Consistency Analysis in Medical Empathy Intervention Research

Meng-Lin Lee, Ton-Lin Hsieh, Chih-Wei Yang, Jou-Chieh Chen, Yu-Jeng Ju () and I-Ping Hsueh ()
Additional contact information
Meng-Lin Lee: Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cathay General Hospital, Taipei 10630, Taiwan
Ton-Lin Hsieh: School of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10055, Taiwan
Chih-Wei Yang: Department of Medical Education, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 10002, Taiwan
Jou-Chieh Chen: School of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10055, Taiwan
Yu-Jeng Ju: School of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10055, Taiwan
I-Ping Hsueh: School of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10055, Taiwan

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 17, 1-12

Abstract: Various studies have examined the effectiveness of interventions to increase empathy in medical professionals. However, inconsistencies may exist in the definitions, interventions, and assessments of empathy. Inconsistencies jeopardize the internal validity and generalization of the research findings. The main purpose of this study was to examine the internal consistency among the definitions, interventions, and assessments of empathy in medical empathy intervention studies. We also examined the interventions and assessments in terms of the knowledge–attitude–behavior aspects. We conducted a literature search for medical empathy intervention studies with a design of randomized controlled trials and categorized each study according to the dimensions of empathy and knowledge–attitude–behavior aspects. The consistencies among the definitions, interventions, and assessments were calculated. A total of 13 studies were included in this study. No studies were fully consistent in their definitions, interventions, and assessments of empathy. Only four studies were partially consistent. In terms of knowledge–attitude–behavior aspects, four studies were fully consistent, two studies were partially consistent, and seven studies were inconsistent. Most medical empathy intervention studies are inconsistent in their definitions, interventions, and assessments of empathy, as well as the knowledge–attitude–behavior aspects between interventions and assessments. These inconsistencies may have affected the internal validity and generalization of the research results.

Keywords: definition; empathy; intervention; medicine; randomized controlled trial; clinical competence; medical education (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10904/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10904/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10904-:d:903985

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().