SynthesisBMC medical education2025
A systematic review identifying effective teaching methods and their combinations for increasing empathy in physicians: pairwise and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDemonstrating empathy is fundamental for providing patient-centered care, however, what components are most effective is not known. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify key teaching methods and intervention characteristics for increasing empathy skills across medical training.
methodThis study was part of a larger systematic review, which was pre-registered: CRD42018100100. We performed a systematic review, pairwise meta-analysis (PMA) and network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic search was used across PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts, ERIC, ABI/INFORM, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the inception of the respective databases to October 9, 2022. Studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining behavioural interventions which targeted empathy skills for physicians and medical students. Studies were excluded if reported summary data could not be converted to an effect size; if the author were unable to be contacted; and if the study did not compare substantively different intervention combinations. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Data were pooled using random-effects PMA and NMA.
results308 full-text studies were found, of which 111 met the inclusion criteria, totalling 11,111 participants. Overall, a medium effect of interventions was found [d = 0.50 (95% CI = 0.40, 0.60)], meaning the empathy skills of participants improved moderately compared to those in control groups. Publication bias was evident and heterogeneity was high (I2 = 79.19, p < .001). Subgroup analyses of the PMA revealed the following moderators were statistically significant: teaching method, intervention formats, control group; measurement type, and number of teaching methods used. The consistency assumption was met [χ2 [ (33)= 39.11, p = .21] for the NMA. The NMA revealed that didactic and rehearsal were most frequently included among the most effective teaching method combinations.
conclusionsBy using PMA and NMA, we provide novel insights on effective intervention components for improving empathy in medicine. To improve aggregation of evidence, transparent and standardized reporting from studies may help reduce heterogeneity. Overall, our results support the notion that interventions need not be expensive nor prolonged to be effective.
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.