The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review of the associations between empathy measures and patient outcomes in cancer care
Open accessAbstract
Objective: Despite a call for empathy in medical settings, little is known about the effects of the empathy of health care professionals on patient outcomes. This review investigates the links between physicians' or nurses' empathy and patient outcomes in oncology. Method: With the use of multiple databases, a systematic search was performed using a combination of terms and subject headings of empathy or perspective taking or clinician–patient communication, oncology or end‐of‐life setting and physicians or nurses. Among the 394 hits returned, 39 studies met the inclusion criteria of a quantitative measure of empathy or empathy‐related constructs linked to patient outcomes. Results: Empathy was mainly evaluated using patient self‐reports and verbal interaction coding. Investigated outcomes were mainly proximal patient satisfaction and psychological adjustment. Clinicians' empathy was related to higher patient satisfaction and lower distress in retrospective studies and when the measure was patient‐reported. Coding systems yielded divergent conclusions. Empathy was not related to patient empowerment (e.g. medical knowledge, coping). Conclusion: Overall, clinicians' empathy has beneficial effects according to patient perceptions. However, in order to disentangle components of the benefits of empathy and provide professionals with concrete advice, future research should apply different empathy assessment approaches simultaneously, including a perspective‐taking task on patients' expectations and needs at precise moments. Indeed, clinicians' understanding of patients' perspectives is the core component of medical empathy, but it is often assessed only from the patient's point of view. Clinicians' evaluations of patients' perspectives should be studied and compared with patients' reports so that problematic gaps between the two perspectives can be addressed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mercer, S. W. (2004) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmh621 · Cited by 943
Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in therapeutic change.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0093918 · Cited by 838
Heyland, D. K. (2006) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.050626 · Cited by 684
Approaching Difficult Communication Tasks in Oncology
Back, A. L., Arnold, R. M., Baile, W. F., Tulsky, J. A., & Fryer-Edwards, K. (2005) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.55.3.164 · Cited by 681
Zachariae, R., Pedersen, C. G., Jensen, A. B., Ehrnrooth, E., Rossen, P. B., & von der Maase, H. (2003) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600798 · Cited by 601 · cited 6×
“In most samples, patients were assessed at the beginning of treatment or during treatment, but six studies included patients with advanced cancer or in palliative treatment [39,45,46,48,54,55].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialPatient Participation in Medical Consultations: Why Some Patients are More Involved Than Others
Street, R. L., Gordon, H. S., Ward, M. M., Krupat, E., & Kravitz, R. L. (2005) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000178172.40344.70 · Cited by 573
Physicians down-regulate their pain empathy response: An event-related brain potential study
Decety, J., Yang, C.-Y., & Cheng, Y. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.025 · Cited by 531
Sharing decisions in cancer care
Gattellari, M., Butow, P. N., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2001) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00303-8 · Cited by 506
Expertise modulates the perception of pain in others
Cheng, Y., Lin, C.-P., Liu, H.-L., Hsu, Y.-Y., Lim, K.-E., Hung, D., & Decety, J. (2007) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.020 · Cited by 477
Doctor–Patient communication and cancer patients’ quality of life and satisfaction
Ong, L. M. L., Visser, M. R. M., Lammes, F. B., & de Haes, J. C. J. M. (2000) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(99)00108-1 · Cited by 456
Cited by
Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review
Derksen, F., Bensing, J., & Lagro-Janssen, A. (2013) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp13x660814 · Cited by 1,034
Patient-clinician communication: American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline
Gilligan, T., Coyle, N., Frankel, R. M., Berry, D. L., Bohlke, K., Epstein, R. M., Finlay, E., Jackson, V. A., Lathan, C. S., Loprinzi, C. L., et al. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2017.75.2311 · Cited by 610
Burnout and empathy in primary care: three hypotheses
Zenasni, F., Boujut, E., Woerner, A., & Sultan, S. (2012) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp12x652193 · Cited by 129
Self-citationUsing artificial intelligence to analyse and teach communication in healthcare
Butow, P., & Hoque, E. (2020) · The Breast · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2020.01.008 · Cited by 118
The association of physician empathy with cancer patient outcomes: A meta‐analysis
Lelorain, S., Gehenne, L., Christophe, V., & Duprez, C. (2023) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.6108 · Cited by 42
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lelorain, S., Brédart, A., Dolbeault, S., & Sultan, S.
- Venue
- Psycho-Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-01-11
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1255-1264
- ISSN
- 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1611
- OpenAlex
- W1895707846
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 82
- FWCI
- 2.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review of the associations between empathy measures and patient outcomes in cancer care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pon.2115
- The paper
- Lelorain, S., Brédart, A., Dolbeault, S., & Sultan, S. (2012). A systematic review of the associations between empathy measures and patient outcomes in cancer care. Psycho-Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.2115
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.