Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 610

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Teaching Empathy to Medical Students: An Updated, Systematic Review

Batt-Rawden, Samantha A., Chisolm, Margaret S., Anton, Blair, Flickinger, Tabor E.·2013·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Some research shows that empathy declines during medical school. The authors conducted an updated, systematic review of the literature on empathy-enhancing educational interventions in undergraduate medical education. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 1, 2004 through March 19, 2012) using key words related to undergraduate medical education and empathy. They independently selected and reviewed all English-language articles that described an educational intervention designed to promote empathy in medical students, assessing the quality of the quantitative studies using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). RESULTS: The authors identified and reviewed the full texts of 18 articles (15 quantitative and 3 qualitative studies). Included interventions used one or more of the following-patient narrative and creative arts (n=7), writing (n=3), drama (n=1), communication skills training (n=4), problem-based learning (n=1), interprofessional skills training (n=1), patient interviews (n=4), experiential learning (n=2), and empathy-focused training (n=1). Fifteen articles reported significant increases in empathy. Mean effect size was 0.23. Mean MERSQI score was 10.13 (range 6.5-14). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that educational interventions can be effective in maintaining and enhancing empathy in undergraduate medical students. In addition, they highlight the need for multicenter, randomized controlled trials, reporting long-term data to evaluate the longevity of intervention effects. Defining empathy remains problematic, and the authors call for conceptual clarity to aid future research.

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.0b013e318299f3e3

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 610

Metadata

Authors
Batt-Rawden, S. A., Chisolm, M. S., Anton, B., & Flickinger, T. E.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2013-08
Volume
88
Issue
8
Pages
1171-1177
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005077729
Cited by
610
References
7
FWCI
16.80
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: Teaching Empathy to Medical Students: An Updated, Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/acm.0b013e318299f3e3
The paper
Batt-Rawden, S. A., Chisolm, M. S., Anton, B., & Flickinger, T. E. (2013). Teaching Empathy to Medical Students: An Updated, Systematic Review. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e318299f3e3

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.