ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2024
The integrated curriculum and student empathy: a longitudinal multi-cohort analysis.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The application of integrating medical humanities education into emergency skill-training scenario simulation teaching.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The Chinese-Adapted Jefferson Scale of Empathy - Medical Student Version for Assessing the Level of Empathy in Medical Students: A Study of the Reliability and Validity.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Cognitive empathy variations during internship: a study from Iran.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research has demonstrated erosion of empathy in students during medical education. Particularly, U.S. studies have demonstrated empathy declines during clinical training in the third and fourth year of traditional medical programs. Yet, studies conducted outside the U.S. have not confirmed this trend. Timing and extent of patient interactions have been identified as empathy-protective factors. The need to examine empathy within different learning contexts has been noted, as has the need for longitudinal and time-series research designs to analyze trajectories. Between fall 2010 and spring 2019, we assessed empathy longitudinally among six student cohorts (N = 493) at a U.S. medical school, where patient interaction occurs early and throughout an integrated curriculum. Empathy levels of students in each cohort were assessed at five time points utilizing the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy-Student version. We hypothesized empathy levels will not degrade by program end, and trajectories will not show patterns of decline in Years Three and Four. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Linear Mixed Model (LMM) analyses were used to analyze differences at baseline and changes in empathy trajectories. ANOVA analyses revealed statistically significant differences at baseline by class cohort (F(5, 487) = [23.28], p < 0.001). LMM analyses indicated empathy was either significantly higher or not different at the end of the program (F(19, 1676) = [13.97], p < 0.001). Empathy trajectories varied among cohorts; yet, none resulted in an overall empathy decline by the end of the program. Findings demonstrate empathy in U.S. medical students can be unchanged or higher by the end of medical education. Outcomes are consistent with reports of non-declining medical student empathy outside the U.S. and support the notion of context-specificity. Results further support recent research, suggesting decreases in empathy during training can stabilize or increase by program end. These findings have important implications for future empathy research context and design considerations, as well as program planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.