The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure
Abstract
Background Empathy is a key aspect of the clinical encounter but there is a lack of patient-assessed measures suitable for general clinical settings. Objectives Our aim was to develop a consultation process measure based on a broad definition of empathy, which is meaningful to patients irrespective of their socio-economic background. Methods Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. Results The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly skewed distribution (skew -1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BL…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Validated research instruments were used to measure patient perceptions of physician interpersonal manner, empathy, and communication style, as well as pain catastrophizing and pain self-efficacy.
“Validated research instruments were used to measure patient perceptions of physician interpersonal manner, empathy, and communication style, as well as pain catastrophizing and pain self-efficacy.”
The Consultation and Relational Empathy measure was developed and validated as a process measure of empathy during physician encounters for primary care.
“The Consultation and Relational Empathy measure was developed and validated as a process measure of empathy during physician encounters for primary care [20].”
From The process and outcomes of chronic low back pain treatment provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians: a retrospective cohort study (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data
Pope, C. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114 · Cited by 8,131 · see citing works
Communication Patterns of Primary Care Physicians
Roter, D. L. (1997) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540280088045 · Cited by 939 · see citing works
Broome, B. J. (1991) · Communication Education · doi:10.1080/03634529109378847 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Defining and Measuring the Patient-Centered Medical Home
Stange, K. C., Nutting, P. A., Miller, W. L., Jaén, C. R., Crabtree, B. F., Flocke, S. A., & Gill, J. M. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1291-3 · Cited by 516 · see citing works
Hall, J. A., & Schwartz, R. (2019) · The Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/00224545.2018.1477442 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
Lamothe, M., Rondeau, É., Malboeuf-Hurtubise, C., Duval, M., & Sultan, S. (2016) · Complementary Therapies in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2015.11.001 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Patient outcomes at 26 months in the patient-centered medical home National Demonstration Project
Jaen, C. R., Ferrer, R. L., Miller, W. L., Palmer, R. F., Wood, R., Davila, M., Stewart, E. E., Crabtree, B. F., Nutting, P. A., & Stange, K. C. (2010) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.1121 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Patient Satisfaction With Medical Care for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pain Research Registry Study
Licciardone, J. C., Patel, S., Kandukuri, P., Beeton, G., Nyalakonda, R., & Aryal, S. (2023) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.2949 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Licciardone, J. C., Schmitt, M. E., & Aryal, S. (2019) · Journal of Osteopathic Medicine · doi:10.7556/jaoa.2019.092 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“Consultation and Relational Empathy Measure This instrument was developed and validated as a process measure of empathy during physician encounters for primary care.(19) It is applicable to virtually all clinical encounters and is not influenced by the patient’s chief complaint, socioeconomic status, chronicity of dis…”
MethodDambha-Miller, H., Day, A., Kinmonth, A. L., & Griffin, S. J. (2021) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmaa086 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Licciardone, J. C., Kellerlee, J., Joseph, M., Mohammad, M. B., Kim, K. G., Jain, J., & Aryal, S. (2023) · Journal of Osteopathic Medicine · doi:10.1515/jom-2023-0046 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mercer, S. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Mercer, S. W
- ORCID
- Mercer, S. W
- Venue
- Family Practice
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-10-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 699-705
- ISSN
- 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2229
- OpenAlex
- W2124150942
- Cited by
- 943
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 82 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 101 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 4.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Family Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Keywords
- relational empathy, patient empathy, consultation process, CARE measure, general practice, socioeconomic deprivation, face validity, content validity, internal consistency, concurrent validity, physician-patient relationship
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Empathy, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Pilot Projects, Poverty Areas, Surveys and Questionnaires, Scotland, Social Class, Patient Satisfaction
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
