Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38057775›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2023

Educational efficacy of medical humanities in empathy of medical students and healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xin Zhang, Hui-Fang Pang, Zhiguang Duan

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Bridging the Gap in Humanizing Oncology: A Pilot Study on the Feasibility and Acceptability of the CIPOMO School of Medical Humanities Training Protocol.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xin ZhangSchool of Mangement, Shanxi Medical University, TaiYuan, 030001, China.
Hui-Fang PangShanxi Cardiovascular Disease Hospital, TaiYuan, 030024, China.
Zhiguang DuanSchool of Mangement, Shanxi Medical University, TaiYuan, 030001, China. dzg528@sxmu.edu.cn.
Shanxi Medical University · CNShanxi Cardiovascular Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical humanities education is an important part of medical education. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of medical humanities in improving empathy among medical students and healthcare professionals.

methodsPubMed, Embase, EBSCO-ERIC, Web of Science were searched systematically for studies in the English language. The last retrieval date is May 1, 2023. Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) Global Rating Scale and Kirkpatrick-based results were used to evaluate the quality of literature. In this study, a meta-analysis of continuous data was conducted.

resultsThe pooled results by single-arm test meta-analysis showed a benefit with medical humanities programs in empathy (SMD 1.33; 95% CI 0.69-1.96). For single-arm trials of medical humanities program interventions of less than 4 months, 4 months to 12 months, and more than one year, the standardized mean differences(SMD) between post-test and pre-test were 1.74 (P < 0.05), 1.26 (P < 0.05), and 0.13 (P = 0.46), respectively. The results showed a significant difference in the effect of medical humanities programs on male and female empathy (SMD - 1.10; 95% CI -2.08 - -0.13). The SMDs for the study of course, the course combined reflective writing, and the course combined reflective writing and practice as intervention modalities for medical humanities programs were 1.15 (P < 0.05), 1.64 (P < 0.05), and 1.50 (P < 0.05), respectively.

conclusionMedical humanities programs as a whole can improve the empathy of medical students and health professionals. However, different intervention durations and different intervention methods produce different intervention effects.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalStudents, MedicalDelivery of Health CareEmpathyFemaleHumanitiesHumansMaleEmpathyHumanities educationMedical humanitiesProcedureTime factors

Identifiers

PMID38057775
PMCPMC10698992
OpenAlexW4389387125

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.