Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41098456›Full record

ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2025

Factors influencing empathy level among healthcare professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jay Gohri, Shekhar Kalra, Saurish Hegde

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of education and health promotion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Jay GohriIntern, Department of Medicine, JSS Medical College, Mysuru, Karnataka, India.
Shekhar KalraIntern Department of General Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India.
Saurish HegdeDepartment of Community Medicine, Community Oncologist, Mangalore Institute of Oncology, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Empathy is vital in healthcare, influencing patient care quality and outcomes. Understanding the factors that affect empathy levels among healthcare professionals is essential for improving healthcare delivery. This systematic review aims to identify and analyze the factors influencing empathy levels among healthcare professionals, including demographic and professional characteristics. We conducted a systematic search across multiple databases, yielding 979 studies. After removing 116 duplicates, 863 records were screened based on titles and abstracts. Following eligibility criteria, 140 articles were retrieved for full-text assessment, of which 129 were excluded. Ultimately, nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. Data were synthesized to evaluate associations between empathy levels and factors such as gender, marital status, age, educational level, and job characteristics. The meta-analysis revealed significant associations: females exhibited higher empathy levels compared to males [standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.18; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.32 to -0.04], and married individuals showed greater empathy than unmarried individuals (SMD: -0.30; 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.16). Age did not significantly influence empathy levels (SMD: 0.13; 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.41). No significant differences were found in empathy scores between nurses and other healthcare professionals or between doctors and nurses. Gender and marital status are significant predictors of empathy levels among healthcare professionals, while age and specialty do not appear to significantly impact empathy. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions to enhance empathetic practices in healthcare settings.

Indexed as

Empathyhealthcare professionalssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41098456
PMCPMC12520288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.