Fortune Recommends, Fortune Media's product review arm, has delved into the world of health coaching to help you, the consumer, make informed choices. Recently, they released a Best Of List for health coach training programs. Understanding the methodology and presentation of this list is essential for anyone looking for information on these programs.
Fortune Recommends knows that health coaching is a big business, and they are in the business of reviewing and making recommendations to customers. Having Fortune's stamp of approval can drum up real money for the companies they review and recommend. Being on a Best Of List (BOL) is a shrewd marketing move for places looking to increase page views or sales. So, it should be no surprise that Fortune Recommends constructed a Best Of 2024 health coaching programs list. The BOL reviewed 17 health coaching programs, ultimately recommending 10 of them.
An Easily Missed Disclaimer
“Fortune Education is part of Fortune Recommends™ and is editorially independent. We may earn affiliate revenue from links in this content. Learn more.”
If you click the “Learn more" link, you immediately learn that Fortune earns a commission on the purchases made for affiliate partner links and that these affiliate partnerships impact the order of appearance on the site and BOL. Irrespective of their “editorial independence,” this marketing tactic affects consumer decisions. For example, the first health coaching program was from MindbodyGreen and was branded as the “Best for career development.” Immediately following “Best for career development” is the “Best overall" offered by Catalyst Coaching. Why isn’t the “Best overall" listed first? Because Catalyst isn't an affiliate of Fortune, and MindbodyGreen is. However, this is far from the strangest choice made in this BOL.
The Methodology
The methodology for generating this BOL can be found at the bottom of the article, which is a scoring system on multiple dimensions. Presumably, that composite score is used to compare the programs. While that may be the case, we don't know for sure because no quantitative scores are shared in the BOL. Instead, each ranked program is given a version of the “Best for…” title (e.g., career development, overall, holistic approach, etc.). We can't assume that the order they are listed in is meaningful because, as we learned from the disclaimer, Fortune's affiliates will get top billing regardless. So, ordering the programs is meaningless, and no scores are provided, making it difficult to compare the programs, ultimately defeating the purpose of the BOL.
There are ten dimensions that the authors consider, each ostensibly with a different weight. However, four of the dimensions address costs to students. If you collapse those dimensions together (i.e., overall price, lending partnerships, scholarships, and financing options.), it accounts for 65% of the score for each program. The other 35% of the score breaks down into certifications (10%), mentorship opportunities (10%), educational requirements for entry (i.e., it appears as though the programs that require a bachelor's degree are scored lower than those that don't, 10%), and offered specializations (5%).
This BOL is offered by Fortune Education, which is part of Fortune Recommends, which assesses degrees and certificates. With education as their charge, one would hope they would heavily consider the content and quality of the education programs, especially since one way that people decide between programs is by assessing the amount of money for their potential return on investment. A big part of that return on investment is the quality of education. To compare programs without considering that is a disservice to consumers.
While it's impossible to do a complete assessment of the content and quality without going through a program, there are ways to approximate content and quality. For example, identifying who the faculty are (e.g., credentials, experience), assessing the listed required curriculum, etc.
Their methodology includes no real educational materials, instructors, or content review. The closest it comes is certification by the National Board for Health and Wellness Coaching (8%) and the International Coaching Federation (2%). This is only 10% of a program score.
The National Board for Health and Wellness Coaching publishes standards for education that programs are expected to meet. These standards do not reflect the content of the provided education; rather, they’re guidance for faculty qualifications. (Primarily, faculty members are certified by the board with at least 200 hours of coaching experience, and at least some instruction needs to come from people with bachelor's degrees). Even this bare minimum, which still fails to address content, is only rated as 8% of the overall scoring.
The Rankings
With a meaningless order and no composite scores, we must rely on the titles of the ranked programs and their accompanying explanations. While I don’t expect the writers at Fortune to be healthcare experts, I do expect some thought and genuine critique. However, it appears that much of the research conducted for this BOL was done on the programs' websites, taking the program's marketing claims at face value.
For example, MindbodyGreen ranked “Best for career development," and among the reasons why,
“The organization is also very transparent. It lists its instructors directly on the main certification page before you sign up, and includes names, photos, and experience.”
Mindbodygreen isn't the only program that does this, and considering that the scoring methodology didn’t consider faculty or educational content, why does this matter? Also, I think this should be table stakes for any program. A list of faculty and their credentials should be a given. Understanding exactly what makes this “Best for career development" would have been nice.
Another example is the “Most affordable,” the International Sports Sciences Association, for among other reasons,
“Despite its low price, ISSA still has a robust curriculum founded in evidence-based learning. Students get access to an extensive textbook, video lectures, and practical worksheets.”
ISSA's website literally uses this exact wording around “robust video lectures," “evidence-based health coaching," and a “comprehensive” textbook. Fortune seems to be taking ISSA's word for it.
Another example is the Institute for Integrative Nutrition, which was ranked as “Best for integrative medicine,” and among the reasons why was,
“IIN’s website notes that “91% of Health Coach Training Program graduates find or expand their career in wellness and healthcare.” While a self-reported number, it does show that IIN values student success.”
But is that what that 91% self-reported number shows? I would argue no. Of the people who reported back to them, most had “expanded” their career in wellness. But that could be anything. That could literally mean they have their own website as a health coach. It could mean that they have one client. It could mean that they were featured in Goop. It could mean they changed the signature line on their email. We have no idea or way of knowing what that expansion means or its boundaries.
That 91% number tells us nothing about student success and doesn’t tell us that IIN values student success. Like most companies, they value the story they can tell with an extremely biased and limited percentage they can claim as a victory. After all, that number was ripped straight from IIN’s website. Fortune didn’t do an independent analysis. They didn’t survey people who had completed the program. They looked at the website and rather briefly, from what I can tell. Simply looking at the website without digging into the program at all and taking the website at face value is not an honest review.
This BOL was an opportunity to dig into and compare and contrast different health coaching programs with each other. Alas, there is no direct head-to-head comparison. Just shallow dives into the websites of affiliates and others. It's also worth pointing out that anyone can request to be a part of these lists. All you have to do is fill out this Google Form. This headline and article help to promote these businesses without really helping people to consider the content and quality of the education they would receive.
Without revealing the direct head-to-head comparisons, even the ones that don't take into consideration the quality of education in contrast to the amount of money invested, this article reads more like promotional material than an actual resource geared at assisting people in making a decision that may impact their finances and future career options.
Katie Suleta, DHSc, MPH
Katie Suleta is a regional director of research in graduate medical education for HCA Healthcare. Her background is in public health, health informatics, and infectious diseases. She has an MPH from DePaul University, an MS in Health Informatics from Boston University, and has completed her Doctorate of Health Sciences at George Washington University.
