INTRODUCTION

Empathy is considered a key attribute in health care and can benefit both patients and health professionals. The concept of empathy has its origin in the German word ‘einfühlung’, which means ‘feeling into’, and was established by the German psychologist Theodore Lipps, as a standard term of psychology^1-3. Later Tichener translated Lipps’s term by coining the word ‘empathy’ from two Greek roots, ‘em’, meaning ‘to put into, to bring about a certain condition or state, to furnish with something’ and ‘pathy’ (from pathos), meaning ‘suffering or passion’^2-8. Although there is mainly agreement in the literature that empathy has positive effects there is no consensus about its definition^9-11. It has often been described as ‘elusive and mysterious’¹² and any attempt to define it is considered ‘an intellectual challenge’¹³.

Carl Rogers¹⁴ described empathy as an ability ‘to perceive the internal frame of reference of another with accuracy as if one were the other person but without ever losing the ‘as if’ condition^2,15-20. Friedmeier commented: ‘Empathy is an affective reaction that stems from the perception of another emotional state or situation of another person, that involves vicariously experiencing another person’s situation and that is characterized by the attention paid to another person’s emotions’3. Kalish²¹ wrote: ‘Empathy is the ability to enter into the life of another person, to accurately perceive his current feelings and their meanings. In empathy, the helper borrows his patients feelings to understand them fully, but he is always aware of his separateness’.

Hojat proposed the following definition of empathy in the context of patient care ‘Empathy is a predominantly cognitive (as opposed to affective) attribute that involves an understanding of experiences, concerns and perspectives of the patient, combined with a capacity to communicate this understanding’. Cognition, understanding and communication are the key components in this definition of empathy that is widely used^13,22-24.

It is important to distinguish empathy from sympathy in caring for patients because they have different clinical outcomes^25-27. Sympathy is the act or the capacity of entering into or joining the feelings of another person. Empathy is described as a capacity to understand but without joining the feeling of the patient’s situation^{25,28,2,3,10,29}. Empathetic health professionals share their understanding while sympathetic health professionals share their emotions with the patients³⁰.

Researchers have studied the neurobiological aspect of empathy and have suggested that empathy may be hard-wired into the human nervous system^31-32. They have observed that empathy activates the same regions of the brain that process aspects of pain³¹. Compelling new evidence of the brain’s mirror-like neuronal response to observing others in pain, regardless of prior experience cognitive appraisal, suggests that certain aspects of an empathetic response may be autonomic and beyond our control³³.

Studies have shown that clinical empathy could enhance the therapeutic outcomes of a patient’s relationship with a health professional^22,34-42 and could also achieve better patient satisfaction^43-45, better compliance and adherence to treatment^{39,9,35,45,40,30}, and facilitates the development of mutual trust^34,46-48. There are also important implications for pain management practices³⁴. Generally, being an empathetic health professional improves patient confidence^3,40, reduces patient’s anxiety³⁴, helps the patient feel respected and validated^10,41, and willing to provide more specific information about his/her medical history^10,30. It has also been suggested that there is less malpractice litigation^10,35,49.

Although many empathy scales have been developed, there are limitations and difficulties in the measurement of empathy because of the ambiguity in its definition^11,50. Some of the empathy instruments that have been used included Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory, Emotional Intelligence Scale, Empathic Tendency Scale, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, LaMonica Empathy Profile, and more recently the Jefferson Scale Of Physician Empathy (JSPE), which is the most frequently used by physicians and medical students as well as by other health professionals. Recently, the first empathy scale was created, specifically designed to measure midwives’ empathy (Midwifery Empathy Scale - MES)⁵¹.

The ability to offer empathy may vary from one individual to another as some people are by nature more empathetic than others. However, acquired empathy can be taught as a skill and developed with practice and experience^36,20,52-55.

METHODS

Searches were done within the Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases using the terms ‘clinical’, ‘empathy’, ‘nursing’, ‘medical students’, ‘physicians’, ‘midwifery’, by themselves or in combination, to identify the relevant literature. The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used:

Inclusion criteria: journal articles with quantitative research design; studies applying a scale to measure empathy levels; participants being physicians, medical, nursing, midwifery and emergency-help students; publications in English between 2002–2014.

Exclusion criteria: review articles; studies that included intervention and measurement before and after; studies focusing on empathy, but where no tools were applied to assess its level, as in qualitative studies.

The search identified 12077 papers in total, whose titles and abstracts were read to obtain the relevant studies that were used in the systematic review. Additional searches conducted were based on the references of the selected works.

RESULTS

The research found a significant increase in the score of empathy skills in last year medical students and a non-significant difference between male and female medical students, despite indicating that female students have higher empathy scores. The increase in empathetic abilities and decrease in active conflict tendencies in years four and six was remarkable, suggesting that clinical education comprising patient–physician relationships may be helpful in a period that is more empathetic and less conflictually active⁶⁴ (Table 1).

In another study, empathy appears to increase during the 1st year of medical school but decreases after the 3rd year (1st clinical year) and remains low through the final year of medical school⁶⁵. The results are consistent with previous studies suggesting that empathy decreases after clinical training in medical school (Table1).

A study hypothesised that empathy would increase with time in medical school. The latent growth model (LGM), refuted the hypothesis showing that JSPE scores were longitudinally stable. There is a gender-related evolution that globally results in a linear non-significant growth that is not hampered by the preclinical/clinical transition. A negative change in empathy was hypothesised at the transition from the preclinical to clinical training, but the data did not confirm it, as the empathy levels grew from the entrance in the medical degree to the start of the clinical training. However, a significant decline in empathy was found in female students in the transition period. As far as it concerns personality, students with higher scores on openness and agreeableness subscales scored higher in JSPE upon admission to medical school. Overall this study disagrees with the notion that empathy declines throughout medical training⁶⁶ (Table 1).

A multi-institutional and cross-sectional study in Portugal⁶⁷ suggested that medical students who were more agreeable and open to experience were also likely more empathetic. This conclusion reinforces the argument that the personality and empathy of medical students are related (Table 1).

An Italian study expected a significant gender difference in empathy scores in favour of women. Although a slightly higher score was observed for women, the difference was not statistically significant. This unexpected finding probably could be due to a volunteer-sample factor. Only a slight difference was found in empathy scores between medical and surgical specialities, but it was not statistically significant. It is interesting to note that there were statistically significant differences observed in the scores of physicians from different hospitals. The hospital where the physicians scored higher was the only one devoted to the diagnosis and therapy of a specific patient population. Therefore, patient–physician relationships may last longer in such a hospital, which can contribute to the relatively higher empathy scores of physicians there⁶ (Table 1).

A study that took place in Kuwait found that students whose mothers had not completed high school had lower levels of empathy compared to students whose mothers were more educated. The mean empathy score among medical students in Kuwait University on the JSPE is relatively lower than that of medical students in Western countries. However, the mean empathy score is comparable to that reported from Asian countries. The higher level of empathy found among female students is consistent with other studies. The relationship between empathy scores and monthly household income was found to be significant; students coming from families with lower incomes were significantly less empathetic. This may be due to the role of the educational status of the parents and the family income, which may affect the way students develop certain emotional skills and hence empathy. As empathy is an individual characteristic that is shaped by interpersonal relationships, people who have enjoyed positive relationships with their mothers throughout their upbringing are more likely to display empathy in social situations. No statistically significant associations between personality traits and empathy scores were found. Furthermore, a weaker positive correlation between stress levels and empathy scores was found, indicating that those with higher stress are more empathetic than those with low-stress scores⁶⁸ (Table 1).

Hojat and colleagues who have created the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy have conducted many studies on empathy. In 2002, a study in Thomas Jefferson Hospital showed that women tend to score higher on empathy ratings than men, although in this case, the finding did not reach statistical significance. But it falls short of explaining gender differences in empathy. The significant differences in empathy scores observed among physicians in various specialities might reflect the notion that different individuals with different degrees of interpersonal skills, reflected in their empathy scores, are attracted to different specialities²². The result of the 2004 study is consistent with findings of other studies that observed a decrease in emotional empathy before and following clinical experiences among medical students⁶⁹. In the 2005 study, the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ) was also used and the findings generally suggested that empathy among medical students is a function of gender and early relations with the mother⁷⁰ (Table 1).

In a Japanese study, the mean score for the Japanese sample was lower than that reported in Western countries, and it is possible that differences between Japanese and Western cultures might be playing a role. Although the finding that female medical students score higher than their male counterparts is also present here. The finding regarding enhancement of empathy during medical school in Japanese students is not in agreement with that reported for American medical students, where there is a decrease in empathy. The different curricula could be responsible for this difference²³ (Table 1).

The findings of the Portuguese study³⁹ are similar to those of past studies undertaken with 6-year undergraduate medical programs with Japanese and Korean versions of the JSPE. It also identifies differences in JSPE scores by gender, thus confirming findings from previous reports (Table 1).

The mean empathy score of an Australian cohort⁷¹ of undergraduate midwifery students is somewhat lower than the mean empathy score reported in other studies using the JSPE-HP. There was no significant difference between the age groups of midwifery students in the study.

The findings reported by a Turkish study showed that ECSS scores of 4th year nursing students were significantly higher than all other student groups. However, ETS scores of newly registered students were higher than other groups. Further, the longitudinal assessment also showed that ECSS scores became higher, but ETS scores became lower during the undergraduate years (p<0.05). The findings show that during the nursing education years, students may learn how to respond to others’ feelings and needs. However, according to the current study, there was no correlation between ETS and ECSS scores⁷² (Table 1).

In medical schools in the UK, the first three years are the core science component and the last three years the clinical component. In a study that took place in the UK⁷³, it was observed that there were statistically significant gender differences in affective empathy in all six years and in cognitive empathy for four of the six years. Differences in mean scores between men and women were larger than any of the changes in mean scores between the stages of the course. It was found that with time, affective empathy declined on average for men, while sensitivity analysis revealed that women’s affective empathy declined during the clinical component. Amongst women during the core science component, affective empathy remained constant, on average. There were no significant changes in cognitive empathy among women or amongst clinical men. Sensitivity analysis revealed that during the core science component of the course men’s cognitive empathy increased. However, although these changes were statistically significant, regression coefficients indicate that they were minimal and therefore of questionable practical significance (Table 1).

Another study revealed that Korean medical students’ empathy scores were lower than those of their US counterparts, similar to the Japanese findings. The finding that female students have higher scores than male students is consistent with previous studies, although the difference was not statistically significant. Slightly lower empathy scores in 3rd year students were observed than in other years, though the difference was not statistically significant. Unexpectedly, there was a small but significant increase in empathy in both 4th year male and female students⁷⁴ (Table1).

In a 2010 study of physicians’ empathy in Iran, the scores in females were higher than in males, consistent with most other studies³⁵. A significant association between age and empathy, after controlling for practical experience, was not found in this study. Also consistent with other Eastern studies was the lower mean empathy score, lower than the Western studies but higher than in Japan. In the study of medical students’ empathy in Iran⁷⁵, female students scored significantly higher than male students, again consistent with previous studies. There was a decreasing trend in empathy score from preclinical to clinical trainees and interns, for large and small universities. However, this occurred at a different point in time in large universities versus small universities. In large universities, the erosion of empathy took place in the transition from preclinical to clinical training, whereas in the small universities, it happened after some years of clinical training and the beginning of the internship period (Table 1).

A study conducted in 2014 in India⁷⁶ showed that empathy declined during medical education, but it reached a significant level only in the seventh semester. It also showed that female students have significantly higher empathy than male students. However, empathy level increased significantly (p=0.0002) from first to ninth semester among those choosing specialities other than people/technology-oriented specialisations or remaining undecided. A decline in the score was noticed in the third semester (beginning of the second year), but it was statistically not significant. Interestingly, there was an increase in empathy scores in the fifth semester (beginning of the third year). Like in other studies there was a significant difference (p=0.012) in empathy scores between male and female students, with the females scoring more than males (mean female students 106.5 vs male students 101.89, standard deviation 19.901 and 16.164, respectively). A significant difference (mean=11.103) is seen among male students from first to seventh semester (p=0.020). Thus, there is a need to probably focus on improving male students’ empathy, especially those of seventh semester (entering the fourth year). Female students were, by their nature, more caring and loving, and probably less affected by factors that tend to diminish empathy. The undecided students about speciality or those choosing other subjects had the highest mean empathy while those choosing people-oriented subjects had the least empathy score (Table 1).

Except for the study in Korean medical students⁷⁴, another study in Korean physicians was conducted in 2012²⁶ and revealed that the mean empathy score for Korean physicians (mean=98.2, SD=12.0) was lower than that reported for Korean medical students (mean=103.1, SD=12.5). The score was also lower than that reported for American (mean=120, SD=12) and Italian (mean=115.1, SD=15.55) physicians. The physicians in the so-called ‘people-oriented’ specialities tend to have higher empathy scores than their counterparts in the ‘procedure-oriented’ specialities such as radiology. Lastly, the empathy score for women was significantly higher than that for men (Table 1).

Research that studied the empathy scores for nursing students showed a significant decline in mean empathy scores for particular groups of undergraduate nursing students. The participants were from three undergraduate nursing programs: a) Associate degree (ADN, n=120, Group 1) first and second-year students; b) Bachelor degree (BSN, n=60, Group 2) third and fourth-year students; and c) Facilitated Academic Coursework Tract students (FACT, n=34, Group 3). Students admitted to the FACT have earned a previous degree from another discipline. The magnitude of the decline in empathy was similar for nursing students in Groups 2 and 3, who were more exposed to patient encounters than their counterparts in Group 1. The findings of this study are consistent with several research studies that have found similar differences in the decline of empathy among medical students, particularly those studies that reported a significant erosion of empathy in the third year of medical school when students start their formal clinical training with real patients⁷⁷ (Table 1).

A study in Chinese medical students⁷⁸ showed again that empathy in Eastern countries is lower than Western countries, since the Chinese mean empathy score (mean=109.60, SD=13.34) was lower than that for American students (mean=115, SD=10), but higher than that for Japanese students (mean=104.3, SD=13.1) and Iranian students (mean=105.1, SD=12.9). This may be attributed to cross-cultural differences in social norms, ethnicity, religious beliefs, pedagogical methods, and sex stereotyping, which can influence empathetic engagement. The empathy scores in the 1st year are the lowest. The demographic characteristics of the younger students suggest a relative like for life experience and may result in the initial lower levels of empathy. A significant difference in empathy scores between different genders was found, which was in favour of women (p<0.05, t(753)=5.57), consistent with most other studies. The gender difference in empathy has been attributed to intrinsic factors (e.g. evolutionary-biological gender characteristics) as well as extrinsic factors (e.g. styles in interpersonal care, socialisation and gender-role expectations). This explanation has been widely accepted and supported in the relevant literature. There were statistical differences in empathy scores among medical students in different years of medical school (F=3.08, p<0.05) with the 1st year students having the lowest empathy scores (mean=107.36) and the 4th year medical students having the highest (mean=112.12) (Table 1).

Studies in other health science students except medicine and nursing are not frequent. There was a study in an Australian university that along with the empathy of nursing students they also measured the empathy of emergency health and midwifery students. The findings demonstrate that female students had a higher mean JSPE-HP empathy score compared with male students, although it did not reach statistical significance. Mean empathy scores for this cohort of undergraduate health science students are lower than the scores reported in other studies that used the JSPE-HP. The reporting of no statistical difference between each of the three years across the health professional courses in this study is an important finding as it suggests the courses do not have a detrimental effect on student empathy⁷⁹ (Table 1).

DISCUSSION

During the review, it was observed that in most studies women had higher levels of empathy than men, in both students and health professionals^{65,6,68,22,70,23,39,73,35,75,26,78,79}. In three studies only, there were no differences between the levels of empathy based on gender^64,69,74. Age does not seem to affect empathy, with only two studies finding a positive correlation^35,79. Concerning the progress of empathy in students, there is no agreement, with several studies suggesting that empathy increases in the last year of education^{64,68,23,39,71,72,74,78,79} and others reporting that with the beginning of clinical experience the empathy declines^65,69,75,77. In one study only the empathy levels of women declined from preclinical to clinical stages⁶⁷. Students and health professionals that had chosen a people-oriented speciality had higher levels of empathy than those who chose a technology-oriented specialization^{65,6,22,70,26}. In two studies there were no differences^39,76. There is a belief that empathy is a personality trait and as such, it can be influenced by the other traits of personality. A positive correlation was found between empathy and ‘Openness to Experience’, ‘Agreeableness’, and ‘Conscientiousness’^66,67,70. A negative correlation was found between ‘Aggression-Hostility’ and empathy⁷⁰. Also, according to one study, higher stress levels were linked to higher levels of empathy⁶⁸. Furthermore, a good relationship with the mother suggested higher levels of empathy^68,70. However, although empathy is so important in midwifery care, the number of research studies of the level of empathy in midwives is extremely limited. For this reason, these types of studies are warranted and need to be expanded. Even though there are few studies measuring midwives’ empathy, they show that midwives have high levels of empathy and empathy among midwifery students rises during the years of education. Specifically, in an Australian study⁷¹, the undergraduate midwifery students had a somewhat lower mean empathy score. The difference was not significant, but such a positive gradation in mean empathy is a very positive result as it indicates that the course has a positive effect on students’ professional development. One study shows that midwifery students’ mean score (M=108.98, SD=17.2) was higher than those for emergency health (M=104.41, SD=14.9) and nursing students (M=103.92, SD=14.4)⁷⁹. A recent study found that when midwives’ empathy and spiritual care were evident, women’s birth experiences appeared positively enhanced, providing a solid foundation for confident mothering. In the same study, participants appeared to link a lack of caregiver empathy, compassion or spiritual care with more enduring negative consequences, such as birth trauma and difficulty bonding with their babies⁸⁰.

However, although empathy is so important in midwifery care, the number of researchers who study the level of empathy in midwives is extremely limited. For this reason, there is a need to expand these kinds of studies. Recently, in 2016, a scale that measures midwives’ empathy was developed (Midwifery Empathy Scale - MES), which is very promising and opens the way for further research in midwifery⁵¹.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies have begun to investigate the neurobiological aspect of empathy, but more research is needed to understand how empathy works fully; the same applies to studies assessing the relations between personality traits and empathy. There is a necessity to investigate the long-term effects of health professional empathy on patient satisfaction, clinical outcome and malpractice litigation. Most of the existing instruments for measuring empathy are self-rating. A validated instrument that measures empathy of health professionals as viewed from the patients’ perspective is required to investigate whether the overlap is found between self-reporting and patient-reporting scores of empathy. In our review, the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy is the most frequently used scale, but there are many existing scales and a systematic review examining all of them would be useful. Furthermore, empathy is a very helpful and a worthwhile trait of a midwife, and for this reason, there is a great necessity for new studies. Midwifery Empathy Scale (MES) is a new scale measuring midwives’ empathy and is an important tool that will help to expand these studies.