Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35996734›Full record

ReviewPEC innovation2022

Empathy in patient-clinician interactions when using telecommunication: A rapid review of the evidence.

Georgina Budd, Dan Griffiths, Jeremy Howick, Jane Vennik, Felicity L Bishop, Nancy Durieux, Hazel A Everitt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

7 authors.

Georgina BuddCollege of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University. Haldane Building, University Singleton Park Campus, Sketty, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.
Dan GriffithsCentre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, School of Psychology (B44), University Rd, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.
Jeremy HowickFaculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Rd, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
Jane VennikPrimary Care Research Center, University of Southampton. Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.
Felicity L BishopCentre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, School of Psychology (B44), University Rd, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.
Nancy DurieuxResearch Unit for a life-Course perspective on Health & Education, Faculty of Psychology, Speech and Language Therapy, and Educational Sciences, University of Liege, Place des Orateurs 2, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
Hazel A EverittPrimary Care Research Center, University of Southampton. Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the replacement of many face-to-face healthcare consultations with telephone consultations. Little is known about the extent to which empathy can be expressed in telephone consultations. Our objective is to review evidence related to empathy in telephone consultations including clinical outcomes, and patient/practitioner experiences. Methods: Searches of Medline/Ovid and PsycINFO/Ovid were undertaken. Titles and abstract screening, data extraction, and risk of bias were undertaken by two reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved in discussion with additional reviewers. Included studies were specific to tele-communications with empirical data on empathy related to patient outcomes/views, published (in English), 2010-2021. Studies that did not mention empathy explicitly were excluded. Results: Our search yielded 740 individual records and 8 studies (527 patients, 20 practitioners) met inclusion criteria: Some barriers to expression of empathy were noted, but no major obstacles were reported. However, data was sparse and most studies had a high risk of bias. Conclusion: Empathy in telephone consultations is possible, (though the loss of non-verbal cues and touch can present barriers) however the research does not yet identify how. Innovation: It is possible to establish and display empathy in telephone consultations, but future research needs to identify how this can be optimized. Funding: This work was supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research grant (project number 389). The University of Southampton's Primary Care Department is a member of the NIHR School for Primary Care Research and supported by NIHR Research funds. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Indexed as

Empathypatient-clinician communicationtele-communicationTele-health

Identifiers

PMID35996734
PMCPMC9385203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.