Measurement of empathy among health professionals during Syrian crisis using the Syrian empathy scale.
Attitude
Empathy
Health professional
Measurement
Student
Syria
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jul 2021
29 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
05
12
2020
accepted:
15
07
2021
entrez:
30
7
2021
pubmed:
31
7
2021
medline:
3
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health professionals should have certain degree of empathy to eliminate the pain and suffering of their patients. There is a need to design a scale, which can assess empathy among health professionals and is relevant to community and culture. Therefore, this study was undertaken to measure the empathy among Syrian health professionals and students of health professions using a newly designed Syrian Empathy Scale that is relevant to community during Syrian crisis. A cross-sectional observational study was undertaken. A total of 214 participants (118 males and 96 females) responded to the Syrian Empathy Scale SES from Medical (n = 62), Dental (n = 152). They were 59 undergraduates, 116 postgraduates and 39 general practitioners. The SES was designed as a tool that includes 20 items in a 7-point Likert-type scale with overall score ranges from 20 to 140. Group comparisons of the empathy scores were conducted using t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). A factor analysis was performed. Bartlett's test of the sphericity and the KMO measure of sampling adequacy were also determined. Cronbach's alpha was calculated. A significant difference was found between males and females in the SES mean score. The ANOVA analysis showed that the SES empathy scores of dentists were higher than the SES empathy scores in medical doctors with no significant difference. The SES empathy score of undergraduates was significantly higher than postgraduates and practitioners. Findings of KMO indicated sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.824 > 0.7) and the value of Bartlett's test of the sphericity (1255.65, df = 190, P-value< 0.001) proved that the factor analysis is meaningful and acceptable. The results of varimax rotation proved that five main factors were retained. Findings of this study support the reliability of the newly designed Syrian Empathy Scale for measuring empathy in the field of health care. The SES can be suggested for assessing empathy in different health educational programs. However, future works are still essential to support the validity of the scale as well as to ascertain the role of empathy in improving health care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Health professionals should have certain degree of empathy to eliminate the pain and suffering of their patients. There is a need to design a scale, which can assess empathy among health professionals and is relevant to community and culture. Therefore, this study was undertaken to measure the empathy among Syrian health professionals and students of health professions using a newly designed Syrian Empathy Scale that is relevant to community during Syrian crisis.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional observational study was undertaken. A total of 214 participants (118 males and 96 females) responded to the Syrian Empathy Scale SES from Medical (n = 62), Dental (n = 152). They were 59 undergraduates, 116 postgraduates and 39 general practitioners. The SES was designed as a tool that includes 20 items in a 7-point Likert-type scale with overall score ranges from 20 to 140. Group comparisons of the empathy scores were conducted using t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). A factor analysis was performed. Bartlett's test of the sphericity and the KMO measure of sampling adequacy were also determined. Cronbach's alpha was calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A significant difference was found between males and females in the SES mean score. The ANOVA analysis showed that the SES empathy scores of dentists were higher than the SES empathy scores in medical doctors with no significant difference. The SES empathy score of undergraduates was significantly higher than postgraduates and practitioners. Findings of KMO indicated sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.824 > 0.7) and the value of Bartlett's test of the sphericity (1255.65, df = 190, P-value< 0.001) proved that the factor analysis is meaningful and acceptable. The results of varimax rotation proved that five main factors were retained.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Findings of this study support the reliability of the newly designed Syrian Empathy Scale for measuring empathy in the field of health care. The SES can be suggested for assessing empathy in different health educational programs. However, future works are still essential to support the validity of the scale as well as to ascertain the role of empathy in improving health care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34325698
doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02835-0
pii: 10.1186/s12909-021-02835-0
pmc: PMC8319893
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
409Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 1;7(7):e016076
pubmed: 28765129
Psicothema. 2015;27(2):192-200
pubmed: 25927700
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 1;13(6):e0197755
pubmed: 29856825
Int J Public Health. 2015 Jan;60 Suppl 1:S63-72
pubmed: 25023995
ISRN Psychiatry. 2014 Apr 07;2014:375439
pubmed: 25006522
Med J Armed Forces India. 2014 Apr;70(2):179-85
pubmed: 24843209
Med Princ Pract. 2013;22(4):385-9
pubmed: 23485677
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Mar 27;18(1):47
pubmed: 29587725
Med Teach. 2011;33(5):388-91
pubmed: 21517687
Cureus. 2019 Feb 28;11(2):e4160
pubmed: 31058043
Front Pharmacol. 2016 Apr 19;7:96
pubmed: 27148055
J Dent Educ. 1993 Mar;57(3):225-31
pubmed: 8454777
J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Mar;25(3):200-2
pubmed: 20013070
Zdr Varst. 2015 Sep 25;54(4):282-92
pubmed: 27647414
J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2019 Aug 1;119(8):520-532
pubmed: 31355891
F1000Res. 2013 Jul 16;2:157
pubmed: 24358858
BMC Med Educ. 2007 Mar 30;7:4
pubmed: 17394673
Am J Pharm Educ. 2011 Aug 10;75(6):109
pubmed: 21931447
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2013 Winter;12(4):606-17
pubmed: 24297288
J Pers Assess. 2011 Jan;93(1):84-95
pubmed: 21184334
BMC Med Educ. 2011 Aug 02;11:54
pubmed: 21810268
Med Teach. 2010;32(11):e471-8
pubmed: 21039088
Front Psychol. 2016 Jul 12;7:1002
pubmed: 27462282
Acad Med. 2015 Jan;90(1):105-11
pubmed: 25558813
J Pers Assess. 2009 Jan;91(1):62-71
pubmed: 19085285
Int J Med Educ. 2014 Jan 11;5:7-10
pubmed: 25341204
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2017 Dec 27;14:33
pubmed: 29278905
Korean J Med Educ. 2017 Mar;29(1):33-39
pubmed: 28264552
Acad Med. 2009 Sep;84(9):1192-7
pubmed: 19707056
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020 Sep 04;14:1615-1621
pubmed: 32943853
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 11;12(1):e0169185
pubmed: 28076406
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018 Dec;23(5):899-920
pubmed: 29968006
Teach Learn Med. 2010 Jul;22(3):167-71
pubmed: 20563934
Clin Med (Lond). 2002 May-Jun;2(3):217-23
pubmed: 12108470