gms | German Medical Science

GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung

Gesellschaft für Medizinische Ausbildung (GMA)

ISSN 1860-3572

Physician empathy: Definition, outcome-relevance and its measurement in patient care and medical education

research article medicine

  • corresponding author Melanie Neumann - Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Integrated Curriculum for Anthroposophic Medicine (ICURAM) at the Gerhard Kienle Chair for Medical Theory, Integrative and Anthroposophic Medicine, Witten, Germany; Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Center for Educational Research in Health, Witten, Germany
  • author Christian Scheffer - Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Integrated Curriculum for Anthroposophic Medicine (ICURAM) at the Gerhard Kienle Chair for Medical Theory, Integrative and Anthroposophic Medicine, Witten, Germany; Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Center for Educational Research in Health, Witten, Germany; Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Herdecke, Department of Internal for Medicine, Clinical Education Ward for Integrative Medicine (CEWIM), Herdecke, Germany
  • author Diethard Tauschel - Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Integrated Curriculum for Anthroposophic Medicine (ICURAM) at the Gerhard Kienle Chair for Medical Theory, Integrative and Anthroposophic Medicine, Witten, Germany
  • author Gabriele Lutz - Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Integrated Curriculum for Anthroposophic Medicine (ICURAM) at the Gerhard Kienle Chair for Medical Theory, Integrative and Anthroposophic Medicine, Witten, Germany; Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Herdecke, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Herdecke, Germany
  • author Markus Wirtz - University of Freiburg, Department of Research Methods, Institut of Psychology, Freiburg, Germany; University of Eduation Freiburg, Kompetenzverbund empirische Bildungs- und Unterrichtsforschung (KeBU), Freiburg, Germany
  • author Friedrich Edelhäuser - Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Integrated Curriculum for Anthroposophic Medicine (ICURAM) at the Gerhard Kienle Chair for Medical Theory, Integrative and Anthroposophic Medicine, Witten, Germany; Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Herdecke, Department of Early Rehabilitation, Herdecke, Germany

GMS Z Med Ausbild 2012;29(1):Doc11

doi: 10.3205/zma000781, urn:nbn:de:0183-zma0007817

This is the original version of the article.
The translated version can be found at: http://www.egms.de/de/journals/zma/2012-29/zma000781.shtml

Received: February 18, 2011
Revised: July 12, 2011
Accepted: October 14, 2011
Published: February 15, 2012

© 2012 Neumann et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.


Abstract

Objective: The present study gives a brief introduction into

1.
the definition of physician empathy (PE) and
2.
its influence on patients’ health outcomes.

Furthermore

3.
we present assessment instruments to measure PE from the perspective of the patient and medical student.

The latter topic will be explored in detail as we conducted a pilot study on the German versions of two self-assessment instruments of empathy, which are mostly used in medical education research, namely the “Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, Student Version” (JSPE-S) and the “Interpersonal Reactivity Index” (IRI).

Methods: We first present an overview of the current empirical and theoretical literature on the definition and outcome-relevance of PE. Additionally, we conducted basic psychometric analyses of the German versions of the JSPE-S and the IRI. Data for this analyses is based on a cross-sectional pilot-survey in N=44 medical students and N=63 students of other disciplines from the University of Cologne.

Results: PE includes the understanding of the patient as well as verbal and non-verbal communication, which should result in a helpful therapeutic action of the physician. Patients’ health outcomes in different healthcare settings can be improved considerably from a high quality empathic encounter with their clinician. Basic psychometric results of the German JSPE-S and IRI measures show first promising results.

Conclusion: PE as an essential and outcome-relevant element in the patient-physician relationship requires more consideration in the education of medical students and, thus, in medical education research. The German versions of the JSPE-S and IRI measures seem to be promising means to evaluate these education aims and to conduct medical education research on empathy.

Keywords: physician empathy, definition, patient-outcomes, JSPE-S, IRI, CARE


Introduction

The aim of the present article is to raise more attention and basic understanding of the importance of physician empathy (PE) in the field of medical education research. Therefore, we’ll give a concise introduction into the

1.
definition of PE and
2.
its influence on patients’ health outcomes.

In the next step

3.
we present assessment instruments to measure PE from the subjective perspective of the patient and from medical students’ view.

The latter topic will be presented in detail as we did a pilot-study and basic psychometric analyses of two self-assessment instruments of empathy, which are mostly used in medical education and empathy research, namely the German translations of the “Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, Student Version” (JSPE-S) and the “Interpersonal Reactivity Index” (IRI).


What is physician empathy?

“One of the most frequent tasks of every physician is the communication with patients and relatives, regardless if their field of is more in surgery, internal medicine or family medicine” [1], p.709. A central prerequisite for the development of a therapeutic physician-patient relationship is the physician’s ability to empathize with the patient [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].

Many researchers have tried to establish a precise definition of PE [10], [11] and found that empathy is comprised of two components – an affective and a cognitive one (detailed overview, see [12]). One of the mostly used definitions of PE is that of Mercer and Reynolds [5]. They took, on the other hand, an integrative approach to defining empathy, considering it both a multidimensional and skills-based construct. They describe four components of a multidimensional conception of the empathy construct based on an extensive review of literature conducted by Morse et al. [13]. These include the following:

1.
„Emotive: The ability to subjectively experience and share in another’s psychological state or intrinsic feelings.
2.
Moral: An internal altruistic force that motivates the practice of empathy;
3.
Cognitive: The helper’s intellectual ability to identify and understand another person’s feelings and perspective from an objective stance;
4.
Behavioural: Communicative response to convey understanding of another’s perspective.” [5], p.S10

By taking this multidimensional approach, Mercer and Reynolds intentionally distance themselves from the purely emotional aspect usually associated with the term empathy. At the same time, they use Morse’s concept of empathy to delimit it from the term “sympathy”, which implies strong emotional involvement in the needs and concerns of the patient and, for this reason, is often seen as a danger by medical personnel. By contrast, Mercer and Reynolds define empathy more as a learnable, professional (communication) skill and less as a purely subjective emotional experience or an innate, unalterable personality trait (overview on the learnability of empathy, see [14]).

Greater significance has been given to the cognitive and behavioral aspects of empathy within the clinical context. Mercer and Reynolds describe these dimensions as an “entering into of the patient’s perspective, beliefs, and experiences” [5], p.S10. This “entering into” does not, however, necessarily entail exactly the way the patient feels because this could lead to an over-identification with the patient and a blurring of professional boundaries.

Mercer and Reynolds [5] believe that none of the above described four components of PE are effective unless they are expressed through an action component. In other words, the physician must demonstrate unequivocally to the patient that she/he understands what the patient is experiencing and, at the same time, check back with the patient to ensure that he has understood correctly [14]. In their opinion, physicians can only provide a patient with therapeutic treatment once they have obtained an accurate and complete informational understanding of the patient as a result of such a “feedback loop.”

Based on this conceptual background and a definition provided by Coulehan et al. [15], Mercer and Reynolds define PE as:

„… the ability

1.
to understand the patient’s situation, perspective and feelings (and their attached meanings),
2.
to communicate that understanding and check its accuracy and
3.
to act on that understanding with the patient in a helpful (therapeutic) way.“ [5], p. S10.

Therefore, PE is understood as physician’s understanding of the patient and verbal and non-verbal communication of the physician resulting in a helpful therapeutic action.


What makes empahty an important skill for a physician? The outcome-relevance of physician empathy

Studies on the outcome-relevance of empathy found a range of positive effects for the patient, although most of these studies assume different definitions and measures of PE. Beside this, empathic communicating physician may lead to:

  • Patients reporting more on their symptoms and concerns [11], [15], [16], [17], [18],
  • Increased diagnostic accuracy [15], [17], [19], [20],
  • Patients’ receipt of more illness-specific information [14], [21], [22], [23],
  • Increased patient participation and education [5], [23], [24],
  • Increased patient compliance and satisfaction [25], [26], [27],
  • Greater “patient enablement” (i.e., the patient’s ability to cope with prescribed treatment) [14], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33],
  • Reduced depression and increased quality of life [14], [22],
  • In patients with the common cold, PE is a significant predictor of the duration and severity of the illness and is associated with immune system changes in immune cytokine IL-8 [34].

These empirical findings on the therapeutic effectiveness of PE lead to the question as to what makes socio-emotional components of the patient-physician relationship, such as PE, so effective. In other words, what are the exact mechanisms of PE leading to improved patient outcomes? In the “Effect model of empathic communication in the clinical encounter” [14], the specific therapeutic effects of PE and their mutual associations are detailed to explain these therapeutic mechanisms of PE. The aim of this model [14] is to give the individual using the model in clinical practice or medical education a clear illustration of the specific positive effects that PE can have on physician actions during the clinical encounter and on patients.


How can physician empathy be measured?

This chapter presents a selection of empathy measures pertinent to the fields of patient (see Section 4.1) and medical education research (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3). For recent systematic reviews of empathy measures and their critical reflection please compare the articles by Hemmendinger et al. [35] and Pedersen [36] who also discussed the CARE, the JSPE and the IRI.

Patient assessment of physician empathy

One standardized instrument for the assessment of PE by patients is the widely used “Consultation and Relational Empathy” (CARE) measure [6]. Mercer et al. developed this instrument based on their theoretical conception of PE as described Section 2 as well as on qualitative in-depth interviews with patients [37]. In recent years, a working group led by Mercer has further developed this generic, non-disease-specific, measure based on a wide range of theoretical and empirical research and has continuously improved and validated the measure through qualitative and quantitative research with patients treated in-hospital and in general practice [5], [6], [33], [37], [38]. Unique to the CARE scale is that in addition to the item statements measuring the different empathic physician activities and behaviors, it also provides synonymous and antonymous definitions for each of these statements in order to clarify them for the patients being surveyed. The scale’s ten items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=very good, 5=excellent) and are preceded by the phrase: “How was your doctor at ...” [39].

A German version of the CARE measure is also available and has been psychometrically evaluated with a sample of oncology patients [18]. One main finding of the confirmatory factor analyses was that the ten items of the CARE scale fit a unidimensional model, which confirmed the psychometric properties of the German version to be the same as those of the original English version [18]. However, a recent study based on the advanced Rasch-model indicated that only the first nine items of the CARE-measure allow for the unidimensional assessment of PE [40].

Based on these satisfying psychometric properties of German CARE version, the instrument may be regarded as an adequate measure for further use in outcome and intervention research. In medical practice, physicians or medical students can use the CARE scale as a timesaving feedback instrument for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their own empathic behavior, as a personal behavior checklist during consultations, and/or as a checklist for determining patient preferences either before or during a consultation. For these reasons, the CARE measure has been accredited in Scotland by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) as a revalidation toolkit recommended for use and being used by general practitioners as a self-audit instrument [41].

Beyond that CARE can also be used in medical education, e.g. as a feedback tool for observers during simulation patients contact.

Assessment of the relevance of empathy in medicine from the perspective of medical students and students of other disciplines

Due to its outcome relevance (see Section 3) PE has also long been a key element of the framework of medical professionalism [42] as well as a defined educational objective in medical training in several countries [43], [44], [45]. However, in Germany, only one study has been conducted to assess the relevance of empathy in medicine from the viewpoint of medical students. This study surveyed all pre-clinical students in their first and second semesters at the University of Regensburg (N=811) and found that medical students considered physician competence and attentiveness to patients as most important. Although empathic behavior was also considered to play an important role, it ranked lower than competence and attentiveness [46].

Due to this research gap, we conducted a cross-sectional pilot study and basic psychometric analyses of the German translations of the most frequently used self-assessment measures of PE in medical education research: the JSPE-S measure (see Section 4.2.1) which aims to assess students’ perceived relevance of empathy in patient-physician interaction and the IRI measure (see Section 4.3.1) which, in contrast to the JSPE-S, aims to assess empathic abilities.

Methods

1. The “Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, Student Version” measure

The following are explorative results of first pilot study comparing the perceived relevance of empathy in medical care from the point of view of German medical students and students of other disciplines. The study measured students’ perceived relevance of empathy in patient-physician interaction using the German version of the JSPE-S (for in-depth overview of the theoretical assumptions of the IRI compare e.g., [7], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]) (for German items, see Tabelle 1 [Tab. 1]). This measure was specifically developed for the context of medical education and medical education research and comprises 20 items, each answered on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Satisfactory evidence for the psychometric quality of the JSPE-S has already been provided by many studies [7], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51].

So far, the JSPE-S has been translated into a total of 25 languages [52]. Translation of the measure into German was carried out according to established guidelines for translating and adapting foreign instruments [53], [54], [55]. First, the JSPE scale was translated into German by three separate individuals (MN, CS, DT) with the aim to obtain a translation that remained as close to the original English version as possible. The three German versions were then back translated into English by a professional native English-speaking translator. Finally, German items closest to the original English items were selected for use in the instrument. This version was tested with three medical students and three test subjects from the regular population using qualitative psychometric pretests such as the think-aloud and probing techniques [56], [57]. The final German version was translated back into English and authorized by M. Hojat.

2. Data collection and data analysis

Data collection took place under the direction of the first author during the summer of 2009 as part of the one-week seminar called “Medical Sociology Research Practices”. The 14 seminar participants conducted a total of N=107 face-to-face standardized interviews with N=44 medical students from the University Clinic Cologne and N=63 student of other disciplines at a total of four relevant university campus locations.

PASW Statistics Version 18 was used to conduct statistical analysis. We conducted means, standard deviations, and item discriminabilities (coefficient indicating how well a single item represents the result of the whole test [58]) for basic item analysis (compare Table 1 [Tab. 1] and 2 [Tab. 2]). Moreover, Cronbach’s alpha were conducted for the basic psychometric analysis and t-test for comparing JSPE-S and IRI mean values of medical and non-medical students.

3. Sample

The average age of the medical students was 22.8 years, and the average age of the students of other disciplines was 23.8. On average, medical students had completed 4.7 semesters; for the other students, the average was 5.4 semesters. Whereas N=20 of the medical students were female and N=24 were male, N=38 of the students from other disciplines were female and N=25 were male. Students from other disciplines were N=19 from pedagogy, N=22 from economics, N=14 from natural sciences, N=8 from law.

4. Results: Basic psychometrics of the German version of the JSPE-S

The item scores on the JSPE-S of the two student groups are listed in separate columns in Table 1. As can be observed, the medical students had significantly higher scores for three of the items (marked in bold **). A comparison via t-test of the total JSPE-scores also revealed a tendential, but not significant difference between the two student groups (p=0.075). Other studies have also found significant differences in the total JSPE scores of the study population with regards to gender [e.g., 52, 58]. However, this study indicated no significant gender differences.

The psychometric quality of the German version of the JSPE-S is comparable to the original American version. Cronbach’s alphas for the medical students and students of other disciplines ranged between 0.803 and 0.805, respectively [7], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [59]. Interestingly, however, removal of Item 7 (see Tabelle 1 [Tab. 1]) would increase the Cronbach’s alpha to 0.838 for both sample groups. The same is true for Items 5, 6 and 18, although the increase would not be as great.

Due to the small sample size in this explorative study, a factor analysis was not conducted.

Self-assessment of dispositional empathy by medical students and students of other disciplines

The “Interpersonal Reactivity Index” (IRI) measure

Another possible means of measuring empathy involves assessing one’s own empathic abilities. Of the many self-assessment instruments available [35], [36], three scales are most commonly used in international education research. These include the “Interpersonal Reactivity Index” (IRI) [10], [58], [60], the “Hogan Empathy Scale” [61] and the “Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale” (BEES) [62]. In recent years, studies have frequently used the IRI scale for self-assessments of empathy [for in-depth overview of the theoretical assumptions of the IRI compare [10], [58], [60] among medical students and have found that

(a)self-assessed empathy is greater among medical students than students of other disciplines [63], [64], [65];

(b)there is a significant decrease in self-assessed empathy over the course of students’ medical education and training among both medical students and residents with patient-remote specialties and, in particular, among those in the clinical practice phase [66];

(c)medical students’/ residents’ distress in its various forms has a significant negative impact on self-assessed empathy [66].

So far, no studies investigating the self-assessed empathy of medical students or physicians have been conducted in Germany. To ensure consistency with the international research discussed above, Davis’ IRI measure [10], [58], [60] was translated into German according to the procedures detailed in Subsection 4.2.1.1. As with the JSPE-S, the final German version of the IRI was back translated into English and authorized by M. Davis.

The IRI Scale contains 28 items (see Table 2 [Tab. 2]) measuring both the cognitive and emotional dimensions of empathy. The items are answered on a Likert scale ranging from A (does not describe me at all, numerically coded as “1”) to E (describes me very well, numerically coded as “5”). The IRI is made up of the following four subscales:

1.
The perspective-taking scale assesses the personal tendency to see a situation through the eyes of others and not only through one’s own (Table 2 [Tab. 2]; items 3, 8, 11, 15, 21, 25, 28).
2.
The fantasy scale assesses a person’s tendency to identify with the situation and feelings of characters in novels, movies or plays (items 1, 5, 7, 12, 16, 23, 26).
3.
The empathic concern scale measures a person’s tendency to care about the feelings and needs of others (items 2, 4, 9, 14, 18, 20, 22).
4.
The personal distress scale measures the personal tendency to experience distress and discomfort in difficult social situations (items 6, 10, 13, 17, 19, 24, 27).
Methods

The data collection procedures and sample characteristics are the same as in Subsections 4.2.1.2 and 4.2.1.3 respectively.

Results: Basic psychometrics of the German version of the IRI

Item scores obtained for the medical students and students of other disciplines for the German version of the IRI are presented in separate columns in Table 2. Contrary to our assumption [67], neither the individual items of the IRI scale nor the four subscales indicated in t-tests any differences in the degree of self-assessed empathy when comparing the two groups of students (perspective-taking: p=0.883; fantasy: p=0.104; empathic concern: p=0.727; personal distress: p=0.358). However, as hypothesized [67], gender-specific differences in the overall sample were found for two of the four IRI subscales. In a t-test we found that female students assessed their level of empathy to be higher in the dimensions of fantasy (p=0.000) and personal distress (p=0.002) and a little bit higher, but not significantly, in the empathic concern dimension (p=0.091).

The basic psychometric quality of the Germany version of the IRI is comparable to the original American version [10], [58], [60]. Cronbach’s alpha for the four IRI subscales were 0.736 (fantasy), 0.693 (empathic concern), 0.752 (perspective taking) and 0.702 (personal distress) for the medical students and 0.779 (fantasy), 0.616 (empathic concern), 0.759 (perspective taking) and 0.703 (personal distress) for the students of other disciplines. What is striking is that removal of Item 13 would considerably improve the Cronbach’s alpha for the personal distress scale (medical students= 0.810; other disciplines= 0.754).

Due to the small sample size in this first explorative study, a factor analysis was not conducted.


Discussion

Future research on the German version of the JSPE-S and the IRI

Future studies have to verify and enhance these first very basic and descriptive psychometric analyses of the German versions of the JSPE-S and IRI by using larger samples from various medical faculties and other disciplines. This should be done through exploratory, confirmatory factor analyses [18] and with the Rasch-model [40] in a more in-depth study of the instruments’ divergent, convergent and criterion validities. Furthermore, the construct validity of the JSPE-S and the IRI has to be verified as well, e.g. their correlation with personality measures, gender. Particularly important for the JSPE-S is to verify in future studies if students are aware of the construct empathy and its meaning, because it this seems to be a prerequisite to be able responding to this measure. Moreover, also the relatively low values [68] of Cronbach’s alpha and partly too low item discriminabilities [68] of the JSPE-S and IRI reveal further in-depth and critical psychometric analyses in the future with larger samples.

Nevertheless, the measurement of medical students’ empathy via self-assessment requires methodological awareness on its limited validity. Future medical education research should therefore explore e.g. diagnostic tests or other methods of assessment (overview [69]) as considerable proxies for the self-assessment of empathy.

Conclusion

This literature overview and pilot study demonstrates that PE as an outcome-relevant element in the patient-physician relationship requires more consideration in the education of medical students and, thus, in medical education research. The German versions of the JSPE-S and IRI measures seem to be promising means to evaluate these education aims and to conduct medical education research on empathy in the future.


Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Software AG Foundation, the Mahle Foundation and the Cultura Foundation for their financial support of Melanie Neumann, Christian Scheffer, Gabriele Lutz, Diethard Tauschel and Friedrich Edelhaeuser.

We would also like to thank Gudrun Lamprecht for her tireless support in providing literature. We are grateful to Fawn Zarkov for her qualified support concerning our use of English.

Parts of this study can be found in a book chapter in German language under the following reference: Neumann M, Edelhaeuser F, Tauschel D, Scheffer C (2010). Ärztliche Empathie: Definition, therapeutische Wirksamkeit und Messung. In: Witt C.(Hrsg.), Der gute Arzt aus interdisziplinärer Sicht. Ergebnisse eines Expertentreffens. Essen, KVC Verlag, S. 157-186. We thank the KVC Verlag for the permission to publish this excerpt in English language.


Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


References

1.
Kappauf HW. Kommunikation in der Onkologie. Hautarzt. 2004;55:709-714. DOI: 10.1007/s00105-004-0767-7 External link
2.
Dixon DM, Sweeney KG, Gray DJ. The physician healer: ancient magic or modern science? Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49(441):309-312.
3.
Usherwood T. Understanding the consultation: evidence, theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
4.
Rees-Lewis JC. Patients views on quality of care in general practice: literature review. Soc Sci Med. 1994;39:655-671.DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90022-1 External link
5.
Mercer SW, Reynolds WJ. Empathy and quality of care. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(Suppl):S9-13.
6.
Mercer SW, Maxwell M, Heaney D, Watt GC. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. Fam Pract. 2004;21(6):1-6. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmh621 External link
7.
Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, Veloski JJ, Erdman JB, Callahan CA, Magee M. Empathy in medical students as related to academic performance, clinical competence, and gender. Med Educ. 2002;36(6):522-527. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01234.x External link
8.
Spiro H, McCrea Curnen M, Peschel E, St James D. Empathy and the practice of medicine: Beyond pills and the scapel. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1993.
9.
Herzig S, Biehl L, Stelberg H, Hick C, Schmeißer N, Koerfer A. What makes a good doctor? A content analysis of assessments by a sample of doctors. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2006;131:2883-2888. DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-957216 External link
10.
Davis MH. Empathy. A Social Psychological Approach. Boulder: Westview Press; 1996.
11.
Squier RW. A model of empathic understanding and adherence to treatment regimens in practitioner-patient-relationships. Soc Sci Med. 1990;30(3):325-329. DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(90)90188-X External link
12.
Neumann M. Ärztliche Empathie: Messung, Determinanten und patient-reported Outcomes - Eine explorative Querschnittstudie aus der Sicht von Patienten mit Bronchial-, Ösophagus-, Kolorektal-, Mamma-, Prostata- und Hautkarzinom. Dissertation. Köln: Universität zu Köln; 2008.
13.
Morse J, Anderson G, Bottorff J. Exploring empathy: a conceptual fit for nursing practice? Image J Nurs Sch. 1992;24(4):273-280. DOI: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1992.tb00733.x External link
14.
Neumann M, Bensing J, Mercer SW, Ernstmann N, Pfaff H. Analyzing the “nature” and “specific effectiveness” of clinician empathy: A theoretical overview and contribution towards a theory-based research agenda. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74:339-346. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.013 External link
15.
Coulehan J, Platt F, Egner B, Frankel R, Lin C, Lown B, Salazar W. ''Let me see if I have this right.'': words that build empathy. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:221-227.
16.
Maguire P, Faulkner A, Booth K, Elliot C, Hiller V. Helping cancer patients disclose their concerns. Eur J Cancer Care. 1996;32A:78-81.
17.
Beckman HB, Frankel RM. Training practitioners to communicate effectively in cancer care: it is the relationship that counts. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;50(1):85-89. DOI: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00086-7 External link
18.
Neumann M, Wirtz M, Bollschweiler E, Warm M, Wolf J, Pfaff H. Psychometrische Evaluation der deutschen Version des Messinstruments “Consultation and Relational Empathy” (CARE) am Beispiel von Krebspatienten. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2008;58(1):5-15. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-970791 External link
19.
Larson EB, Yao X. Clinical empathy as emotional labor in the patient-physician relationship. JAMA. 2005;293(9):1100-1106. DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.9.1100 External link
20.
Halpern J. From detached concern to empathy. Humanizing medical practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
21.
Irving P, Dickson D. Empathy: towards a conceptual framework for health professionals. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2004;17(4-5):212-220.
22.
Neumann M, Wirtz M, Bollschweiler E, Mercer SW, Warm M, Wolf J, Pfaff H. Determinants and patient-reported long-term outcomes of physician empathy in oncology: A structural equation modelling approach. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69(1-3):63-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.07.003 External link
23.
Kim SS, Kaplowitz S, Johnston MV. The effects of physician empathy on patient satisfaction and compliance. Eval Health Prof. 2004;27(3):237-251. DOI: 10.1177/0163278704267037 External link
24.
Price S, Mercer SW, MacPherson H. Practitioner empathy, patient enablement and health outcomes: A prospective study of acupuncture patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1-2):239-245. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.11.006 External link
25.
Roter DL, Stewart M, Putnam SM, Lipkin M Jr, Stiles W, Inui TS. Communication patterns of primary care physicians. JAMA. 1997;277(4):350-356. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540280088045 External link
26.
Nightingale SD, Yarnold PR, Greenberg MS. Sympathy, empathy, and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6(5):420-423. DOI: 10.1007/BF02598163 External link
27.
Levinson W, Gorawa-Bhat R, Lamb J. A study of patient cues and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. JAMA. 2000;284(8):1021-1027. DOI: 10.1001/jama.284.8.1021 External link
28.
Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell MW, Freeman GK, Rai H. Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey. Brit Med J. 1999;319:738-743. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.738 External link
29.
MacPherson H, Mercer SW, Scullion T, Thomas KJ. Empathy, enablement, and outcome. J Altern Complement Med. 2003;9(6):869-876. DOI: 10.1089/107555303771952226 External link
30.
Bikker AP, Mercer SW, Reilly D. A pilot prospective study on the consultation and relational empathy, patient enablement, and health changes over 12 months in patients going to the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital. J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11(4):591-600. DOI: 10.1089/acm.2005.11.591 External link
31.
Mercer SW, Reilly D, Watt GC. The importance of empathy in the enablement of patients attending the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(484):901-905.
32.
Mercer SW, Watt GC, Reilly D. Empathy is important for enablement. BMJ. 2001;322(7290):865. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7290.865 External link
33.
Mercer SW, Neumann M, Wirtz M, Fitzpatrick B, Vojt G. General practitioner empathy, patient enablement, and patient-reported outcomes in primary care in an area of high socio-economic deprivation in Scotland: a pilot prospective study using structural equation modelling. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(2):240-245. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.022 External link
34.
Rakel DP, Hoeft TJ, Barrett BP, Chewning BA, Craig BM, Niu M. Practitioner empathy and the duration of the common cold. Fam Med. 2009;41(7):494-501.
35.
Hemmendinger JM, Stoddort S, Lilford RA. A systematic review of tests of empathy in medicine. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:1-8. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-7-1 External link
36.
Pedersen R. Empirical research on empathy in medicine — A critical review. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(3):307-322. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.06.012 External link
37.
Mercer SW, Reilly D. A qualitative study of patients’ views on the consultation at the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53(1):13-18. DOI: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00242-8 External link
38.
Mercer SW, McConnachie A, Maxwell M, Heaney D, Watt GC. Relevance and practical use of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure in general practice. Fam Pract. 2005;22(3):328-334. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmh730 External link
39.
Mercer SW. Using the CARE Measure in Secondary Care. Pilot study report to the Centre for Change and Innovation. Dundee (UK): Scottish Executive Health Department; 2005.
40.
Wirtz M, Boecker M, Forkmann T, Neumann M. Evaluation of the ‘‘Consultation and Relational Empathy’’ (CARE) measure by means of Rasch – analysis at the example of cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82:298–306. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.009 External link
41.
Royal College of General Practitioners (Scotland). Revalidation toolkit for doctors working in clinical general practice in Scotland. Section 3C (1) Relationship with Patients (Review of Communication Skills). Edinburgh: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2003.
42.
West CP, Shanafelt TD. The influence of personal and environmental factors on professionalism in medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:1-9. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-7-29 External link
43.
Association of American Medical Colleges. Report I: learning objectives for medical student education-guidelines for medical school. Acad Med. 1999;74(1):13-18.
44.
Frank JR. The CanMEDS 2005 physician competency framework. Better standards. Better physicians. Better care. Ottawa: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2005.
45.
Swiss Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Training. Working Group under a Mandate of the Joint Commission of the Swiss Medical Schools. Bern: Swiss Medical Schools; 2008.
46.
von Schmädel G, Götz K. Das Arztideal bei Medizinstudenten. Allgemeinarzt. 2002;22:738-774.
47.
Hojat M, Gonnellla JS, Nasca TJ, Mangione S, Vergare M, Magee M. Physician empathy: Definition, components, measurment, and relationship to gender and specialty. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(9):1563-1569. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.9.1563 External link
48.
Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, Magee M. Physician empathy in medical education and practice: Experience with the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy. Sem in Integr Med. 2003;1:25-41. DOI: 10.1016/S1543-1150(03)00002-4 External link
49.
Hojat M, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, Rattner S, Erdmann JB, Gonnella JS, Magee M. An empirical study of decline in empathy in medical school. Med Educ. 2004;38(9):934-941. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01911.x External link
50.
Hojat M, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, Gonnella JS. Empathy scores in medical school and ratings of empathic behavior in residency training 3 years later. J Soc Psych. 2005;145(6):663-672. DOI: 10.3200/SOCP.145.6.663-672 External link
51.
Mangione S, Kane G, Caruso J, Gonnella JS, Nasca TJ, Hojat M. Assessment of empathy in different years of internal medicine training. Med Teach. 2002;24(4):370-373. DOI: 10.1080/01421590220145725 External link
52.
Hojat M, Vergare MJ, Maxwell K, Brainard G, Herrine SK, Isenberg GA, Veloski J, Gonella JS. The Devil is in the Third Year: A Longitudinal Study of Erosion of Empathy in Medical School. Acad Med. 2009;84(9):1182-1191. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b17e55 External link
53.
Brislin R. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. J Cross-Cult Psych. 1970;1:185-216. DOI: 10.1177/135910457000100301 External link
54.
Geisinger KF. Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaption issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psych Ass. 1994;6:304-312. DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304 External link
55.
Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaption of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-1432. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N External link
56.
Mittag O, Böhmer S, Deck R, Ekkernkamp M, Hüppe A, Telbis-Kankainen H, Raspe A, Raspe H. Fragen über Fragen: cognitive survey in der Fragebogenentwicklung. Soz Präventivmed. 2003;48(1):55-64. DOI: 10.1007/s000380300006 External link
57.
Prüfer P, Rexroth M. Zwei-Phasen-Pretesting. In: Mohler PP, Lüttinger P (Hrsg). Querschnitt. Festschrift für Max Kaase. Mannheim: ZUMA; 2000. S.203-219.
58.
Davis M. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psych. 1983;44:1114-1126. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 External link
59.
Kataoka HU, Koide N, Ochi K, Hojat M, Gonnella JS. Measurement of empathy among Japanese medical students: Psychometrics and score differences by gender and level of medical education. Acad Med. 2009;84(9):1192-1197. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b180d4 External link
60.
Davis M. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents. Psychol. 1980;10:85-90.
61.
Hogan R. Development of an empathy scale. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1969;33:307-316. DOI: 10.1037/h0027580 External link
62.
Mehrabian A, Epstein N. A measure of emotional empathy. J Pers. 1972;40(4):525-543. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x External link
63.
Thomas MR, Dyrbye LN, Huntington JL, Lawson KL, Novotny PJ, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. How do distress and well-being relate to medical student empathy? A multicenter study. J Gen Inter Med. 2007;22(2):177-183. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-006-0039-6 External link
64.
West CP, Huschka MM, Novotny PJ, Sloan JA, Kolars JC, Habermann TM, Shanafelt TD. Association of perceived medical errors with resident distress and empathy. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1071-1078. DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1071 External link
65.
West CP, Huntington JL, Huschka MM, Novotny PJ, Sloan JA, Kolars JC, Habermann TM, Shanafelt TD. A prospective study of the relationship between medical knowledge and professionalism among internal medicine residents. Acad Med. 2007;82(6):587-592. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3180555fc5 External link
66.
Neumann M, Edelhaeuser F, Tauschel D, Fischer M, Wirtz M, Woopen C, Scheffer C. Development and determinants of empathy during medical education and residency. A systematic review of the literature. Acad Med. 2011. accepted for publication
67.
Stratton TD, Saunders JA, Elam CL. Changes in medical students' emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Teach Learn Med. 2008;20(3):279-284. DOI: 10.1080/10401330802199625 External link
68.
Bühner M. Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion. München: Pearson Studium; 2004.
69.
Epstein R. Assessment in medical education. NEJM. 2007;356:387-396. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra054784 External link