through Fall 2024 and included four cohorts of Head Start educators across multiple sites including urban, rural, and tribal settings (Kwon et al., 2026). Coaches met with teachers for three, 30-min, one-on-one physical, psychological, and professional coaching sessions over the intervention period of 10 weeks. The first session focused on goal setting and rapport building, the second to help plan reasonable strategies to ensure goal achievement, and the third session focused on final suggestions and guidance in continuing their wellness journey. Coaches were instructed to record two randomly selected coaching sessions during each round to support fidelity checks and receive feedback for improvement. Midway through the 10-weeks, coaches met with study investigators to once again review standardized processes and ensure coaching model validity.

Qualitative study recruitment

Upon completion of the 10-week coaching sessions in the original intervention project, all coaches were invited by email to participate in coaches' focus groups. Eight coaches consented and participated, including two physical wellness coaches, two psychological wellness coaches, one coach who provided both physical and psychological wellness coaching, two professional wellness coaches for teachers, and one professional wellness coach for administrators. Coaches were asked to complete a demographics survey to ascertain relevant information.

Coaches were all women, aged 45 to 59 years, and self-identified as a range of ethnicities, including Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, and White/Caucasian. Regarding work experience in ECE settings, 66% had worked in Head Start settings (from 0 to 12 years) and were therefore familiar with the environment of those they coached. One coach reported that they had previously received health/wellness coaching as a client; none had advanced degrees related to health and wellness coaching, and varying levels of coaching experience (0–6 years) were reported.

Data collection

Four semi-structured 2–3 person focus groups (single sessions) were conducted using video conferencing technology. One coach was not available during the scheduled focus groups and therefore met with the researchers in a semi-structured interview format. Two focus groups had two coaches with one moderator, and one focus group had three coaches with one moderator. The interview guide was initially drafted and refined through collaborative discussion until the primary investigators reached consensus. Questions included were based on knowledge from years of clinical and educational experience in varying practice areas. The guide featured open-ended questions designed to foster engagement and discussion, support a natural conversational flow, and avoid steering coaches toward the researchers' prior understandings (Table 1). Probing questions, such as requests for elaboration, were used to encourage deeper and more detailed responses from the coaches.

Table 1. Interview guide: main and follow-up questions.

Source: author.

Focus group sessions were conducted by at least two members of the research team with durations ranging from 26 to 55 min. The sessions were moderated by the first author (with assistance for documentation/notes) within 3 months of their most recent coaching sessions with teachers. The moderator was involved in the study design but had minimal prior interactions with the participating coaches beyond contact related to project implementation. The moderator did not hold a supervisory or evaluative role over coaches. The moderator identifies as an academic investigator with training in qualitative methods and implementation of research. Their professional background and investment in the success of the original project may have shaped their perspectives, including an interest in understanding facilitators and barriers to project implementation. At the same time, their limited pre-existing relationships with the coaches were intended to reduce the influence of established rapport, hierarchical dynamics, or role-based expectations on coach responses.

To mitigate potential power differentials associated with investigator roles, the moderator emphasized the voluntary nature of participation, clarified that there were no right or wrong answers, and encouraged open discussion of both positive and negative experiences. Reflexivity was maintained throughout data collection and analysis through ongoing team discussions and deliberate attention to how the moderator's positionality, assumptions, and professional roles might influence questioning and interpretation.

Data analysis

The analysis procedure was carried out using the Framework Method in seven steps: familiarization, condensation, coding, grouping and labeling, extracting a theme, contrasting, and refining (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004). To complete this process, first the Zoom artificial intelligence transcription tool was employed, followed by a graduate research assistant listening to the recordings twice while cross-referencing them with the generated transcripts to guarantee accuracy. Two investigators then read the transcripts multiple times separately to familiarize themselves with the data, then employed a thematic analysis approach, beginning with open coding line-by-line with discussion to generate initial codes, allowing codes to emerge inductively from the data. Investigators carried out this process first together as a method of calibration, then separately for the remaining three transcripts, then re-grouped to compare and discuss categories/subcategories and identify overarching themes. Contrasting opinions were discussed until consensus was achieved. Categories, subcategories, and themes were compared with all available code groups (see below) and illustrative quotations were jointly selected by two authors. The preliminary results were also discussed by the investigators at a team retreat, and a summary of findings was shared with the participating coaches via e-mail with request for review as a method of member-checking the results. Coaches provided feedback on the preliminary results but did not receive the transcripts or provide results on final outcomes.

Results

The focus group analysis revealed two overarching themes, four categories, and six subcategories (see Figure 1). Subcategories were identified by the authors when a topic was mentioned by at least three coaches. These subcategories were grouped into broader categories, which were then organized under overarching themes. The main categories reflecting the impact of coaching on the coaches themselves were Coach Development, Coaching Consequence, Administrative Supports, and Collegiality. These categories fit broadly into two primary themes: Empathy for Others and Organizational Supports and Culture. All presented data are based on the statements of coaches made during focus group sessions.

Themes

Empathy for others

Participation in coaching fostered a heightened sense of empathy in coaches, shaping their professional practice and personal perspectives in both positive and challenging ways. On the positive side, coaches described opportunities for Coach Development (Category) including developing a deeper understanding and compassion for others, practicing intentional positive regard, quelling judgments, and gaining opportunities for self-reflection and professional skill refinement. Coaches also reported professional skill refinement opportunities came naturally through the coaching experiences. Awareness of the types of activities many teachers may struggle with allowed the coaches to search for resources ahead of time to prepare for the sessions.

“… I feel like I learned a lot just in preparing for the [sessions], just reviewing… the pedagogy and … best practice and strategies…”—Coach 104

“…so often there are times where I obsessed about it all evening and I'll be like, oh my gosh, I could have told him this.”—Coach 101

Increased empathy sometimes came with Coaching Consequences (Category) including emotional burdens; as coaches reported internalizing difficult personal stories shared by teachers, including experiences of domestic violence, financial hardship, serious illness, and grief, which contributed to elevated stress and concern for those they coached.

“It's like whiplash going from someone dealing with literally their daughter dying to the next person going ‘I'm so excited.'”—Coach 101

Several coaches reported that by working with ECE teachers they gained new perspectives on the types of challenges experienced by those who work in this setting, making them more empathetic and understanding of teachers in general.

“…you don't ever know what someone's going through… you don't know what's going on in their life.”—Coach 105.

Coaches reported personal benefits to coaching, including improving their own physical and psychological wellness. Several noted that they felt inclined to implement the healthy habits they were recommending to others throughout the sessions. Some coaches even described these healthy habits as having a positive influence on the habits of their nuclear family.

“I started setting goals, which is something I hadn't done in a while before coaching.”—Coach 102

“… I'm significantly healthier and that sense of accomplishment… has been pretty phenomenal.” —Coach 108

Organizational supports and culture

Participating in coaching was perceived as either high-stress or low-stress dependent on the organizational support at the facility and the perceived work culture. Coaches also reported that facilities that had increased administrative supports (category) and positively perceived culture overall resulted in reports of experiencing positive coaching sessions with active teacher engagement. Collegiality (category) between coworkers and team engagement within the same facility was described as a positive support for the teachers (accountability), leading to positive encounters between coaches and teachers and overall lowering the stress levels of all parties.

“…having that extra support around them, I could see how powerful that was.”—Coach 108

“… I noticed a lot of them, they didn't have the support to cover them so they could come into the session.”—Coach 109

Negatively perceived impacts on coaches mostly were secondary to logistic supports (category) and little opportunity to decompress between sessions. Coaches reported that on days that were heavily scheduled with back-to-back coaching sessions, or if they were the only coach on site that day, they found that they themselves didn't have sufficient time to take bathroom or rest breaks. Two coaches reported finding this particularly challenging when a teacher shared with them a highly personal experience, like grief, then needing to immediately begin the next coaching session with a new teacher. This led to the same scenarios experienced by the teachers: coach reported negative impacts when there were fewer organizational supports, leading to less engaged coaches and teams.

“… there were times… I can't even concentrate because I have to go to the bathroom…”—Coach 106

“…I dealt with death and grief and domestic situations… after four hours of coaching and dealing with that, there were times that I would just need to step away… [but without] 5 or 10 minutes in between [this was not possible].”—Coach 109

Discussion

Coaches were unaquainted to those they coached, which may have impacted positionality and overall success of the coaching intervention. Coaches reported a longer rapport-building period for many of the teachers, slowing the success of the intervention for many. On the other hand, being unfamiliar to the teachers allowed the coaches to “start fresh” and without preconceived notions or bias about teacher information regarding their physical, psychological, or professional wellbeing. Coaches in this study reported that while the rapport-building period was more time-consuming, the overall benefits of being an “outsider” outweighed that time impact.

Coaches were minimally acquainted with the moderators of the focus groups; however, the coaches knew that the moderators were involved in the planning and implementation of the original study, which could have impacted power dynamics and potentially created opportunities for bias. Coaches may have provided responses to the interview questions that were more positive about the coaching sessions due to this positionality factor.

The results of our study identified both benefits and challenges perceived by some coaches when providing physical, psychological, and professional wellbeing coaching to ECE. Previous studies found that opportunities for professional development in coaches can result in greater confidence in their coaching skills (Leggett and James, 2016). Similarly, our findings suggest that regular coaching engagements may provide opportunities for meaningful professional growth. Our focus groups also identified more specific skill refinement, noting that coaches found they were frequently practicing intentional positive regard and quelling judgments during sessions with those they coached.

No previous studies have examined personal benefits and challenges of coaching on coaches. Our focus group interviews identified personal life benefits and challenges secondary to participating in the coaching sessions. Several coaches reported that their physical wellness improved as they changed their own physical activity routines, inspired by the various goals that teachers set and achieved for their own physical wellness. Some coaches experienced personal life challenges secondary to the stressful situational experiences of the teachers that occurred during the coaching sessions. Coaches working with teachers going through experiences including domestic violence, grief, and other stressors experienced internalization of those experiences and found themselves worrying about the wellbeing of the teachers after the conclusion of the coaching sessions.

These findings align with existing research showing that coaching enhances coaches' professional development, while also offering new insights into the specific skills being developed (Taylor et al., 2024). Additionally, our study revealed personal life benefits and challenges experienced by coaches, an area largely unexplored in previous literature.

Limitations and future directions

Qualitative research has inherent limitations related to generalizability of findings due to small sample sizes, the time-consuming and labor-intensive nature of data collection and analysis, and potential for research bias in interpretation. This particular study would be challenging to replicate, due to the unique coaching opportunity provided as part of a separate intervention study, in addition to the subjectivity of the research process where the researcher's presence could have limiting influences on the coaches and impact findings. Additionally, this study included an all-female coaching group, a single setting (coaching in ECE facilities), potential non-participation bias (only eight of 13 coaches participated), possibility of social desirability bias, mixed use of small focus groups and one individual interview, and the study would be difficult to replicate as it was after the intervention of a randomized-controlled trial using coaching. The findings of this study may not be transferable to other coaching settings and should be interpreted with caution. Future investigations should include larger sample sizes and collect more data regarding the positive and negative impacts of coaching on coaches so that organizations that provide coaching can fully assess cost-benefit of providing such a model of care for their employees.

Conclusions

This qualitative study provides new perspectives on how coaching sessions provide benefit to both the coach and those they coach, but it is important explore further how to minimize negative impacts on the coach through awareness and anticipation of challenges they will encounter; such as navigating the difficult life experiences of those they coach. Coaches in this study reported benefits in their professional skill development as well as personal benefits from coaching, including reflecting on their own health behaviors and wellness goals. Improving the coaching experience for both parties may improve the overall effectiveness of the coaching session, which can improve the overall wellbeing of all involved and should therefore be explored further in future research and with larger, more generalizable populations.

Implications for policy and practice:

• Coaching programs are an intervention of choice for many environments in order to improve the wellness of the population.
• The process of coaching may have both positive and negative impacts on the coaches themselves.
• This qualitative study helps to explore the implications of coaching on the coaches.
• Future research should further explore both positive and negative factors such as increased stress imposed on the coaches.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Emilio Jesús Lizarte, University of Granada, Spain

Reviewed by: Abby Taylor, Wisconsin Alliance for Infant Mental Health, United States

Pendar Fazel, University of Debrecen, Hungary