Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35092671›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of medical education2022

The effectiveness of empathy training in health care: a meta-analysis of training content and methods.

Christoph M Paulus, Saskia Meinken

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Point of View: Portraits of Maternal Mental Health.American journal of public health · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Empathy types in medical and pedagogical professions.Current issues in personality psychology · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  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

2 authors.

Christoph M PaulusFaculty of Empirical Human Sciences and Economics, Saarland University, Germany.
Saskia MeinkenFaculty of Empirical Human Sciences and Economics, Saarland University, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe meta-analysis examined the question of whether empathy training is effective in health care and whether specific training content and methods can be found to account for its effectiveness.

methodsWe included 13 out of 50 studies (total N = 1315) that fulfilled the search criteria. R version 4.0.5 with the esc, meta, metafor, and dmetar packages and SPSS28 were used to conduct the meta-analysis based on the random-effects model. The effect sizes were calculated using Hedge`s g, and heterogeneity was tested using Cochran's Q. In addition, the multicollinearity of the moderators was checked.

resultsThe overall effect size (Hedge´s g = 0.58, s = 0.10, p = 0.00) indicated a moderate effect of empathy training. There was a significant heterogeneity (I

conclusionsThe present study showed that empathy training could be effective. This confirmed previous findings and supported the use of such training. However, according to our results, no significant moderators could be found, i.e., the training contents or methods did not contribute to the effect sizes. For meaningful findings, a comparison of different training components should definitely be made, and it should be investigated whether empathy training spread over a period of time is more effective and sustainable than one-time training.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEmpathyHumanseffectivenessempathy trainingmeta-analysistraining contenttraining methods

Identifiers

PMID35092671
PMCPMC8995011

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.