Cited by 129Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutStress and Burnout ResearchOccupational Health and Burnout

Burnout and empathy in primary care: three hypotheses

Open access
Zenasni, Franck, Boujut, Emilie, Woerner, Aude, Sultan, Serge·2012·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

In the last 10 years, a growing literature about empathy in primary care indicates that, for both patient and clinician, empathy helps to improve many aspects of health care practice and patient satisfaction. Wensing et al 1 indicated that humaneness, exploring the needs of patients, and good communication skills are some of the high priorities that patients expect from their GP. Cape et al 2 showed that doctor empathy coded by external observers was positively correlated with listening interactions and patient involvement. Vedsted and Heje3 found that patients tended to recommend their GP to others if they judged them as ‘empathic’. Mercer et al 4 showed a positive relationship both between GP empathy and patient enablement at the consultation, and between patient enablement and changes in the main symptom and well-being evaluated 3 months after the consultation. Finally, Verheul et al 5 investigated the impact of a warm and empathic consultation compared to a cold and formal consultation on the certainty of the outcome. The greatest beneficial effects of empathic communication on stress reduction and expectancies were observed when it was combined with a positive expectations style. To preserve effective empathy in care, the health provider must be in a positive frame of mind and not affected by stress or burnout. Burnout occurs when individuals feel emotionally overwhelmed by the …

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 · 10.3399/bjgp12x652193

Cites

18 of 18 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?

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
Zenasni, F., Boujut, E., Woerner, A., & Sultan, S.
Affiliations
  • Laboratoire Adaptations Travail-Individu (FR)
  • Université Paris Descartes (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine (CA)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2012-07
Volume
62
Issue
600
Pages
346-347
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2169962576
Cited by
129
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
Keywords
burnout, empathy, primary care, general practitioners, physician well-being, physician-patient relationship
MeSH terms
Burnout, Professional, Empathy, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, General Practitioners, General Practice

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