Exploring the impact of academic coaching interventions on student outcomes in graduate healthcare and medical education: a systematic scoping review.

Abstract

Academic coaching is an increasingly vital strategy in higher education, fostering skill development, academic resilience, and personal growth. While research suggests that coaching enhances performance and key competencies such as time management, stress reduction, and self-advocacy, systematic evaluations are needed to assess its effectiveness across graduate medical and healthcare education. This systematic scoping review investigates the effects of academic coaching interventions on academic and professional outcomes among graduate-level health and medical students. We conducted a comprehensive literature search and screening process following the PRISMA methodology and registered in the International Database of Education Systematic Reviews (IDESR #IDESR000171). Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) framework to contextualize findings. The review revealed notable variation in target populations, program structures, focus areas, and data collection methods. Medical student studies addressed both early and advanced learners, with interventions ranging from self-regulated learning and executive/life coaching to academic remediation and longitudinal coaching relationships. Tailored academic coaching interventions show promise in supporting learner development across a range of outcomes. However, the effectiveness of these programs depends on their alignment with learners’ specific needs, educational stages, and institutional contexts. Future coaching initiatives should be designed with attention to the Master Adaptive Learner framework to ensure responsiveness to the evolving demands of health professions education.

Introduction

Academic coaching has become an increasingly important support mechanism in higher education, promoting skill development, academic resilience, and personal growth. However, graduate medical and health professions education presents unique challenges that distinguish it from other academic environments. These programs are characterized by high–stakes assessments, emotionally intense clinical experiences, and the need to acquire and apply complex knowledge in real–world settings rapidly. As such, the demands placed on students in these fields often exceed those encountered in traditional graduate education, necessitating tailored support strategies that address both academic and emotional well–being.

In this context, academic coaching offers a promising intervention. Unlike mentoring or advising, coaching is a structured, performance–oriented process that emphasizes goal setting, self–reflection, and continuous improvement. These features align closely with the Master Adaptive Learner (MAL) framework, which supports the development of adaptive expertise through metacognitive strategies and self–regulated learning. Effective support mechanisms are especially critical in graduate medical and healthcare education, where students face significant academic and personal challenges. In these high–stakes environments, academic coaching can improve outcomes by helping students manage large volumes of information and the emotional demands of clinical experiences [1]. The MAL model provides a useful lens for understanding how coaching can help students navigate the dynamic and demanding nature of health professions education.

The literature remains fragmented despite growing interest in academic coaching within graduate healthcare education. Terms like "coaching" and "mentoring" are often used interchangeably, leading to conceptual ambiguity and inconsistent implementation [2]. Moreover, while coaching has been shown to improve outcomes such as time management, stress reduction, and self–advocacy in general higher education, it is unclear whether these findings translate to the unique context of health professions training. A recent systematic review by Campbell and Mogashana [3] identified key characteristics of effective coaching in higher education, such as session format, duration, and coach qualifications. However, their findings do not specifically address the needs of graduate health professions students, who may benefit from different approaches due to the intensity and complexity of their training. Academic coaching has recently gained traction in graduate health professions education (HPE), and its distinguishing features set it apart from mentoring or advising. These elements align well with the framework of the Master Adaptive Learner (MAL), a metacognitive model emphasizing self–regulation and adaptive expertise [4]. This framework provides a shared language to facilitate exploration and discussion regarding achievements and challenges during the learning process [4]. MAL aligns well with an academic coaching model. It emphasizes goal attainment, personal development, self–reflection, and performance maximization [5].

The present study systematically reviews academic coaching interventions in graduate medical and health professions education to address this gap. We define academic coaching as “an interactive, longitudinal, relational, learner–centered process that focuses on continuous development and improvement,” facilitated by a coach who uses active listening and powerful questioning techniques to enhance self–regulated learning and reflective practice [6]. By examining how coaching impacts academic and professional outcomes in this context, we aim to inform the design and implementation of more effective, context–sensitive coaching programs.

Materials and methods

Protocol and registration

To conduct and report this systematic review, we followed the methodological steps outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta–Analyzes (PRISMA). Additionally, the protocol was registered in the International Database of Education Systematic Reviews (IDESR) #IDESR000171, a database of published systematic reviews in Education and a clearinghouse for protocol registration of ongoing and planned systematic reviews. This study does not require IRB review.

Establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria for search

To investigate and evaluate the effectiveness of academic coaching in healthcare and medical graduate education, we considered the following criteria: type of publication, language of publication, study design, study purpose, and target population. We focused on quantitative study designs, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi–experimental studies, observational studies, and mixed–methods research. We included studies published in English, whether international or U.S.-based, that examined graduate students in healthcare or medical education programs (e.g., medicine, nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy, etc.) and identified academic coaching programs as structured support mechanisms. This information is detailed in Appendix 1.

In this study, the authors established an operational definition for academic coaching and developed essential operational concepts for categories a priori to extract from the included papers. This was done to ensure the integration of studies that used different terminology (e.g., advising, mentoring) yet were aligned with the coaching terminology developed here and the Master Adaptive Learning framework in Table 1.

Table 1.

Coaching operational concepts defined.

Concept	Definition
Goal setting:	Guiding students in establishing and prioritizing their short–and long–term academic, research, and career goals.
Skill development and cognitive adaptability:	Emphasizing essential skills such as time management, study strategies, writing, research methodologies, critical thinking, and ability to generalize learning.
Accountability:	Providing consistent follow–up to hold students accountable to their goals, supporting them stay on track, and encouraging a sense of responsibility for their learning.
Feedback and reflection:	Offering constructive feedback on academic work throughout the educational process and promoting reflective practices for continuous improvement.
Resource navigation:	Assisting students in identifying, accessing, and utilizing the academic, administrative, wellness, student community, and professional resources available within their institution and community.
Motivation and support:	Fostering a supportive, collaborative environment that helps students build resilience and confidence in their academic journey.
Proactive problem solving:	Identifying potential barriers and developing strategies to address these challenges.

To identify studies for inclusion, a research informationist (CA) with expertise in conducting comprehensive literature reviews, developed detailed search strategies for PubMed (US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health), APAPsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), ERIC (EBSCOhost), and Scopus (Elsevier). The search strategies utilized a combination of subject headings (e.g., Medical Subject Headings [MeSH] in PubMed) and keywords for the concepts of medical/healthcare students enrolled in graduate/professional education programs and academic coaching. The PubMed keyword and MeSH search strategy was modified for the other four databases, maintaining similar keywords and replacing MeSH terms with appropriate subject headings. Using a modified version of the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist, the databases were searched through 01/13/2025 with the English language filter applied. Appendix 2 outlines the search strategy used for this study.

Search process

The systematic review was conducted using Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia, to import search results, remove duplicates, and manage the screening process through title, abstract, and full–text review. Two reviewers independently (MD, SM) conducted the study selection screening process by examining titles and abstracts based on the criteria outlined in Appendix 1. These same authors also assessed articles that advanced to full–text review. Disagreements were resolved through consensus or with the help of a third reviewer.

Quality assessment of the included studies

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using critical appraisal tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Critical Appraisal Tools are comprehensive instruments for various study types, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi–experimental studies, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross–sectional studies, and mixed–method research designs.

Two authors evaluated the quality of each study included in the review using critical appraisal tools from the JBI. After assessing the methodologies used in these studies, they determined that the JBI Checklist for Quasi–Experimental (QE) Studies and the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias for RCTs would be employed to evaluate article quality [7]. These checklists were developed collaboratively, reviewed, and approved by the JBI International Scientific Committee. The JBI Checklist for QE Studies consists of nine items organized into two constructs: internal validity and statistical conclusion validity [7]. The JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias for RCTs includes 13 items across the same two domains of internal validity and statistical conclusion validity [8]. Within each critical appraisal tool, each domain is rated as “Yes” (present), “No” (not present), or “Unclear.” Any discrepancies between the authors were resolved through consensus. Since two different tools were used to assess the risk of bias, the percentage of “Yes” (present) responses was calculated for each article included in the review. Only the items within the internal validity domain were considered for methodological quality. Articles with 80%−100% “Yes” responses were deemed to have “High” methodological quality, those with 50%−79% were classified as “Moderate” methodological quality, and those with 49% or lower were categorized as “Low” methodological quality. No articles were removed from the analysis based on the critical appraisal scores [8].

Data extraction

Three reviewers (DG, SM, RM) extracted data and imported it into Excel. This included predefined extraction items such as program type, country of study, study design, coaching intervention type, participant demographics, and assessed academic coaching outcomes.

Results

Focusing on peer–reviewed journals through 2024, our search strategy uncovered 338 articles, of which 11 met the inclusion criteria after a rigorous screening and consensus process outlined in Figure 1. The included studies concentrated on academic coaching in graduate medical or healthcare programs, were written in English, and adhered to the inclusion criteria based on the traditional Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) framework, as presented in Table 2. The attributes of the coaching programs and the outcome measures are in Table 3. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, two JBI tools were employed: two of the articles were assessed using the JBI tool for randomized controlled trials [8], while the remaining nine studies were evaluated with the JBI tool for quasi–experimental studies [7]. Table 4 presents the quality assessment of the included articles.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart for study.

Table 2.

Population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) data from included studies.

Study	Population	Eligibility	Coaching intervention	Control	Outcomes	Timepoints	Results
[9]	Preclinical medical and dental students at Umm Al–Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia in the 2012–2013 academic year.	2nd or 3rd year Medical or dental student. Exclusion criteria: attended interventional program during their academic study, under psychological treatments or drugs regimen, did not sign the study consent form.	(N = 155) A self–development coaching program titled “How to Be an Ultra Super Student” (HBUSS) aimed mainly to improve students’ academic performance and psychological health. The program focused on skills and conceptual ideas about studying and coping with challenges during academic time.	(N = 162) Normal lecture–type program titled “Learning and Success in Health Faculties” (LSHF).	Psychological health: DASS−21; General efficacy scale, satisfaction with life scale. Program success: Credibility and expectancy questionnaire. Academic performance: Weighted GPA	Psychological health: Week 1, 2 and 6. Success of the program: Week 1 and 2. Academic performance: Week 6	Depression: Week 1-2ns; 2−3*;1−6ns Anxiety Week 1−2*; 2−3ns; 1−6ns Stress ns all time points General self–efficacy ns all time points Satisfaction with life ns all time points Credibility Week 1−2* Academic Performance ns all time points
[10]	Pharmacy students from 2013	Pharmacy students	In–class session outlining expectations, activities, assignments, and coaches' backgrounds and interests. Participation in coaching sessions, self–assessment surveys, and feedback forms. Two identical coaching sessions, each including a one–on–one individual meeting and a group meeting. Group and individual meetings occurred within a few weeks of one another. Sessions took place in the academic term following students’ second and third cooperative work terms. Coaches received student contact information and organized meetings, which could be held in person or via Skype, Adobe Connect, phone, or instant messaging. Coaches completed a feedback form for each individual and group meeting.	The School of Pharmacy’s graduating class of 2012 acted as the control group and did not participate in the coaching program. In–class sessions were held during the final year of their program to explain the study and ask them to complete a voluntary self–assessment survey.	Self–assessment survey: Open–ended questions on career development and work term choices. 5-point scale rating questions addressing career and professional development and self–reflection. Feedback forms: Experiences of students and coaches.	2nd semester, 4th semester, end of program	Self–assessment survey: No differences between groups. Feedback highlighted 2 themes: student development and coaching program feedback. Feedback forms student development: Students valued leadership support and overcoming institutional barriers. Strong student–coach relationships fostered reflection, professional growth, and discussions on personal and career topics. Exploring pharmacy’s evolving field and coursework–workplace connections enhanced engagement and decision–making. Coaching program feedback: Coaches valued supporting students and staying connected to the curriculum. Student experiences varied. Both groups suggested better alignment of interests, improved scheduling, and cleaclearer goals. Individual sessions allowed focus, while group meetings fostered shared learning. In–person meetings ppreferred.
[11]	Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) graduates from 2 hybrid programs.	2nd–year DPT hybrid students	Learners completed asynchronous online pre–orientation course that includes a CliftonStrengths Top 5 assessment to form academic teams of 8–10 learners with a core faculty member as an academic coach. Orientation included virtual and on–site components, fostering team dynamics and program readiness. Academic coaches regularly met with learners to provide guidance, address challenges, and support career and leadership development, primarily via video conferencing.	NA	Exit surveys (N = 535) Alumni surveys (N = 273) Satisfaction: Connectedness Belonging. Effectiveness of the academic coaching.	Alumni survey: 1−2 years out Exit survey: Retrospectively reviewed at completion of the program.	Alumni surveys: Reported academic success, well–being, and sense of belonging moderately influenced with the greatest influence on their sense of belonging. Orientation contributed the most to academic success and sense of belonging. Academic coaching meetings contributed the most to their well–being. Exit surveys: High satisfaction and belonging reported across all cohorts. Program 1, 91.7% rated coaching as “effective” or “very effective,” with 84% feeling a sense of belonging. Program 2, 91.8% rated coaching quality highly, and the same percentage felt connected with the cohort.
[12]	First year of preclinical training at Harvard Medical School.	(N = 169) First year of preclinical training at Harvard Medical School.	A quality improvement project to enhance education on self–regulated learning (SRL) for first–year medical students. Professional development content on SRL, including goal setting, evidence–based learning strategies, and reflection, was introduced through a series of four brief videos before a faculty–led, 90-minute in–class session. The session included a lecture, small group discussions, individual reflection, and goal–setting activities, with students using personal journals to address reflection prompts. Students completed pre–and post–class surveys to assess their current and anticipated use of SRL skills, barriers to application, and strategies for incorporating SRL into their routines.	Pilot study (N = 15) conducted to evaluate the feasibility and resource needs of an academic coaching intervention. Two individualized 40-minute coaching sessions led by a learning specialist, spaced two weeks apart. Semi–structured virtual interviews were conducted sharing experiences and insights.	Classroom session: Qualitative and quantitative pre–post survey data related to frequency of use of srl. constructs included evidence–based learning strategies, goal setting, and reflection. Academic coaching: Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and de–identified.	Immediate post	Classroom session: 153 out of 169 students completed both the pre and post surveys, with a response rate of 90.5%. A statistically significant increase was observed between students’ use of skills in all domains (evidence–based learning strategies, goal setting, and reflection) of self–regulated learning prior to the intervention and their anticipated use of these skills after the intervention. Post coaching interviews identified 8 themes. adapting to learning in medical school, evolving as a strategic learner, learner led reflection, reassurance and validation from the coaching process, time and space for reflection, improved wellbeing and quality of life, empowered to let go, bringing one’s best self to class
[13]	Second semester, first year medical students at Georgetown University School of Medicine. In that class of 196, 53% were female and the average age was 24 (range 21–38).	(N = 37) Second semester, first year medical students.	Coaching was provided by two professional executive coaches, including one clinically trained coach with over 25 years of experience working with physicians and academics. Two group coaching sessions alternating with two individual one–hour sessions over the semester, focusing on life vision, goals, stress management, and decision–making strategies. Individual sessions addressed specific concerns, with consistent coach–participant pairings and assurances of confidentiality. Missed group sessions were accommodated with equivalent interactions for two participants.	NA	Primary outcomes: Feasibility, tolerability, and safety of the intervention. Coaching evaluation: Self derived questions using a 4-point Likert scale. Resilience: Connor–Davidson Resilient Beliefs Scale. Stress: Friedricksson–Larsson single question evaluation	Following the intervention	Primary outcomes: No protocol–related adverse events, Protocol adherence: 37/39 (94.9%). 37/37 (100%) found it to be of some value: 35/37 (94.6%) found it to be of average value or greater and only 2/37 (5.4%) found the program to be of limited value. 3/37 89%) willing to recommend and 16/37 (43%) very willing to recommend. Tailored survey: 32 participants reported highly significant effects in multiple domains targeted by the intervention. Participants’ self–efficacy was significant regarding their ability to manage stress (P < 0.001) Improvements with stress management (P < 0.05). Time management skills and energy for personal relationships were non–significant. Connor–Davidson resilience scale: Significant changes were seen only for the factors of Control and Spiritual influence (P = 0.005) Friedricksson–Larsson: Non–significant. 13/32 respondents (40.6%) reported improved stress level, and 13/32 respondents reported no increase in stress.
[14]	4th year female medical students.	(N = 189) 4th year female medical students from Saudi Arabia enrolled during the second semester of the 2014−2015 academic year.	Group meeting held between mentor and 10 students. One–on–one meetings held separately focused on academic advising, career planning, and discussions of student social and educational difficulties. Also discussed whether the mentee needed a referral for special support. The student support unit was established by the school of medicine to provide psychological, health and medical, talent, research interest, financial, and social support, among others.	Comparisons were made between students to who attended all group sessions (61%) versus those who did not.	Academic performance: Final exam scores and OSCE scores in clinical skills module course Satisfaction with academic performance: Survey Satisfaction with mentor: Survey	6 months	Final exam score: No difference for attendee’s vs non–attendees OSCE Score: No difference for attendee’s vs non–attendees Satisfaction with academic performance 83% who participated in one–on–one meetings reported satisfaction with academic performance Satisfaction with mentor: 50% were happy with mentor 50% wanted a more senior faculty member
[15]	Medical students, residents, fellows.	(N = 148) All individuals had either failed an exam or scored below the 30th percentile prior to participation.	Exam remediation involving faculty coaching: 1. Identify learners in need based on failure of board or training exams 2. Interview and encourage self–reflection 3. Collaboration on list of learner problems 4. Learning strategies applied to learner problems 5. Exploration on how to implement these strategies 6. Optional: follow–ups	No comparison	Academic performance: Repeat Exam performance (pass versus fail)		Repeat exam: 135 passed (91.2%) and 13 (8.8%) failed. Breakdown by learner category: Medical students (N = 52): 50 (96.2%) passed repeat exam while 2 (3.8%) failed Residents (N = 76): 67 (88.2%) passed repeat exam while 9 (11.8%) failed Fellows/faculty (N = 20): 18 (90.0%) passed repeat exam while 2 (10.0%) failed.
[16]	Medical students	All medical students participated in the coaching program.	Student and coach groups began medical school with the differences matter orientation. 60 coaches were assigned to 6 incoming students along with 6 students in the third–year class. The ratio was 1 to 12. During the first 17 months of the curriculum, students and coaches met for one full day per instructional week, engaging in discussions based on direct observation. Thereafter, they met 2–4 times yearly in scheduled individual progress and planning meetings, in small group professional identity formation sessions, and ad–hoc individually as needed. Students submitted learning goals and discussed them with coaches twice yearly. Coaches were trained to ask questions emphasizing positive psychology strategies, eliciting students’ strengths and problem–solving skills.	For the quantitative outcome described in the results column, the graduates who had not received coaching (2018, 2019) were compared with graduates who had received coaching (2020, 2021).	Personal and professional development: Exit survey	Coaching was longitudinal over the entire course of the student's time in medical school.	Percentage of students endorsing (agree/strongly agree) that at least one faculty member knew them personally and professionally increased from 61.1% (N = 96) pre–coaching program (2018, 2019, response rate 157/288) to 86.8% (N = 132) post–coaching (2020, 2021, response rate 152/232 (65%). The agreement was statistically significant.
[17]	Medical students	(N = 139) Medical students who registered for their first medical examination.	Groups 1 and 2: Received a 1-hour psych educative seminar addressing emotional reactions toward stressors. Group 1 (seminar + individual coaching) N = 34 Two 1-hour sessions of individual coaching by trained psychologists and physicians within a 2-week timeframe. Coaching was based on Wingwave method. Coaching was directed toward fostering individual stress–management resources. Students were given hemisphere–stimulating music and instructed to listen to the 20-minute piece of electronic music twice daily, before and during learning. Group 2 (Seminar) N = 33 Students were given the same hemisphere–stimulating music protocol as group 1.	Group 3 N = 38: Control that did not receive any intervention.	Self–rated general health: 5-point Likert scale: How would you describe your health in general Mental health: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in German (HADS–D) Stress: Perceived Medical School Stress scale in German (PMSS–D)	3 weeks	Due to low numbers, groups 1 and 2 were combined in the analysis as the intervention group. Self–rated general health: No differences HADS–D: No differences PMSS–D: Statistically significant reductions in stress for the intervention group.
[18]	Doctor of Pharmacy students	Doctor of Pharmacy Students. Cohort 1 (N = 117) Cohort 2 (N = 127)	All students attended a “Meet Your Advisor” luncheon at orientation. Each semester (twice per academic year), students met with their advisor. Advisors took a holistic approach during the advisement sessions to covering student life issues, academics (e.g., course concerns, electives, and special programs), and career pathways.	(N = 113) Student from the pre–advisement cohort (students enrolled in previous year that did not receive advisement services)	An in–house survey was designed for the advisement program using a 5-point Likert Scale.	Survey administered at the end of each academic year.	All cohorts had a response rate above 80%. Individual faculty advisement increased from 65% to 94−95%. Satisfaction improved over time, with better academic and career support. Early concerns about faculty–student matching decreased as faculty gained experience. Overall, the program ensured all students received guidance, with full impact requiring time and faculty development.
[19]	Doctor of Occupational therapy (OTD) and Masters in OT (MSOT) students	(N = 22) MSOT and OTD students in good standing. Inclusion criteria: access to a personal computer with Wi–Fi connection and willingness to commit 6.5 hours over a 6-week period.	The lifestyle balance intervention began in the second week of the fall semester. The first group session included COPM administration, followed by individual virtual coaching sessions to address activity imbalances and set personal goals. Weekly sessions featured presentations, interactive discussions, and hands–on activities using various materials. Learning was reinforced through Q&A, demonstrations, and media creation. Participants received printed and digital resources, including videos, apps, and websites.	N/A	Canadian occupational performance measure (COPM): client centered, subjective measure of occupational Satisfaction. Occupational lifestyle balance survey: Identify areas of activities the participant engaged in.	Weekly coaching interventions. Pre and Post tests using the occupational lifestyle balance survey and the COPM	Occupational lifestyle balance surveystress: N = 16 (72%) reported a reduction in stress Time for enjoyable activities Post intervention increased to 82% (N = 18), 18% (N = 4) reporting some improvement. 100% of participants responded they had learned one or more useful strategies to promote occupational lifestyle balance. COPM: N = 19 participants indicated increase in performance of identified activities post Intervention. N = 22 participants indicated increase satisfaction with performance in some activities. Goal attainment: 55% (N = 12) achieved their goal. An additional 32% (N = 7) indicated some progress toward the goal, while 13% (N = 3) did not achieve the goal.

*Statistically significant; ns: Non–significant; N: Sample size; DPT: Doctor of Physical Therapy; OTD: Doctor of Occupational Therapy; MSOT: Master’s in occupational therapy; LSHF: Learning and Success in Health Faculties; HBUSS: How to Be an Ultra Super Student; OSCE: Objective Structured Clinical Examination; DASS-21: The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items

Table 3.

Outcomes and attributes of included studies.

Article information	Outcome measures categories			Attributes of coaching
Authors	Academic progression	Satisfaction	Professional formation & mental health	Goal setting	Skill development & cognitive adaptability		Account- ability	Feedback & reflection	Resource navigation	Motivation & support	Proactive problem solving
[9]		x		x						x
[10]			x	x				x
[11]	x	x		x	x	x		x	x	x	x
[12]				x				x
[13]		x		x		x				x
[14]	x	x								x
[15]	x
[16]			x		x			x			x
[17]			x						x
[18]		x	x	x					x
[19]		x	x	x		x				x

Table 4.

Included study risk of bias assessment.

JBI checklist for designs of quasi–experimental studies
	Internal validity																				Statistical conclusion validity
Study	1		2			3			4		5			6			7		8		9	Assessment
[10]	Y		Y			U			Y		U			Y			Y		N		U	62.5%
[11]	Y		N			N/A			U		N			N			Y		Y		Y	50%
[12]	Y		N			Y			N/A		Y			Y			Y		N		Y	62.5%
[13]	Y		N			Y			N/A		Y			Y			Y		Y		Y	75%
[14]	Y		N			Y			Y		N			Y			U		Y		Y	62.5%
[15]	Y		N			Y			N/A		Y			Y			Y		Y		U	75%
[16]	Y		N			Y			Y		N			Y			Y		Y		U	75%
[18]	Y		Y			N			Y		N			Y			Y		U		Y	62.5%
[19]	Y		N			Y			U		Y			Y			Y		Y		U	75%

JBI checklist for designs of randomized controlled trial studies
		Internal validity																Statistical conclusion validity
Study		1		2	3		4	5		6		7	8		9	10		11		12	13	Assessment
[9]		Y		Y	Y		U	N		Y		Y	Y		Y	Y		Y		Y	Y	80%
[17]		Y		Y	Y		N	N		Y		N	Y		Y	Y		N		Y	Y	70%

Narrative summary of included RCTs

Both studies, designed as randomized controlled trials, focused on medical students. Aboalshamat et al. [9], with a JBI quality score of 10/13, and Kötter and Niebuhr [17], with a JBI quality score of 8/13, utilized RCT study designs to examine the impact of coaching programs on medical students. However, they differed in focus, methodology, and outcomes. Aboalshamat et al. [9] targeted both medical and dental students, while Kötter and Niebuhr [17] centered exclusively on medical students preparing for their first medical examination.

The interventions in these two RCT coaching studies were significantly different. Aboalshamat et al. [9] compared a self–development coaching program called "How to Be an Ultra Super Student" (HBUSS) with a traditional lecture–style program known as "Learning and Success in Health Faculties" (LSHF). Kötter and Niebuhr [17] evaluated a psychoeducational seminar combined with individual coaching sessions that utilized the Wingwave method and hemisphere–stimulating music (Groups 1 and 2), contrasting this with a control group that received no intervention. Aboalshamat et al. [9] concluded that the self–development coaching program positively impacted depression and anxiety but did not significantly affect other measured outcomes. Kötter and Niebuhr [17] discovered that the resource–oriented coaching program effectively reduced examination–related stress but did not significantly influence general health or mental well–being. In summary, while both studies emphasized the benefits of coaching programs in alleviating specific psychological stressors during professional training, Aboalshamat et al. [9] adopted a broader approach, focusing on psychological well–being and academic performance. In contrast, Kötter and Niebuhr [17] specifically targeted exam–related stress.

The remaining nine studies were considered quasi–experimental and classified according to the student populations they examined for comparison and contrast from a narrative synthesis perspective.

Medical education students–focused Quasi–experimental studies

Five studies focused on medical students were quasi–experimental in design. The details are outlined in PICO Table 2. The study by Boyd et al. [12] found first–year medical students at Harvard Medical School that a self–regulated learning (SRL) intervention, which included videos, faculty–led sessions, and coaching, significantly enhanced SRL skills. Interviews revealed themes like strategic learning, improved well–being, and empowerment. Cameron et al. [13] conducted a study at Georgetown University that involved executive/life coaching for first–year medical students. The intervention, consisting of group and individual sessions, demonstrated high adherence, no adverse events, and improved stress management and resilience. Participants appreciated the program and recommended its incorporation into the curriculum. Fallatah et al. [14] investigated mentoring for fourth–year female medical students at King Abdulaziz University. Group and individual sessions centered on academic advising and career planning. While no significant differences in exam scores were evident between students who attended all group sessions and those who did not, one–on–one meetings resulted in high satisfaction with academic performance. Guerrasio et al. [15] focused on remediation for medical students who did not pass the National Board of Medical Examiners subject exams or the United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 1 or Step 2. Faculty coaching improved repeat exam performance, with 96.2% of students passing after the intervention, underscoring the coaching program's success in addressing academic challenges. Lastly, Hauer et al. [16] explored a comprehensive coaching program that began in 2016, featuring regular meetings between coaches and students. The program emphasized positive psychology and DEI, and surveys indicated a significant increase in students reporting that faculty members knew them personally and professionally, illustrating the program's effectiveness.

In summary, the results from these five quasi–experimental studies have several similarities and differences. The studies reviewed aimed to enhance various aspects of medical student development through coaching and mentoring interventions. Boyd et al. [12] and Cameron et al. [13] both concentrated on first–year medical students, with Boyd et al. [12] emphasizing self–regulated learning (SRL) and Cameron et al. [13] focusing on executive/life coaching. Both studies reported significant improvements in students' skills and well–being, with Boyd et al. [12] noting enhanced SRL skills and Cameron et al. [13] highlighting improved stress management and resilience. Fallatah et al. [14] and Hauer et al. [16] examined mentoring and coaching programs for more advanced medical students. Fallatah et al. [14] focused on fourth–year female medical students, finding no significant differences in academic performance between those who attended all group sessions and those who did not but reported high satisfaction with one–on–one meetings. Hauer et al. [16] implemented a comprehensive coaching program for medical students from their first year through graduation, emphasizing personal and professional development while noting a significant increase in students feeling recognized by faculty. Guerrasio et al. [15] addressed academic remediation for medical students who struggled with exams, utilizing faculty coaching to improve repeat exam performance. The study reported a high pass rate, indicating the effectiveness of the coaching intervention in addressing academic difficulties.

While all studies aimed to support student development, their program structures and specific focus areas differed. Program structures varied across the studies, with Boyd et al. [12] and Cameron et al. [13] incorporating both group and individual sessions. In contrast, Fallatah et al. [14] focused on one–on–one meetings, while Hauer et al. [16] established a long–term coaching relationship. Guerrasio et al. [15] specifically addressed students needing academic remediation. Focus areas ranged from self–regulated learning (SRL) and stress management to academic performance and personal development. These differences illustrate the diverse approaches and outcomes of coaching and mentoring programs throughout various stages of medical education.

Health professions education student–focused Quasi–experimental studies

The four final studies focused on graduate students in health professions. Details are outlined in PICO Table 2. Armstrong et al. [10] evaluated a cooperative education coaching program for pharmacy students, comparing the 2013 cohort with the 2012 graduating class. The program included in–class sessions, as well as individual and group coaching meetings, and self–assessment surveys. Key findings demonstrated substantial growth in career planning and professional development, with coaches providing valuable guidance on post–graduation goals, internships, residencies, and networking.

Maerten–Rivera et al. [18] evaluated an advisement and coaching program for Doctor of Pharmacy students. The program paired each student with a faculty member based on their interests and included a "Meet Your Advisor" luncheon and required biannual meetings. This holistic approach was associated with improved student understanding of personal interests, academic opportunities such as elective coursework, and career pathways [18]. Black et al. [11] examined academic coaching in two hybrid Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) programs. Students participated in an online pre–orientation course and attended regular individual coaching sessions. Surveys indicated high levels of satisfaction, connectedness, and a sense of belonging. The program fostered academic success and well–being, although suggestions for further enhancements were noted. Rini and Provident [19] studied educational and coaching interventions for graduate occupational therapy students: the intervention comprised weekly group coaching sessions and one individual session. Key findings demonstrated reduced stress levels, increased time for enjoyable activities, and enhanced performance and satisfaction in selected activities. The intervention effectively promoted occupational balance and alleviated stress.

Despite sharing a common goal of fostering student development, these four studies differed in their target populations, program structures, focus areas, and data collection methods. Armstrong et al. [10] emphasized career planning, Maerten–Rivera et al. [18] concentrated on academic and career development, Black et al. [11] aimed to enhance satisfaction and a sense of belonging, while Rini and Provident [19] sought to achieve occupational balance and reduce stress. These variations highlight the diverse approaches and outcomes of coaching programs across various health professions.

Figure 2 presents a categorical graphic representation of the coaching program approach, highlighting similarities across the included studies, especially among all healthcare and medical program studies. The diagram visually illustrates how coaching programs utilize both individual and group sessions to target specific focus areas, resulting in positive student outcomes.

Figure 2.

Relationship of coaching programs to health professions and medical student outcomes.

Discussion

This systematic review explored the impact of academic coaching interventions on academic and professional outcomes among graduate students in health professions and medical education. While prior research has established the general benefits of coaching in higher education, this review contributes new insights by focusing on the distinct demands and contexts of graduate health professions training. These programs are uniquely characterized by high cognitive loads, emotionally taxing clinical environments, and the need for adaptive expertise, which may amplify the value of structured, individualized coaching.

Across the 11 included studies consistently emphasized the value of coaching and mentoring interventions in enhancing student development across diverse health professions and stages of graduate medical education. Interventions targeting both medical and health profession students [10,11,18,19] aimed to enhance academic success, career planning, professional growth, and personal well–being. Reported benefits included increased satisfaction, improved performance, reduced stress, and a heightened sense of belonging. A common feature across programs was the integration of individual and group sessions with tailored guidance, highlighting the importance of these interventions.

Notable differences emerged in target populations, program structures, focus areas, and data collection methods. Medical student research targeted both first–year (e.g., [13] and advanced students (e.g., [14], featuring a range of interventions, including self–regulated learning (SRL) [12], executive and life coaching [13], academic remediation [15], and long–term coaching relationships (e.g., [11]. Health professions research focused on pharmacy [10,18], physical therapy [11], and occupational therapy students [19]. These interventions emphasized career planning, academic and career development, satisfaction and belonging, and occupational balance.

Program structures varied widely. Medical student programs incorporated SRL content through videos and faculty–led sessions [12], as well as executive and life coaching [13], one–on–one mentoring [14], long–term coaching relationships [16], and academic remediation [15]. In contrast, health professions programs included in–class sessions [10], self–assessment surveys [10], advisor meetings [18], online pre–orientation courses [11], and weekly coaching sessions [19]. Despite the heterogeneity in academic coaching outcomes, several essential trends emerged. Academic coaching was linked to improvements in psychological well–being. Positive outcomes included reductions in depression [9], anxiety [9], stress [17], and promoting lifestyle balance [19], alongside enhancements in resilience and self–efficacy for managing stress [13]. Longitudinal coaching, in particular, improved students' perceptions of receiving personal and professional support [16].

Although findings on academic performance outcomes were mixed, coaching interventions appeared to positively affect exam remediation scores [15]. Other studies reported non–significant effects on GPA [9] and exam scores [14]. High levels of satisfaction were reported across various coaching programs despite differences in program structure, mode, and duration [11,13,14]. Programs that included regular one–on–one sessions and orientation activities received positive student recognition, fostering an increased sense of belonging and engagement [11].

Compared to the systematic review by Campbell and Mogashana [3], which focused on undergraduate populations, this study reveals that graduate health professions students may require more intensive, personalized, and longitudinal coaching approaches. The variability in coach backgrounds, delivery modes, and program structures further suggests that one–size–fits–all models are unlikely to be effective in this context. Effective interventions often combined individual and group sessions. Delivery models ranged from in–person to online, with fully online coaching yielding mixed results. Key coaching topics included academic skills, stress management, goal setting, and personal support. Coaches' backgrounds varied from professional coaches to near peers and trained staff, with professional coaches generally producing the best outcomes. These findings suggest that personalized, context–specific coaching interventions can effectively support student development across graduate health education settings.

These findings underscore the varied approaches and outcomes of coaching and mentoring programs across different medical education and health professions education or training stages. They indicate that tailored interventions can effectively support student development (e.g., [15,17]. However, individual students’ contextual factors and specific needs must be considered when designing and implementing academic coaching programs. Future research could explore the long–term effects of coaching to identify best practices, including optimal coaching training, content areas, timing, and delivery methods. Appropriate preparation should be a focus if faculty assume the coaching role.

Limitations

Our strict exclusion criteria ensured clarity in reporting but resulted in the omission of studies from conferences, theses, and gray literature, potentially limiting the scope of our findings. The absence of standardized assessment tools for measuring the impact of a coaching model presents challenges, reducing the comparability and generalizability of results. While standardized tools could aid in establishing best practices, they risk oversimplifying the complex nature of coaching. The diverse coaching approaches and contexts observed in this study suggest that recommendations must be tailored to meet the needs of the target graduate student populations. These limitations highlight the need for broader inclusion criteria, increased international research, and thoughtful consideration of local contexts when implementing coaching interventions. Further research should fill these gaps and create more nuanced assessment tools to capture the complexity of coaching programs better.

Ethics statement

This study does not require IRB review.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material

Appendix 2 Academic Coaching Search Strategies.docx

Supplementary material

Appendix 1 Inclusion and Exclusion Table.docx

Supplemental Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2025.2581671.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper.

Funding

The authors have not received any financial support for this study.