ArticleGMS journal for medical education2026
Assessment of empathy by simulated patients: Adaptation and validation of a new instrument.
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2026. 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.
- Bedside teaching - from clinical learning to explicit teaching.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
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
Background: Medical doctors' empathy is vital in their interaction with patients, impacting on patient trust and health outcomes. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) scale helps assess healthcare professionals' empathy but there is a reasonable doubt about its validity when directly implemented in simulation contexts. This study adapts and validates a version of the CARE scale for simulated patients (Sp-SIMCARE), filling a gap in empathy assessment within medical training simulations. Methods: The contextual adaptation of the CARE scale for simulated patients followed a four-phase process: 1) preparation of a preliminary adaptation proposal; 2) drafting the first version; 3) piloting the initial version with simulated patients; and 4) refining the final Sp-SIMCARE version. A panel of five experts collaborated with five simulated patients to ensure clarity, relevance, and language equivalence. The validation was conducted using typical primary care scenarios. Simulated patients assessed the performance of undergraduate medical students in four primary patient roles: acute, chronic, with high functional component, and with a hostile attitude. Psychometric parameters that were evaluated included convergent validity (assessed by simulated patients using a global score), acceptability and face validity, homogeneity, and internal reliability. Results: The adaptation process resulted in a clear, relevant, and comprehensible scale, ensuring uniform understanding among users. Validation involved 95 students in 270 encounters with eight simulated patients. The final version showed convergent validity (Spearman's rho=0.730, p<0.001), acceptability and face validity (1.96% "Does not apply"/missing values), homogeneity (item-total correlations 0.705-0.865) and reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.960). Conclusions: The Sp-SIMCARE scale appears to be a valid and reliable tool for simulated patients to assess empathy in future doctors during their training from a multidimensional perspective.
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.