skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 8:00 PM ET on Friday, March 21 until 8:00 AM ET on Saturday, March 22 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Empathy choice in physicians and non‐physicians

Empathy in medical care has been one of the focal points in the debate over the bright and dark sides of empathy. Whereas physician empathy is sometimes considered necessary for better physician–patient interactions, and is often desired by patients, it also has been described as a potential risk for exhaustion among physicians who must cope with their professional demands of confronting acute and chronic suffering. The present study compared physicians against demographically matched non‐physicians on a novel behavioural assessment of empathy, in which they choose between empathizing or remaining detached from suffering targets over a series of trials. Results revealed no statistical differences between physicians and non‐physicians in their empathy avoidance, though physicians were descriptively more likely to choose empathy. Additionally, both groups were likely to perceive empathy as cognitively challenging, and perceived cognitive costs of empathy associated with empathy avoidance. Across groups, there were also no statistically significant differences in self‐reported trait empathy measures and empathy‐related motivations and beliefs. Overall, these results suggest that physicians and non‐physicians were more similar than different in terms of their empathic choices and in their assessments of the costs and benefits of empathy for others.

  more » « less
PAR ID:
10457654
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley-Blackwell
Date Published:
Journal Name:
British Journal of Social Psychology
Volume:
59
Issue:
3
ISSN:
0144-6665
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 715-732
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ( , Medical Decision Making)
    Background

    Physicians who communicate their prognostic beliefs to patients must balance candor against other competing goals, such as preserving hope, acknowledging the uncertainty of medicine, or motivating patients to follow their treatment regimes.

     Objective

    To explore possible differences between the beliefs physicians report as their own and those they express to patients and colleagues.

     Design

    An online panel of 398 specialists in internal medicine who completed their medical degrees and practiced in the United States provided their estimated diagnostic accuracy and prognostic assessments for a randomly assigned case. In addition, they reported the diagnostic and prognostic assessments they would report to patients and colleagues more generally. Physicians answered questions about how and why their own beliefs differed from their expressed beliefs to patients and colleagues in the specific case and more generally in their practice.

     Results

    When discussing beliefs about prognoses to patients and colleagues, most physicians expressed beliefs that differed from their own beliefs. Physicians were more likely to express greater optimism when talking to patients about poor prognoses than good prognoses. Physicians were also more likely to express greater uncertainty to patients when prognoses were poor than when they were good. The most common reasons for the differences between physicians’ own beliefs and their expressed beliefs were preserving hope and acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of medicine.

     Conclusion

    To balance candor against other communicative goals, physicians tended to express beliefs that were more optimistic and contained greater uncertainty than the beliefs they said were their own, especially in discussions with patients whose prognoses were poor.

     
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ( , Journal of Medical Internet Research)
    Background Online physician reviews are an important source of information for prospective patients. In addition, they represent an untapped resource for studying the effects of gender on the doctor-patient relationship. Understanding gender differences in online reviews is important because it may impact the value of those reviews to patients. Documenting gender differences in patient experience may also help to improve the doctor-patient relationship. This is the first large-scale study of physician reviews to extensively investigate gender bias in online reviews or offer recommendations for improvements to online review systems to correct for gender bias and aid patients in selecting a physician. Objective This study examines 154,305 reviews from across the United States for all medical specialties. Our analysis includes a qualitative and quantitative examination of review content and physician rating with regard to doctor and reviewer gender. Methods A total of 154,305 reviews were sampled from Google Place reviews. Reviewer and doctor gender were inferred from names. Reviews were coded for overall patient experience (negative or positive) by collapsing a 5-star scale and coded for general categories (process, positive/negative soft skills), which were further subdivided into themes. Computational text processing methods were employed to apply this codebook to the entire data set, rendering it tractable to quantitative methods. Specifically, we estimated binary regression models to examine relationships between physician rating, patient experience themes, physician gender, and reviewer gender). Results Female reviewers wrote 60% more reviews than men. Male reviewers were more likely to give negative reviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.19; P<.001). Reviews of female physicians were considerably more negative than those of male physicians (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.94-2.14; P<.001). Soft skills were more likely to be mentioned in the reviews written by female reviewers and about female physicians. Negative reviews of female doctors were more likely to mention candor (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.42-1.82; P<.001) and amicability (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.47-1.90; P<.001). Disrespect was associated with both female physicians (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.35-1.51; P<.001) and female reviewers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.35; P<.001). Female patients were less likely to report disrespect from female doctors than expected from the base ORs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.32; P=.008), but this effect overrode only the effect for female reviewers. Conclusions This work reinforces findings in the extensive literature on gender differences and gender bias in patient-physician interaction. Its novel contribution lies in highlighting gender differences in online reviews. These reviews inform patients’ choice of doctor and thus affect both patients and physicians. The evidence of gender bias documented here suggests review sites may be improved by providing information about gender differences, controlling for gender when presenting composite ratings for physicians, and helping users write less biased reviews. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ( , npj Digital Medicine)
    Abstract

    The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted digital health utilization, raising concerns about increased physicians’ after-hours clinical work (work-outside-work”). The surge in patients’ digital messages and additional time spent on work-outside-work by telemedicine providers underscores the need to evaluate the connection between digital health utilization and physicians’ after-hours commitments. We examined the impact on physicians’ workload from two types of digital demands - patients’ messages requesting medical advice (PMARs) sent to physicians’ inbox (inbasket), and telemedicine. Our study included 1716 ambulatory-care physicians in New York City regularly practicing between November 2022 and March 2023. Regression analyses assessed primary and interaction effects of (PMARs) and telemedicine on work-outside-work. The study revealed a significant effect ofPMARs on physicians’ work-outside-work and that this relationship is moderated by physicians’ specialties. Non-primary care physicians or specialists experienced a more pronounced effect than their primary care peers. Analysis of their telemedicine load revealed that primary care physicians received fewerPMARs and spent less time in work-outside-work with more telemedicine. Specialists faced increasedPMARs and did more work-outside-work as telemedicine visits increased which could be due to the difference in patient panels. ReducingPMARvolumes and efficient inbasket management strategies needed to reduce physicians’ work-outside-work. Policymakers need to be cognizant of potential disruptions in physicians carefully balanced workload caused by the digital health services.

     
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Science Advances)
    Little quantitative research has explored which clinician skills and behaviors facilitate communication. Mutual understanding is especially challenging when patients have limited health literacy (HL). Two strategies hypothesized to improve communication include matching the complexity of language to patients’ HL (“universal tailoring”); or always using simple language (“universal precautions”). Through computational linguistic analysis of 237,126 email exchanges between dyads of 1094 physicians and 4331 English-speaking patients, we assessed matching (concordance/discordance) between physicians’ linguistic complexity and patients’ HL, and classified physicians’ communication strategies. Among low HL patients, discordance was associated with poor understanding ( P = 0.046). Physicians’ “universal tailoring” strategy was associated with better understanding for all patients ( P = 0.01), while “universal precautions” was not. There was an interaction between concordance and communication strategy ( P = 0.021): The combination of dyadic concordance and “universal tailoring” eliminated HL-related disparities. Physicians’ ability to adapt communication to match their patients’ HL promotes shared understanding and equity. The ‘Precision Medicine’ construct should be expanded to include the domain of ‘Precision Communication.’ 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences)

    Collective action problems arise when cooperating individuals suffer costs of cooperation, while the benefits of cooperation are received by both cooperators and defectors. We address this problem using data from spotted hyenas fighting with lions. Lions are much larger and kill many hyenas, so these fights require cooperative mobbing by hyenas for them to succeed. We identify factors that predict when hyena groups engage in cooperative fights with lions, which individuals choose to participate and how the benefits of victory are distributed among cooperators and non-cooperators. We find that cooperative mobbing is better predicted by lower costs (no male lions, more hyenas) than higher benefits (need for food). Individual participation is facilitated by social factors, both over the long term (close kin, social bond strength) and the short term (greeting interactions prior to cooperation). Finally, we find some direct benefits of participation: after cooperation, participants were more likely to feed at contested carcasses than non-participants. Overall, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that, when animals face dangerous cooperative dilemmas, selection favours flexible strategies that are sensitive to dynamic factors emerging over multiple time scales.

     
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email