Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,203

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physiciansʼ Empathy and Clinical Outcomes for Diabetic Patients

Hojat, Mohammadreza, Louis, Daniel Z., Markham, Fred W., Wender, Richard, Rabinowitz, Carol, Gonnella, Joseph S.·2011·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that physicians' empathy is associated with positive clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. METHOD: A correlational study design was used in a university-affiliated outpatient setting. Participants were 891 diabetic patients, treated between July 2006 and June 2009, by 29 family physicians. Results of the most recent hemoglobin A1c and LDL-C tests were extracted from the patients' electronic records. The results of hemoglobin A1c tests were categorized into good control (<7.0%) and poor control (>9.0%). Similarly, the results of the LDL-C tests were grouped into good control (<100) and poor control (>130). The physicians, who completed the Jefferson Scale of Empathy in 2009, were grouped into high, moderate, and low empathy scorers. Associations between physicians' level of empathy scores and patient outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Patients of physicians with high empathy scores were significantly more likely to have good control of hemoglobin A1c (56%) than were patients of physicians with low empathy scores (40%, P < .001). Similarly, the proportion of patients with good LDL-C control was significantly higher for physicians with high empathy scores (59%) than physicians with low scores (44%, P < .001). Logistic regression analyses indicated that physicians' empathy had a unique contribution to the prediction of optimal clinical outcomes after controlling for physicians' and patients' gender and age, and patients' health insurance. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis of a positive relationship between physicians' empathy and patients' clinical outcomes was confirmed, suggesting that physicians' empathy is an important factor associated with clinical competence and patient outcomes.

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 · 10.1097/acm.0b013e3182086fe1

Cites

9 of 9 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

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 1,203

Metadata

Authors
Hojat, M., Louis, D. Z., Markham, F. W., Wender, R., Rabinowitz, C., & Gonnella, J. S.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2011-03
Volume
86
Issue
3
Pages
359-364
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2127559536
Cited by
1,203
References
9
FWCI
32.90
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: Physiciansʼ Empathy and Clinical Outcomes for Diabetic Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/acm.0b013e3182086fe1
The paper
Hojat, M., Louis, D. Z., Markham, F. W., Wender, R., Rabinowitz, C., & Gonnella, J. S. (2011). Physiciansʼ Empathy and Clinical Outcomes for Diabetic Patients. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3182086fe1

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.