Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35765156›Full record

SynthesisHealth services research2023

A systematic review of research on empathy in health care.

Ingrid M Nembhard, Guy David, Iman Ezzeddine, David Betts, Jennifer Radin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. "It Is a Vicious Circle": Experiences of People Living With Obesity and Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES).Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Emergency Ambulance Healthcare for People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Scoping Review.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 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.

Ingrid M NembhardHealth Care Management Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7696-4832
Guy DavidHealth Care Management Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9191-741X
Iman EzzeddineHealth Care Management Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
David BettsLife Sciences and Health Care Practice, Deloitte Consulting, LLP, New York, New York, USA.
Jennifer RadinLife Sciences and Health Care Practice, Deloitte Consulting, LLP, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems CAHPS VU18HS016978 · AHRQ · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CLEARY, PAUL D · 2007 to 2021
$20.3M
AHRQ HHS U18 HS016978
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo summarize the predictors and outcomes of empathy by health care personnel, methods used to study their empathy, and the effectiveness of interventions targeting their empathy, in order to advance understanding of the role of empathy in health care and facilitate additional research aimed at increasing positive patient care experiences and outcomes. DATA SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycInfo, and Business Source Complete to identify empirical studies of empathy involving health care personnel in English-language publications up until April 20, 2021, covering the first five decades of research on empathy in health care (1971-2021). STUDY

designWe performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsTitle and abstract screening for study eligibility was followed by full-text screening of relevant citations to extract study information (e.g., study design, sample size, empathy measure used, empathy assessor, intervention type if applicable, other variables evaluated, results, and significance). We classified study predictors and outcomes into categories, calculated descriptive statistics, and produced tables to summarize findings. PRINCIPAL

findingsOf the 2270 articles screened, 455 reporting on 470 analyses satisfied the inclusion criteria. We found that most studies have been survey-based, cross-sectional examinations; greater empathy is associated with better clinical outcomes and patient care experiences; and empathy predictors are many and fall into five categories (provider demographics, provider characteristics, provider behavior during interactions, target characteristics, and organizational context). Of the 128 intervention studies, 103 (80%) found a positive and significant effect. With four exceptions, interventions were educational programs focused on individual clinicians or trainees. No organizational-level interventions (e.g., empathy-specific processes or roles) were identified.

conclusionsEmpirical research provides evidence of the importance of empathy to health care outcomes and identifies multiple changeable predictors of empathy. Training can improve individuals' empathy; organizational-level interventions for systematic improvement are lacking.

Indexed as

EmpathyHealth PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareHumansempathyhealth personnelimpactinterventionpatient experiencesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35765156
PMCPMC10012244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.