ArticleBMC medical education2024
The relationship between Empathy and listening styles is complex: implications for doctors in training.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards patient-centered healthcare: a scoping review of soft skills training in medical schools.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Patient-centred communication in primary care: are general practitioners aware of their strengths and areas for improvement?Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Exploring the Gender Preferences for Healthcare Providers and Their Influence on Patient Satisfaction.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Motivational Interviewing (MI) in Obesity Care: Cultivating Person-Centered and Supportive Clinical Conversations to Reduce Stigma: A Narrative Review.Obesity science & practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective communication is the key to a successful relationship between doctors and their patients. Empathy facilitates effective communication, but physicians vary in their ability to empathize with patients. Listening styles are a potential source of this difference. We aimed to assess empathy and listening styles among medical students and whether students with certain listening styles are more empathetic.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 97 medical students completed the Jefferson scale of Empathy (JSE) and the revised version of the Listening Styles Profile (LSP-R). The relationship between empathy and listening styles was assessed by comparing JSE scores across different listening styles using ANOVA in SPSS software. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsOverall, the students showed a mean empathy score of 103 ± 14 on JSE. Empathy scores were lower among clinical students compared to preclinical students. Most of the medical students preferred the analytical listening style. The proportion of students who preferred the relational listening style was lower among clinical students compared to preclinical students. There was no significant relationship between any of the listening styles with empathy.
conclusionOur results do not support an association between any particular listening style with medical students' empathic ability. We propose that students who have better empathetic skills might shift between listening styles flexibly rather than sticking to a specific listening style.
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.