ArticleKorean journal of medical education2016
Measuring medical students' empathy using direct verbal expressions.
Article in Korean journal of medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEmpathy is an important trait in physicians and a key element in the physician-patient relationship. Accordingly, one of the goals in medical education is developing empathy in students. We attempted to practically assess medical students' empathy through their direct verbal expressions.
methodsThe medical students' empathy was measured using the modified Pencil-and-Paper Empathy Rating Test by Winefield and Chur-Hansen (2001). The students took 15 minutes or so to complete the scale, and it was then scored by one of two trained evaluators (0 to 4 points for each item, for a total score of 40). The subjects were 605 medical students, and the data were analyzed using descriptive analysis, independent t-test, and one-way analysis of variance in SPSS version 21.0.
resultsThe students' empathy scores were low (mean, 12.13; standard deviation, 2.55); their most common responses (78.6%) registered as non-empathetic. Differences in empathy were observed by gender (female students>male students; t=-5.068, p<0.001), school system (medical school>medical college; t=-1.935, p=0.053), and academic level (pre-medical 1 year < other years; t=-4.050, p<0.001).
conclusionOur findings lead us to the significant conclusion that there is the need for empathy enhancement training programs with practical content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.