Mobile Behavioral Health Coaching as a Preventive Intervention for Occupational Public Health: Retrospective Longitudinal Study

Background:Researchers have recently proposed that behavioral health coaching (BHC) is effective in promoting proactive care among employees. However, to qualify as a preventive workplace intervention, more research is needed to evaluate whether BHC can further elevate well-being among moderately mentally healthy employees.Objective:Using real-world data, this study evaluates the preliminary effectiveness of app-based BHC against a nonrandomized control group with open access to self-help tools in improving well-being (ie, mood levels and perceived stress). The study also explores the active ingredients of BHC and dose-response associations between the number of BHC sessions and well-being improvements.Methods:Employees residing across Asia-Pacific countries (N=1025; mean age 30.85, SD 6.97 y) who reported moderately positive mood and medium levels of perceived stress in their first week of using the mental health app Intellect were included in this study. Users who were given access by their organizations to Intellect’s BHC services were assigned to the “Coaching” condition (512/1025, 49.95%; mean age 31.09, SD 6.87 y), whereas other employees remained as “Control” participants (513/1025, 50.05%; mean age 30.61, SD 7.06 y). To evaluate effectiveness, monthly scores from the validated mood and stress sliders were aggregated into a composite well-being score and further examined using repeated-measure conditional growth models. Postcoaching items on “Perceived Usefulness of the BHC session” and “Working Alliance with my Coach” were examined as active ingredients of BHC using 1-1-1 multilevel mediation models. Finally, 2-way repeated-measure mixed ANOVA models were conducted to examine dose-response effects on well-being improvements between groups (coaching and control) across time.Results:Growth curve analyses revealed significant time by group interaction effects for composite well-being, where “Coaching” users reported significantly greater improvements in well-being than “Control” participants across time (composite well-being: F1,391=6.12; ηp2=0.02; P=.01). Among “Coaching” participants, dependent-sample 2-tailed t tests revealed significant improvements in composite well-being from baseline to 11 months (t512=1.98; Cohen d=0.17; P=.049). Improvements in “Usefulness of the BHC session” (β=.078, 95% Cl .043-.118; P