ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Visualizing Empathy in Patient-Practitioner Interactions Using Eye-Tracking Technology: Proof-of-Concept Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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.
- Eye-Tracked Visual Attention to Anthropomorphic Appearance and Empathic Responses in AI Medical Conversational Agents: Dissociating Trust Gains from Attentional Synergy.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Clinicians' Visual Attention During Suicide Screening Encounters: An Exploratory Eye-Tracking Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Multimodal Assessment of Therapeutic Alliance: A Study Using Wearable Technology.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- Synthetic Patient-Physician Conversations Simulated by Large Language Models: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Communication between medical practitioners and patients in health care settings is essential for positive patient health outcomes. Nonetheless, researchers have paid scant attention to the significance of clinical empathy in these interactions as a practical skill. Objective: This study aims to understand clinical empathy during practitioner-patient encounters by examining practitioners' and patients' verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Using eye-tracking techniques, we focused on the relationship between traditionally assessed clinical empathy and practitioners' actual gaze behavior. Methods: We used mixed methods to understand clinical encounters by comparing 3 quantitative measures: eye-tracking data, scores from the Korean version of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Health Professional, and Consultation and Relational Empathy survey scores. We also conducted qualitative interviews with patients regarding their encounters. Results: One practitioner and 6 patients were involved in the experiment. Perceived empathy on the part of the practitioner was notably higher when the practitioner focused on a patient's mouth area during the consultation, as indicated by gaze patterns that focused on a patient's face. Furthermore, an analysis of areas of interest revealed different patterns in interactions with new as opposed to returning patients. Postconsultation interviews suggested that task-oriented and socially oriented empathy are critical in aligning with patients' expectations of empathetic communication. Conclusions: This proof-of-concept study advocates a multidimensional approach to clinical empathy, revealing that a combination of verbal and nonverbal behaviors significantly reinforces perceived empathy from health care workers. This evolved paradigm of empathy underscores the profound consequences for medical education and the quality of health care delivery.
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.