Research paper · RP50

Coaching versus Counselling for Subclinical Distress

This PRISMA-2020 systematic review asked whether coaching or counselling helps more for non-clinical adults with subclinical distress, and what that means for the coaching–clinical line. Across randomised trials of coaching versus inactive control, the best modern RCT-only syntheses report Hedges g = 0.43 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.51) and g = 0.59 (0.45 to 0.74); Theeboom’s 2014 overall figure of g = 0.66 remains the most-cited hook but shrinks to g = 0.39 when only controlled designs are kept. No randomised trial compared coaching with counselling head-to-head in this population between 2000 and 2026. A pooled g difference cannot be computed. Indirect benchmarks for brief psychological programmes in subclinical depression sit near g = 0.35 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.47). The two inactive-control estimates overlap. Session count, digital versus face-to-face format, and programme length did not reliably moderate coaching effects. Publication bias is present; trim-and-fill pulls the RCT-only coaching estimate downward. Certainty is moderate for coaching versus waitlist on wellbeing and goal attainment, and very low for any claim that one practice beats the other. India contributes one pilot of character-strengths coaching in rural health workers (d = 0.55) and no trial in urban professionals. Coaching remains a developmental practice. It is not a substitute for clinical care. The regulatory line is purpose, population and non-diagnosis — not a superiority contest between two effect sizes.