ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2025
Factors influencing empathy level among healthcare professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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.
- Educational and Professional Development Interventions to Strengthen Empathy, Compassion, and Relational Care Among Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026Review
- The Impact of Educational Interventions on Nursing Students' Attitudes Towards End-of-Life Care: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing open · 2026Observational
- Empathy dimensions and patient-centered care during dental training: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Transcultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of attitude and confidence with oral healthcare among nursing students scale: a cross-sectional survey in China.Frontiers in public health · 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
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
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.