The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating the outcome of communication skill teaching for entry‐level medical students: does knowledge of empathy increase?
Abstract
Background: While the literature shows the clinical value for medical practitioners of skill in communicating with patients in an empathetic manner, objective evaluations of methods to teach empathy are few. Purposes: This paper describes a method of teaching entry‐level medical students the elements of effective communication with patients, in preparation for their first practical exercises. The paper focuses on how the outcomes of the teaching were evaluated with special attention to empathy. Methods: Student evaluative ratings were collected after training, and students also completed a pencil‐and‐paper test of empathy, both before and after the training. While all data were anonymous, student pre‐ and post‐training empathy scores could be compared to assess individual changes in knowledge of empathy after training. Results: Most students (81%) felt better prepared to interview after the training. The pencil‐and‐paper measure of empathy has good reliability, both internal (alpha 0·83 and 0·91) and inter‐rater (kappa 0·96). Overall, students made significant gains in their ability to make empathetic responses, although some (30%) showed no gains. Conclusions: Further research is required to identify students who fail to acquire skill in expressing empathy after undergoing training, and to validate the pencil‐and‐ paper measure of empathy against real‐life performance.
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
Enhancing motivation for change in problem drinking: a controlled comparison of two therapist styles
Miller, W. R., Benefield, R. G., & Tonigan, J. S. (1993) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.61.3.455 · Cited by 566
Squier, R. W. (1990) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(90)90188-x · Cited by 305
Cited by
An empirical study of decline in empathy in medical school
Hojat, M., Mangione, S., Nasca, T. J., Rattner, S., Erdmann, J. B., Gonnella, J. S., & Magee, M. (2004) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01911.x · Cited by 864
How Do Distress and Well-being Relate to Medical Student Empathy? A Multicenter Study
Thomas, M. R., Dyrbye, L. N., Huntington, J. L., Lawson, K. L., Novotny, P. J., Sloan, J. A., & Shanafelt, T. D. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-006-0039-6 · Cited by 616
Educating for empathy: A review
Stepien, K. A., & Baernstein, A. (2006) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00443.x · Cited by 555
A cross-sectional measurement of medical student empathy
Chen, D., Lew, R., Hershman, W., & Orlander, J. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0298-x · Cited by 547
Establishing the computer-patient working alliance in automated health behavior change interventions
Bickmore, T., Gruber, A., & Picard, R. (2005) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2004.09.008 · Cited by 494
Metadata
- Authors
- Winefield, H. R., & Chur‐Hansen, A.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 90-94
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W1985446351
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Evaluating the outcome of communication skill teaching for entry‐level medical students: does knowledge of empathy increase? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00463.x
- The paper
- Winefield, H. R., & Chur‐Hansen, A. (2000). Evaluating the outcome of communication skill teaching for entry‐level medical students: does knowledge of empathy increase? Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00463.x
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.