Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 289

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 access
Lelorain, Sophie, Brédart, Anne, Dolbeault, Sylvie, Sultan, Serge·2012·Psycho-Oncology
DOI 10.1002/pon.2115
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.2115

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 289

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
DOI
10.1002/pon.2115
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

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.