Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32066430›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2020

Revisiting the trajectory of medical students' empathy, and impact of gender, specialty preferences and nationality: a systematic review.

Freja Allerelli Andersen, Ann-Sofie Bering Johansen, Jens Søndergaard, Christina Maar Andersen, Elisabeth Assing Hvidt

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Freja Allerelli AndersenUniversity of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark. frejaallerelli@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5447-3220
Ann-Sofie Bering JohansenUniversity of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark.
Jens SøndergaardResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9A, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Christina Maar AndersenDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark.
Elisabeth Assing HvidtResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9A, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmpathy allows a physician to understand the patient's situation and feelings and respond appropriately. Consequently, empathy gives rise to better diagnostics and clinical outcomes. This systematic review investigates the level of empathy among medical students across the number of educational years and how this level relates to gender, specialty preferences, and nationality.

methodIn accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), the authors conducted a systematic search of studies published between February 2010 and March 2019 investigating the level of empathy among medical students. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched. Studies employing quantitative methodologies and published in English or Scandinavian language and examining medical students exclusively were included.

resultsThirty studies were included of which 24 had a cross-sectional and 6 a longitudinal study design. In 14 studies, significantly lower levels of empathy were reported by increase in the number of educational years. The remaining 16 studies identified both higher, mixed and unchanged levels. In 18 out of 27 studies it was reported that females had higher empathy scores than males. Only three out of nine studies found an association between empathy scores and specialty preferences. Nine out of 30 studies reported a propensity towards lower mean empathy scores in non-Western compared to Western countries.

conclusionThe results revealed equivocal findings concerning how the empathy level among medical students develops among medical students across numbers of educational years and how empathy levels are associated with gender, specialty preferences, and nationality. Future research might benefit from focusing on how students' empathy is displayed in clinical settings, e.g. in clinical encounters with patients, peers and other health professionals.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEmpathyCross-Sectional StudiesCurriculumEducation, Medical, UndergraduateEthnicityFemaleHumansInternationalityLongitudinal StudiesMaleMedicineRisk AssessmentSex FactorsStudents, MedicalEmpathyMedical studentsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32066430
PMCPMC7027232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.