Back

Through the Eyes of a Patient: Visuospatial Perspective Taking and Empathy in Medical Students

O'Tuathaigh, C.; Rizzo, G.; Bukowski, H.; Bennett, D.; Ahmad Kamal, N. F.

2020-04-11 medical education
10.1101/2020.04.08.20058412 medRxiv
Show abstract

Physicians cognitive empathy is associated with improved diagnosis and better patient outcomes. The relationship between self-reported and performance-based measures of cognitive empathic processes is unclear. This study examined the association between medical students empathy scale scores and their empathic performance in a perspective-taking task and communication skills assessment. Undergraduate medical students (N=91) completed the following: Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE); Empathy Quotient (EQ); a Level-1 visual perspective-taking task (VPT). Clinical communication skills were measured in a simulation-enhanced breaking bad news assessment. Pearsons or Spearmans correlation coefficients and t-tests were used to determine correlation and group differences, respectively. Higher scores on the "Standing in Patients Shoes" sub-scale of the JSPE were associated with lower egocentric bias (r = -0.299, p < 0.05) in the VPT, which relates to capacity to adopt someone elses perspective without being erroneously influenced by our own point of view. Additionally, a lower self-perspective advantage in the VPT, reflecting less attentional priority given to the self-perspective, was associated with higher scores on the the "Cognitive Empathy" (r = -0.283, p < 0.05) and "Emotional Empathy" (r = -0.342, p < 0.01) sub-scales of the EQ. Improved communication skills performance was associated with higher scores on the "Social Skills" EQ sub-scale (r = 0.298, p < 0.005). We show that self-assessment scores are moderately associated with performance-based measures of perspective-taking and communication skills. These results are expected to lead to improved experimental designs and a better understanding of empathy in medical education.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.