gms | German Medical Science

GMS Journal for Medical Education

Gesellschaft für Medizinische Ausbildung (GMA)

ISSN 2366-5017

Comparison of empathy profiles of medical students at the start and in the advanced clinical phase of their training

article empathy

Search Medline for

  • corresponding author Susanne Schrötter - Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Institut für Medizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie, Rostock, Germany
  • author Peter Kropp - Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Institut für Medizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie, Rostock, Germany
  • author Britta Müller - Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Institut für Medizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie, Rostock, Germany

GMS J Med Educ 2024;41(1):Doc7

doi: 10.3205/zma001662, urn:nbn:de:0183-zma0016625

This is the English version of the article.
The German version can be found at: http://www.egms.de/de/journals/zma/2024-41/zma001662.shtml

Received: February 7, 2023
Revised: September 20, 2023
Accepted: November 14, 2023
Published: February 15, 2024

© 2024 Schrötter et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Abstract

Background: The National Competence Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Education (NKLM) cites empathy as a basic competence for medical doctors. Based on a multidimensional concept of clinical empathy, empathy profiles of medical students at the start of their training and in the 9th semester were identified and compared in order to draw conclusions for the conception of effective course offers.

Method: Using the Saarbrücker Personality Questionnaire on Empathy (SPF-IRI), self-rated empathy was recorded in a cross-sectional study of medical students (1st semester: N=192/9th semester: N=221). Two Stage Clustering was performed for data analysis.

Result: Three empathy profiles which could be meaningfully delineated by content were identified: 1. reflected, functional empathy, 2. unreflected, burdensome empathy and 3. distancing and avoidance. Students in the 9th semester mostly tended toward unreflected, burdensome empathy. Only one-third appeared capable of feeling empathy with patients while at the same time adequately regulating their own emotions and thus protecting themselves from emotional overload.

Conclusion: An adequately reflected and functional empathy among medical students can neither be assumed at the start of their training, nor do existing course offers appear to provide sufficient training for this. Empathy should thus be implemented as a competence which needs to be promoted over the entire course of study. Emotion regulation plays a key role.

Keywords: empathy, emotion regulation, medical studies, patient satisfaction, burnout


1. Introduction

1.1. Background

The National Competence Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Education (NKLM) cites empathy as a basic superordinate competence for doctors, which should be continuously promoted over the entire course of medical training [https://nklm.de/zend/menu]. Its high relevance for the quality of medical care and patient satisfaction has been empirically proven [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The observed improvement in therapy outcomes is attributed primarily to the creation of confidence between doctor and patient [6], [7], [8], [9]. A connection between empathy and job satisfaction [10], [11], resilience [12], burnout prophylaxis and well-being [11], [13], [14], [15], [16] among doctors has also been demonstrated in numerous studies. Moreover, empathy is also considered beneficial with respect to the capacity for teamwork, leadership competence and constructive conflict behaviour [17], [18], [19] – desirable competencies for cooperation in the complex interprofessional teams customarily found in the clinical setting.

At the same time, the doctor-in-training is expected to show professional distance [https://nklm.de/zend/menu] and is warned about sympathy, since that impairs clinical neutrality, the objectivity of diagnostics and treatment, and personal resilience [20]. A connection between empathy and burnout due to high emotional demands of the profession has also been the subject of empirical studies, both for doctors [12], [21], [22], [23] and medical students [24], [25], [26], [27]. It is assumed that an unreflected flow of empathic emotions coupled with the potentially high frequency of emotional situations in everyday routine increases the experience of stress. Moreover, there is a clear tendency in research literature to attribute more professionality to technically-experienced, rational and emotionally-distanced doctors than to sympathetic doctors [3], [6], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. This results in a field of tension which is reflected in the discussion about the definition of clinical empathy.

1.2. Clinical empathy

A mostly cognitive understanding of doctors’ empathy is widespread in research on medical education [34]. It assumes an objective, rational and intellectual process of understanding the experiences, feelings and viewpoints of patients, which is frequently called perspective taking [35], coupled with the competence to communicate this understanding in a supportive manner [5], [32], [36], [37]. On the other hand, emotional involvement of the doctor, as an affective component of empathy, is taken to be detrimental to good clinical practice and is rejected [3], [20], [31], [38].

Contrary to this, our study is a multidimensional approach which views empathy as a complex construct combining affective and cognitive components with the capability of being able to regulate empathically elicited emotions and thus influence the empathic behaviour of the moment [39], [40]. It offers the possibility of viewing the various components of empathy separately and thus reflect on effective and satisfactory behaviour for a doctor which includes both distance from and empathy for patients – and yet protects against emotional overload. Gleichgerrcht and Decety differentiate four interacting dimensions:

1.
empathic arousal (sharing the affective state of another),
2.
empathic understanding (formation of an explicit mental representation of the emotional state of another person),
3.
empathic concern (feeling other-oriented emotions for someone in need as motivation to maintain the interaction) and
4.
emotion regulation (the control of one’s own emotions and motivation) [13].

Affective and cognitive dimensions here are thus closely connected to one another and exert reciprocal influence [39], [40], [41], [42]. It is assumed that cognitive understanding is always coupled with emotional resonance – albeit to various extents [10]. Whether the doctor’s sharing or reflecting the emotions leads to other-focussed empathic concern or to self-focussed emotional distress and overburdening (personal distress) [35], [43], is determined by self-other-differentiation [44]. According to numerous studies, the capability of differentiating between one’s own and others’ emotions, rather than identifying with them [41], [42], [45], [46], is coupled with a decrease in stress perception [45], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Studies have shown that self-other differentiation can be trained and its strengthening can enable a balance between professional distance and human warmth [52].

On the other hand, if doctors‘ empathy is reduced to the cognitive dimensions it would mean an unreflectied suppression of emotions – which is coupled in the literature with the onset of exhaustion and burnout [15], [36], [53]. Moreover, emotional distancing has the risk of developing indifference or cynicism toward patients in the long run [21], [54], [55]. A purely cognitive conception of empathy often leads to reliance on learned communication techniques which are considered empathic. Without emotional resonance, they risk becoming feigned empathy which is perceived by the other person as such, and which can lead to dissatisfaction on both sides in the interaction [32], [41].

In summary, it can be concluded that emotional distancing from patients can just as well be the cause of emotional stress, dissatisfaction and burnout among doctors as uncontrolled and unreflected empathic emotions, while reflected and emotion-regulated empathy appears coupled with greater professional satisfaction and burnout prophylaxis [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [26], [51]. Interventions for promotion of empathy should thus be directed to a reflected and functional dealing with one’s own empathic perception instead of to unspecific increasing of empathy.

1.3. Empathy in medical training

International studies over the past 20 years on changes in empathy during medical training operationalised empathy mostly as a global, cognitive construct, measured in the criteria empathic, not empathic or the extent of empathy [34]. They showed different results (see attachment 1 [Attach. 1]): both a significant reduction, especially in the clinical phase with the associated patient contact [56], [57], [58] as well as stability over the years of training [11], [59], [60], [61]. A significant increase was observed less often and ascribed to additional interventions to promote empathy [62], [63], [64]. Medical training thus does not appear to offer an adequate framework in every case to promote this competence.

1.4. Query

The interest of the present study addressed the question whether and in what aspects medical students at the start of their training differ in their empathy from students in the advanced clinical phase of training, in order to gain evidence for generating a conceptualization of teaching contents and interventions to promote empathy during medical training. Starting from a multidimensional empathy concept and study results which delineated specific effects on doctors of the various dimensions of empathy, the hypothesis was formulated that typical empathy profiles can be identified which differ significantly in characterization between the 1st and the 9th semester.


2. Method

2.1. Design

In a written survey, medical students at the University of Rostock filled out a self-rating questionnaire. The student’s participation was anonymous and voluntary. The Ethics Commission of the University Medicine Rostock had granted a positive vote.

2.2. Sample

In the study period from 03/2018 to 02/2019, 432 medical students were questioned at the end of obligatory courses. The response rate was 95.6%. Thus, a sample of 413 students was available for statistical analyses, of whom 192 were in the 1st semester and 221 in the 9th semester. 63.9% of the sample were women.

2.3. Measuring instrument

The Saarbrücker Personality Questionnaire (SPF-IRI) [65], [66], the German version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), which is frequently used in international education research, was used [47], [65]. This includes both emotional and cognitive components, as well as emotion regulation [46]. It thus accorded with the multidimensional understanding of empathy in this study.

The SPF consists of four items for each of the dimensions perspective taking (PT), empathic concern (EC), fantasy scale (FS) and personal distress (PD).

The scale perspective taking (PT) measures the cognitive capability of seeing a situation from the perspective of another person [67], [65]. The fantasy scale (FS) covers the tendency to enter into the emotional world of fictional figures in films or novels and is considered a measure of the strength of emotionality [65] and expression of general empathic reaction readiness [21].The scale empathic concern (EC) measures the tendency to other-oriented feelings – like warmth, sympathy and care – for people in emotional emergency situations [67], [65]. The scale personal distress (PT), on the other hand, is intended to measure the experience of self-focussed feelings, such as the feeling of discomfort, pressure or restlessness in the face of the negative experiences and feelings of others [67], [65] and makes statements about self-other-differentiation and emotion regulation [68], [69].

The 16 items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1=“doesn’t apply at all”; 5=“applies completely”).

2.4. Statistical procedures

To be able to compare the two study semesters to one another, we used descriptive procedures, mean (M), standard deviation (SD) as well as inferential statistical analyses.

Following Altmann’s [45] suggestion, the recorded data were arranged using cluster analysis to form as similar groups as possible with high intracluster-homogeniety and low intercluster-homogeniety, resulting in identification of characteristic subgroups of students with typical, individually differentiable empathy profiles (combination of the four empathy dimensions) [70], [71]. For this, we used two cluster analysis procedures [45], [72], hierarchical cluster analysis [73] and k-means clustering [74]. Then the cluster affiliation was inferential-statistically examined in dependence on semester and gender.

The significance level was set at 5% for all analyses performed. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 24 (SPSS 24) was used for all analyses. Compliance with the requirements for the statistical procedure was tested before proceding.


3. Results

3.1. Empathy profiles in 3 clusters

Complete data sets were available from 391 students for two-stage clustering. In the first step, the number of clusters and a baseline classification were determined by hierarchical clusters. Stepwise fusion of the assignment elements based on Euclidian distance and error-square increase resulted in three to five clusters which were statistically appropriate. This solution was optimized using the k-means method in the second step. Three meaningful, independently delineated clusters could be identified by non-hierarchical new arrangement of the original classification. The numerical distribution of the students to clusters 1 and 2 was optimally equal and was acceptable for cluster 3, since none of the groups was double the size of the others.

With respect to the four dimensions on which the cluster formation was based, three empathy profiles could be described for content (see table 1 [Tab. 1] and figure 1 [Fig. 1]).

Compared to the other clusters, cluster 1 showed the lowest values in personal distress (PD), coupled with the highest values in empathic concern (EC), perspective taking (PT) and fantasy scale (FS), whereby the values in perspective taking (PT) were somewhat higher than in empathic concern (EC). This permits assumption of reflected and functional empathy.

Compared to the other clusters, cluster 2 showed the highest degree of personal distress (PD), a slightly elevated degree of empathic concern (EC) and a rather low degree of perspective taking (PT) and fantasy scale (FS). This indicates unreflected, burdensome empathy.

Cluster 3 is characterized by lower-than-average values in all four dimensions, whereby the low degree of empathic concern (EC) was particularly conspicuous. This indicates distancing and avoidance of empathy-promoting interactions.

3.2. Comparison of the empathy profiles in dependence on semester and gender

Arrangement of the cluster composition by the demographic data gender, age and semester is shown in table 2 [Tab. 2].

The cluster affiliation correlated significantly with the variables Semester, χ2(2)=19.0, p<.001, and gender, χ2(2)=19.06, p<.001, but not with the variable age χ2(4)=9.35, p=.053. Cluster 1 consisted of 70.7% women, 55.6% of the persons were students in the 1st semester. In cluster 2, 68.5% of the persons were women and 67.5% were in the 9th semester. Cluster 3 consisted of 55.3% men and 54.2% students in the 1st semester.

3.3. Comparison of the semesters in relation to the empathy profiles

Comparison of the 1st and 9th semesters based on cluster affiliation showed the following result (see figure 2 [Fig. 2]): In the 1st semester, cluster 1was the most marked, followed by cluster 3 and cluster 2. In the 9th semester, most of the students belonged to cluster 2, followed by cluster 1 and cluster 3.

The additional examination of the influence of gender showed clear differences between male and female students with respect to their cluster affiliation (see figure 3 [Fig. 3]).


4. Discussion

Based on studies of the interaction of the four dimensions empathic concern (EC), fantasy scale (FS), perspective taking (PT) and personal distress (PD) measured with the SPF, the hypothesis was formulated that, based on the recorded values, typical empathy profiles can be identified which differ in characterization between the 1st and 9th semester. This hypothesis could be confirmed.

The two stage clustering resulted in three clusters with empathy profiles which could be differentiated meaningfully from one another based on the underlying dimensions:

1.
reflected, functional empathy,
2.
unreflected, burdensome empathy and
3.
distancing and avoidance.

There were clear differences in the affiliation with the identified empathy profiles between the students at the start of their training and those in the 9th semester.

The capability of reflected, functional empathy (cluster 1), which was the largest cluster in the 1st semester, appeared less pronounced in both genders in the 9th semester. Studies have shown that the combination of high values in empathic concern (EC) and perspective taking (PT) with concurrent low values in personal distress (PD) is coupled in doctors with a high compassion satisfaction [13], professional satisfaction and effectiveness [12], [55] and only rarely with problems in the interaction with patients [21]. Overall, this empathy profile appears to meet the needs of both patients and doctors.

Students in the 9th semester showed a stronger tendency to unreflected, burdensome empathy (cluster 2) than in the 1st semester, whereby the difference among male students was particularly conspicuous. The high values in personal distress (PD), slightly elevated values in empathic concern (EC) and rather low levels in perspective taking (PT) and fantasy scale (FS) indicate unreflected processes of emotional mirroring and permit the assumption of dysfunctional emotion regulation and deficient self-other-differentiation [41], [45], [51], [75], [76]. This profile is likely more often coupled with compassion fatigue, chronification of reactive stress and increased burnout risk than with efficiency and compassion satisfaction [13], [21], [55]. In patient contact, high emotional distress can lead to pseudoempathic reactions or other termination of the empathic interaction [41], [45] and thus to negative effects for both patient and doctor.

An increasing tendency during the study to distancing, as has been observed as an avoidance strategy to cope with increasing burden [77] in other studies, could not be confirmed. However, the proportion of students who tended toward distancing and avoidance in studies requiring empathy (cluster 3) – that is, who show little readiness to perspective taking and empathic concern – was alarmingly high at more than 20% in both semesters. This profile can lead to cynicism and indifference of the student toward patients and in the long term to professional dissatisfaction and a reduced experience of efficiency [21], [55] Moreover, it bears the danger of impaired interaction, coupled with lower diagnostic accuracy, negative effects on therapy results and greater emotional stress and lower satisfaction for the patients [5].

The study results indicate that the majority of students in the 9th semester are not lacking empathy but primarily an adaptive capability to regulate their emotions in situations requiring empathy – coupled with the danger for patient outcome and their own well-being. The capability and willingness to react with empathy toward patients coupled with the capability of appropriately regulating their own rising emotions, thus protecting themselves against emotional overburdening appears to be present in only one-third of the students.

Various causes are plausible for this: a reduction of existing regulation capability due to the generally high workload of the students coupled with the experience of stress and time pressure in the clinical setting [13], [21], a lack of role models and a lack of positive examples in dealing with emotions [77], [78], [79], subjective empathy concepts with dysfunctional professional empathy expectations as well as a lack of knowledge about empathic processes and the efficacy of emotion regulation [51], prioritisation of biomedical knowledge [79] and a lack of space and support for reflection and coping with the emotional challenges of the medical profession.


5. Strengths and limitations

This study is, to our knowledge, the first to identify and investigate the empathy profiles of medical students in order to record empathy in its complex multidimensionality and thus be able to point out differentiated action options.

The essential limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design, which does not enable conclusions about causality, Moreover, the empathy differences between the semesters might also be attributable to cohort effects. Based on the same selection procedure for medical training and the low age differences, we consider this bias to be negligible. Furthermore, the use of a self-rating scale bears the danger of result distortion from socially desirable or status-dependent response behaviour.

In-depth longitudinal studies should investigate the changes in doctors‘ empathy over the course of training and beyond. Using a mixed-method approach could offset the influence of existing teaching formats in order to enable development of effective didactic concepts. Moreover, the extent to which various interventions to promote emotion regulation influence the student’s individual empathy should be investigated.


6. Conclusion

Doctors’ empathy is understood in the framework of this study as an indispensable basis for the trusting doctor-patient relationship which is necessary on both sides

Two-thirds of the 9th semester students tended toward dysfunctional empathy or distancing, and thus presumably had inadequate adaptive emotional regulation to meet the emotional challenges of studies and patient contact. The result underlines the necessity of continuous implementation of teaching offers on strengthening empathy in the framework of a longitudinal communication curriculum.

These must not, however, be limited to learning communication techniques, but must be coupled with instructed reflection on one’s own actions, thoughts and feelings if they are to remain effective over time. Medical students should intensively address their subjective concepts of empathy and possible dysfunctional professional empathy expectations. For this, they need space and support for reflection and coping with the emotional challenges of their profession, trained, competent and empathic instructors, as well as positive examples in dealing with emotions. The self-other differentiation is considered a key resource in preventing dysfunctional empathic reactions. Since strengthening this can enable a balance between professional distance and human warmth, attention should be paid to it during the course of medical training. Greater inclusion of scientific concepts about empathy processes, emotion regulation and neurobiological empathic processes in existing medical teaching formats in various disciplines can underline the relevance of empathy as a basic competence for a medical doctor. Medical training must confront these challenges if it wants to train competent and healthy doctors.

Training of doctors’ empathy should cover this in its multidimensionality and include cognitive, emotional, emotion-regulating and communication-oriented aspects.


Notes

Authors’ ORCIDs

Authors’ contributions

The authors contributed to the preparation, organisation and performance of the study, as well as to its evaluation and to writing the present manuscript.

  • Susanne Schrötter: Conception, preparation, performance of the study, data evaluation and data interpretation, writing the manuscript
  • Peter Kropp: Performance of the study, discussion of the manuscript
  • Britta Müller: Data evaluation and data interpretation

Both co-authors have read the manuscript and agree to its publication in the present form.

Statement on the ethical standard

Students’ participation was anonymous and voluntary. They signed a written statement to this effect. The Ethics Commission of University Medicine Rostock granted a positive vote (registration number: A 2018-0052).


Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


References

1.
Di Blasi Z, Harkness E, Ernst E, Georgiou A, Kleijnen J. Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet. 2001;357(9258):757-762. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04169-6 External link
2.
Mercer SW, Reynolds WJ. Empathy and quality of care. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(Suppl):S9-12.
3.
Hojat M. Empathy in patient care: antecedents, development, measurement, and outcomes. Berlin: Springer; 2007.
4.
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 modeling. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(2):240-245. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.022 External link
5.
Neumann M, Scheffer C, Tauschel D, Lutz G, Wirtz M, Edelhäuser F. Physician empathy: definition, outcome-relevance and its measurement in patient care and medical education. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2012;29(1):Doc11. DOI: 10.3205/zma000781 External link
6.
Halpern J. 13 Clinical empathy in medical care. In: Decety J, editor. Empathy: From bench to bedside. Cambridge (MA): Mit Press; 2011. p.229. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262016612.003.0013 External link
7.
Jani BD, Blane DN, Mercer SW. The role of empathy in therapy and the physician-patient relationship. Forsch Komplementmed. 2012;19(5):252-257. DOI: 10.1159/000342998 External link
8.
Roter DL, Hall JA, Aoki Y. Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review. JAMA. 2002;288(6):756-764. DOI: 10.1001/jama.288.6.756 External link
9.
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
10.
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
11.
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 Intern Med. 2007;22(2):177-183. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-006-0039-6 External link
12.
Zwack J, Schweitzer J. If every fifth physician is affected by burnout, what about the other four? Resilience strategies of experienced physicians. Acad Med. 2013;88(3):382-389. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318281696b External link
13.
Gleichgerrcht E, Decety J. Empathy in clinical practice: how individual dispositions, gender, and experience moderate empathic concern, burnout, and emotional distress in physicians. PloS One. 2013;8(4):e61526. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061526 External link
14.
Thirioux B, Birault F, Jaafari N. Empathy is a protective factor of burnout in physicians: new neuro-phenomenological hypotheses regarding empathy and sympathy in care relationship. Front Psychol. 2016;7:763. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00763 External link
15.
Kearney MK, Weininger RB, Vachon ML, Harrison RL, Mount BM. Self-care of physicians caring for patients at the end of life:“Being connected... a key to my survival”. JAMA. 2009;301(11):1155-1164. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.352 External link
16.
Sturzu L, Lala A, Bisch M, Guitter M, Dobre D, Schwan R. Empathy and burnout–a cross-sectional study among mental healthcare providers in France. J Med Life. 2019;12(1):21-29. DOI: 10.25122/jml-2018-0050 External link
17.
Clark MA, Robertson MM, Young S. “I feel your pain”: A critical review of organizational research on empathy. J Organ Behav. 2019;40(2):166-192. DOI: 10.1002/job.2348 External link
18.
Enz S. Empathie als mehrdimensionales Konstrukt im Kontext von sozialen Konflikten in Teamsituationen. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac Verlag; 2009.
19.
Patient DL, Skarlicki DP. Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager’s empathic concern and moral development. J Manage. 2010;36(2):555-578. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308328509 External link
20.
Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Nasca TJ, Mangione S, Vergare M, Magee M. Physician empathy: definition, components, measurement, and relationship to gender and specialty. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(9):1563-1569. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.9.1563 External link
21.
Enzmann D. Gestreßt, erschöpft oder ausgebrannt. Einflüsse von Arbeitssituation, Empathie und Coping auf den Burnoutprozeß. München: Profil; 1996.
22.
Gleichgerrcht E, Decety J. The costs of empathy among health professionals. In: Decety Jean, editor. Empathy: From bench to bedside. Oxford: The MITPress; 2011. p.245-61. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262016612.003.0014 External link
23.
Lapa TA, Madeira FM, Viana JS, Pinto-Gouveia J. Burnout syndrome and wellbeing in anesthesiologists: the importance of emotion regulation strategies. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;83(2):191-199. DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.16.11379-3 External link
24.
Brazeau CM, Schroeder R, Rovi S, Boyd L. Relationships between medical student burnout, empathy, and professionalism climate. Acad Med. 2010;85(10):S33-S36. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ed4c47 External link
25.
Dahlin ME, Runeson B. Burnout and psychiatric morbidity among medical students entering clinical training: a three year prospective questionnaire and interview-based study. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:6. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-7-6 External link
26.
von Harscher H, Desmarais N, Dollinger R, Grossman S, Aldana S. The impact of empathy on burnout in medical students: new findings. Psychol Health Med. 2018;23(3):295-303. DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2017.1374545 External link
27.
Koehl-Hackert N, Schultz J-H, Nikendei C, Möltner A, Gedrose B, van den Bussche H, Jünger J. Belastet in den Beruf–Empathie und Burnout bei Medizinstudierenden am Ende des Praktischen Jahres [Burdened into the job -- final-year students' empathy and burnout]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(2):116-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.02.020 External link
28.
Coulehan J. Today’s Professionalism: Engaging the Mind but Not the Heart. Acad Med. 2005;80(10):892-898. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200510000-00004 External link
29.
Halpern J. What is clinical empathy? J Gen Intern Medicine. 2003;18(8):670-674. DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21017.x External link
30.
Jeffrey D. Empathy, sympathy and compassion in healthcare: Is there a problem? Is there a difference? Does it matter? J Rl Soc Med. 2016;109(12):446-452. DOI: 10.1177/0141076816680120 External link
31.
Kerasidou A, Horn R. Making space for empathy: supporting doctors in the emotional labour of clinical care. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17:8. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0091-7 External link
32.
Shapiro J. The paradox of teaching empathy in medical education. In: Decety J, editor. Empathy: From bench to bedside. Cambridge (MA): Mit Press; 2011. p.275-290. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262016612.003.0013 External link
33.
Coulehan J, Williams PC. Conflicting professional values in medical education. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2003;12(1):7-20. DOI: 10.1017/s0963180103121032 External link
34.
Sulzer SH, Feinstein NW, Wendland CL. Assessing empathy development in medical education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2016;50(3):300-310. DOI: 10.1111/medu.12806 External link
35.
Davis MH. Empathy: A social psychological approach. Abingdon (UK): Routledge; 2018. DOI: 10.4324/9780429493898 External link
36.
Shapiro J. Walking a mile in their patients' shoes: empathy and othering in medical students' education. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2008;3:10. DOI: 10.1186/1747-5341-3-10 External link
37.
Hojat M, LaNoue M. Exploration and confirmation of the latent variable structure of the Jefferson scale of empathy. Int J Med Educ. 2014;5:73-81. DOI: 10.5116/ijme.533f.0c41 External link
38.
Halpern J. From idealized clinical empathy to empathic communication in medical care. Med Health Care Philos. 2014;17(2):301-311. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-013-9510-4 External link
39.
Duan C, Hill CE. The current state of empathy research. J Couns Psychol. 1996;43(3):261-274. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.43.3.261 External link
40.
Decety J, Jackson PL. The functional architecture of human empathy. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2004;3(2):71-100. DOI: 10.1177/1534582304267187 External link
41.
Schönefeld V. Pseudo-Empathie–Theorieentwicklung und empirische Beiträge. Essen: Universitätsbibliothek der Universität Duisburg-Essen; 2019.
42.
Decety J, Jackson PL. A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006;15(2):54-58. DOI: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00406.x External link
43.
Bischoff-Wanner C. Empathie in der Pflege: Begriffsklärung und Entwicklung eines Rahmenmodells. Bern: Huber; 2002.
44.
Lamm C, Batson CD, Decety J. The neural substrate of human empathy: effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007;19(1):42-58. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42 External link
45.
Altmann T. Empathie in sozialen und Pflegeberufen: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Trainingsprogramms. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2014. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-06645-1 External link
46.
Davis MH. Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;44(1):113-126. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 External link
47.
Carré A, Stefaniak N, d'Ambrosio F, Bensalah L, Besche-Richard C. The Basic Empathy Scale in adults (BES-A): factor structure of a revised form. Psychol Assess. 2013;25(3):679-691. DOI: 10.1037/a0032297 External link
48.
Rogers CR. Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. Couns Psychol. 1975;5(2):2-10. DOI: 10.1177/001100007500500202 External link
49.
Atkins PW. Empathy, self-other differentiation, and mindfulness training. In: Pavlovich K, editor. Organizing through empathy. Abingdon (UK): Routledge; 2013. p.49-70.
50.
Decety J, Hodges SD. The social neuroscience of empathy. In: Van Lange PA, editor. Bridging social psychology: Benefits of Transdisciplinary. Abingdon (UK): Routledge; 2006. p.121-128. DOI: 10.4324/9781410616982-21 External link
51.
Roth M, Altmann T. Empathie und Belastung – eine psychologische Perspektive auf empCARE. In: Thiry L, Schönefeld V, Deckers M, Kocks A, editors. empCARE : Arbeitsbuch zur empathiebasierten Entlastung in Pflege- und Gesundheitsberufen. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2021. p.1-9. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-59472-8_1 External link
52.
Altmann T, Schönefeld V, Roth M. Evaluation of an empathy training program to prevent emotional maladjustment symptoms in social professions. Psychology. 2015;6(14):1893. DOI: 10.4236/psych.2015.614187 External link
53.
Leibetseder M, Laireiter AR, Riepler A, Köller T. E-Skala: fragebogen zur Erfassung von Empathie-Beschreibung und psychometrische Eigenschaften. Z Diff Diagn Psychol. 2001;22(1):70-85. DOI: 10.1024//0170-1789.22.1.70 External link
54.
Maslach C. Burnout: The cost of caring. San Jose (CA): Marlor Books; 2003.
55.
Hall JA, Davis MH, Connelly M. Dispositional empathy in scientists and practitioner psychologists: Group differences and relationship to self-reported professional effectiveness. Psychotherapy. 2000;37(1):45-56. DOI: 10.1037/h0087758 External link
56.
Hojat M, Vergare MJ, Maxwell K, Brainard G, Herrine SK, Isenberg GA, Veloski J, Gonnella 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
57.
Ahrweiler F, Scheffer C, Roling G, Goldblatt H, Hahn EG, Neumann M. Clinical practice and self-awareness as determinants of empathy in undergraduate education: a qualitative short survey at three medical schools in Germany. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2014;31(4):Doc46. DOI: 10.3205/zma000938 External link
58.
Chen DC, Kirshenbaum DS, Yan J, Kirshenbaum E, Aseltine RH. Characterizing changes in student empathy throughout medical school. Med Teach. 2012;34(4):305-311. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.644600 External link
59.
Paro HB, Silveira PS, Perotta B, Gannam S, Enns SC, Giaxa RR, Bonito RF, Martins MA, Tempski PZ. Empathy among medical students: is there a relation with quality of life and burnout? PloS One. 2014;9(4):e94133. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094133 External link
60.
Quince TA, Parker RA, Wood DF, Benson JA. Stability of empathy among undergraduate medical students: a longitudinal study at one UK medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11:90. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-11-90 External link
61.
Rau T, Ludolph A, Plener P, Weninger L, Allroggen M. Sind Medizinstudierende in höheren Semestern empathiefähiger als Studienbeginner? In: Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Medizinische Ausbildung (GMA). Graz, 26.-28.09.2013. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2013. DocP07_01. DOI: 10.3205/13gma060 External link
62.
Hegazi I, Wilson I. Maintaining empathy in medical school: it is possible. Med Teach. 2013;35(12):1002-1008. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.802296 External link
63.
Loureiro J, Gonçalves-Pereira M, Trancas B, Caldas de Almeida J, Caldas AC. Empatia na relação médico-doente: evolução em alunos do primeiro ano de medicina e contribuição para a validação da escala Jefferson em Portugal [Empathy in the doctor-patient relationship as viewed by first-year medical students: data on validity and sensibility to change of the Jefferson Measure in Portugal]. Acta Med Port. 2011;24 Suppl 2:431-442.
64.
Toto RL, Man L, Blatt B, Simmens SJ, Greenberg L. Do empathy, perspective-taking, sense of power and personality differ across undergraduate education and are they inter-related? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015;20(1):23-31. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-014-9502-z External link
65.
Paulus C. Der Saarbrücker Persönlichkeitsfragebogen SPF (IRI) zur Messung von Empathie. Psychometrische Evaluation der deutschen Version des Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes; 2009. Zugänglich unter/available from: http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2009/2363/ External link
66.
Paulus C. Ist die Bildung eines Empathiescores in der deutschen Fassung des IRI sinnvoll? Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes; 2012. DOI: 10.22028/D291-23347 External link
67.
Davis MH. A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy. JSAS Cat Select Doc Psychol. 1980;10:85-103.
68.
Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004;34(2):163-175. DOI: 10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00 External link
69.
Eisenberg N, Eggum ND. Empathic responding: Sympathy and personal distress. Soc Neurosci Emp. 2009;6(2009):71-830. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0007 External link
70.
Asendorpf JB. Head‐to‐head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and dimensions. Eur J Person. 2003;17(5):327-346. DOI: 10.1002/per.492 External link
71.
Roth M, von Collani G. A head-to-head comparison of big-five types and traits in the prediction of social attitudes: Further evidence for a five-cluster typology. J Individ Diff. 2007;28(3):138-149. DOI: 10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.138 External link
72.
Roth M, Liebe N. Moderating effect of personality type on the relation between sensation seeking and illegal substance use in adolescents. Int J Dev Sci. 2011;5(1-2):113-126. DOI: 10.3233/DEV-2011-90062 External link
73.
Ward Jr JH. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc. 1963;58(301):236-244.
74.
McQueen JB, editor. Some methods of classification and analysis of multivariate observations. Proc of 5th Berkeley Symposium on Math Stat and Prob. 1967.
75.
Seeberger A, Lönn A, Hult H, Weurlander M, Wernerson A. Can empathy be preserved in medical education? Int J Med Educ. 2020;11:83-89. DOI: 10.5116/ijme.5e83.31cf External link
76.
Okun MA, Shepard SA, Eisenberg N. The relations of emotionality and regulation to dispositional empathy-related responding among volunteers-in-training. Pers Individ Dif. 2000;28(2):3673-82. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00107-5 External link
77.
Neumann M, Edelhäuser F, Tauschel D, Fischer MR, Wirtz M, Woopen C, Haramati A, Scheffer C. Empathy decline and its reasons: a systematic review of studies with medical students and residents. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):996-1009. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318221e615 External link
78.
Seitz T, Gruber B, Preusche I, Löffler-Stastka H. Rückgang von Empathie der Medizinstudierenden im Laufe des Studiums–was ist die Ursache? [What causes the decrease in empathy among medical students during their university training?]. Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2017;63(1):20-39. DOI: 10.13109/zptm.2017.63.1.20 External link
79.
Howick J, Dudko M, Feng SN, Ahmed AA, Alluri N, Nockels K, Winter R, Holland R. Why might medical student empathy change throughout medical school? a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):270. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-023-04165-9 External link