Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30772865›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Defining compassion in the digital health age: protocol for a scoping review.

David Wiljer, Rebecca Charow, Helen Costin, Lydia Sequeira, Melanie Anderson, Gillian Strudwick, Tim Tripp, Allison Crawford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Digital Dialogs on Rhesus Incompatibility: A Thematic Analysis of Web-Based Parental Narratives.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Exploring Compassionate Care in Virtual Rehabilitation: Qualitative Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. To the Lighthouse: Embracing a Grand Challenge for Cancer Education in the Digital Age.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

David WiljerUHN Digital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rebecca CharowUHN Digital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8553-4006
Helen CostinThe Wilson Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lydia SequeiraInstitute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Melanie AndersonLibrary and Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gillian StrudwickInstitute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tim TrippLibrary and Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Allison CrawfordDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe notion of compassion and compassionate care is playing an increasingly important role in health professional education and in the delivery of high-quality healthcare. Digital contexts, however, are not considered in the conceptualisation of compassionate care, nor is there guidance on how compassionate care is to be exercised while using digital health technologies. The widespread diffusion of digital health technologies provides new contexts for compassionate care, with both opportunities for new forms and instantiations of compassion as well as new challenges. How compassion is both understood and enacted within this evolving, digital realm has not been synthesised. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review protocol follows Arksey and O'Malley's methodology to examine dimensions of compassionate professional practice when digital technologies are integrated into clinical care. Relevant peer-reviewed literature will be identified using a search strategy developed by medical librarians, which applies to six databases of medical, computer and information systems disciplines. Eligibility of articles will be determined using the two-stage screening process consisting of (1) title and abstract scan, and (2) full-text review. Screening, abstracting and charting will be conducted by two independent reviewers, with a third reviewer available for resolution when consensus is not achieved. In order to look at the range of current research in this area, extracted data will be thematically analysed and validated by content experts. Descriptive statistics will be calculated where necessary. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval and consent to participate is not required for this scoping review. The results of the review will inform resource development and strategy for Associated Medical Services (AMS) Healthcare, a Canadian charitable organisation at the forefront of advancing research and leadership development in health and humanities, as part of the AMS Phoenix Project: A Call to Caring, particularly for digital professionalism frameworks so that they are inclusive of a compassion competency.

Indexed as

EmpathyTelemedicineAttitude of Health PersonnelDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansLearningResearch DesignScoping Reviews as Topiccompassiondigital healthehealthempathyprofessional-patient relationstherapeutic alliance

Identifiers

PMID30772865
PMCPMC6398782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.