Cited by 154Empathy and Medical EducationPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Patient enablement requires physician empathy: a cross-sectional study of general practice consultations in areas of high and low socioeconomic deprivation in Scotland

Open access
Mercer, Stewart W, Jani, Bhautesh D, Maxwell, Margaret, Wong, Samuel YS, Watt, Graham CM·2012·BMC Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient 'enablement' is a term closely aligned with 'empowerment' and its measurement in a general practice consultation has been operationalised in the widely used patient enablement instrument (PEI), a patient-rated measure of consultation outcome. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the factors that influence enablement, particularly the effect of socio-economic deprivation. The aim of the study is to assess the factors influencing patient enablement in GP consultations in areas of high and low deprivation. METHODS: A questionnaire study was carried out on 3,044 patients attending 26 GPs (16 in areas of high socio-economic deprivation and 10 in low deprivation areas, in the west of Scotland). Patient expectation (confidence that the doctor would be able to help) was recorded prior to the consultation. PEI, GP empathy (measured by the CARE Measure), and a range of other measures and variables were recorded after the consultation. Data analysis employed multi-level modelling and multivariate analyses with the PEI as the dependant variable. RESULTS: Although numerous variables showed a univariate association with patient enablement, only four factors were independently predictive after multilevel multivariate analysis; patients with multimorbidity of 3 or more long-term conditions (reflecting poor chronic general health), and those consulting about a long-standing problem had reduced enablement scores in both affluent and deprived areas. In deprived areas, emotional distress (GHQ-caseness) had an additional negative effect on enablement. Perceived GP empathy had a positive effect on enablement in both affluent and deprived areas. Maximal patient enablement was never found with low empathy. CONCLUSIONS: Although other factors influence patient enablement, the patients' perceptions of the doctors' empathy is of key importance in patient enablement in general practice consultations in both high and low deprivation settings.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2296-13-6

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • HCPs working with underserved population may experience more stress.

    “Future studies could also include the variable of socioeconomic deprivation, as HCPs working with underserved population may experience more stress.5”

    From Outcomes of MBSR or MBSR-based interventions in health care providers: A systematic review with a focus on empathy and emotional competencies (2016) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Results (Psychological distress; page not provided) discuss distress among patients, not healthcare professionals. The Discussion (Relationship to literature; page not provided) describes pressures on patient enablement in deprived areas, but does not address whether HCPs working with underserved populations experience more stress. Searches for physician stress, burnout, and stressful consultations found no passage on that point. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mercer, S. W., Jani, B. D., Maxwell, M., Wong, S. Y., & Watt, G. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • University of Stirling (GB)
Corresponding author
Mercer, Stewart W
Venue
BMC Family Practice
Published
2012-02-08
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
6-6
ISSN
1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138386680
Cited by
154
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Scottish Government
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 › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
patient enablement, patient empowerment, physician empathy, socioeconomic deprivation, general practitioner visits, Patient Enablement Instrument, CARE measure, multimorbidity, emotional distress, patient expectations, consultation outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Cross-Sectional Studies, Empathy, Family Practice, Female, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Referral and Consultation, Scotland, Socioeconomic Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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