INTRODUCTION:

Empathy is composed of four key characteristics including the cognitive ability to identify and understand other's perspectives, the emotive ability to experience and share in others' psychological states, the moral altruistic drive that motivates the practice of empathy, and the behavioral ability to communicate empathetic understanding and concern⁽¹⁾. Empathy is a central aspect in ensuring quality communication and maintaining therapeutic communication between healthcare professionals and patients.

Clinical empathy is a multi-dimensional concept⁽²⁾ characterized by four dimensions in clinical settings:⁽³⁾ (1) affective (the capacity to share feelings with another); (2) moral (the motivation to seek good in others); (3) cognitive (the ability to identify and understand others’ emotions); and (4) behavioral (the ability to communicate the understanding of others’ emotions effectively with them). Related to our present study, the decline in empathy of health professionals is often attributed to experienced stressors of medical education—long hours, large quantity of information, and high performance requirements^(4),(5)— and is comorbid with heightened states of anxiety, anger, and depression.

This study was undertaken to measure empathy among various health disciplines among first year and final year with an objective to compare the empathy scores among the medical students of various semesters, to compare the empathy scores among male and female medical students and to compare the empathy scores among students who opted for technology oriented specialization with those who opted for people oriented specialization or were either undecided/chose other subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This study was conducted at Saveetha University, Chennai Tamilnadu. A questionnaire containing 20 questions were prepared and it was issued to 80 students in each health discipline, amongst which 40 questionnaires were issued to first year and 40 questionnaires to the final years in each health discipline respectively. The questionnaires were filled by paper and pen method.

1. Health care providers' understanding of their patients' feelings and the feelings of their patients' families does not influence treatment outcomes.

2. Patients feel better when their healthcare providers understand their feelings.

3. It is difficult for a health care provider to view things from patients' perspectives.

4. Understanding body language is as important as verbal communication in health care provider -patient relationships.

5. A health care provider's sense of humor contributes to a better clinical outcome.

6. Because people are different, it is difficult to see things from patient's perspectives.

7. Attention to patient's emotions is not important in patient interview.

8. Attentiveness to patients' personal experiences does not influence treatment outcomes. 9. Health care providers should try to stand in their patients' shoes when providing care to them.

10. Patients value a health care provider's understanding of their feelings which is therapeutic in its own right.

11. Patients' illnesses can be cured only by targeted treatment; therefore, health care providers' emotional ties with their patients do not have a significant influence in treatment outcomes.

12. Asking patients about what is happening in their lives is not helpful in understanding their physical complaints.

13. Health care providers should try to understand what is going on in their patients' minds by paying attention to their non-verbal cues and body language.

14. I believe that emotion has no place in the treatment of medical illness.

15. Empathy is a therapeutic skill without which a health care provider's success is limited.

16. Health care providers' understanding of the emotional status of their patients, as well as that of their families is one important component of the health care provider -patient relationship.

17. Health care providers should try to think like their patients in order to render better care

18. Health care providers should not allow themselves to be influenced by strong personal bonds between their patients and their family members.

19. I do not enjoy reading non-medical literature or the arts.

20. I believe that empathy is an important factor in patients' treatment.

RESULT:

The mean values are found among each health disciplines and represented as follows;

M1-Medical first year students

M4-Medical final year students

D1-Dental first year students

D4-Dental final year students

N1-Nursing first year students

N3-Nursing final year students

P1-Physiotherapy first year students

P4-Physiotherapy final year students

Among the 20 questions question number (1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19) are negatively worded and reverse scored. A higher score indicates the higher or better level of empathy

Medical students:

Dental students:

Nursing students:

Physiotherapy students:

Comparison between M4andM1:

The mean value for final year students is 46.475 and for first year students is 44.65.When compared final years have more mean value than first years.So,final year students have better empathy.

Comparison between D4 and D1:

The mean value for final year students is 49.0 and for first year students is 44.925.When compared final years have more mean value than first years.So,final year students have better empathy.

Comparison between N1andN3:

The mean value for first year students is 45.725 and for final year students is 47.375.When compared final years have more mean value than first years.So,final year students have better empathy.

Comparison between P1andP4:

The mean value for final year students is 46.925 and for first year students is 44.75.When compared final years have more mean value than first years.So,final year students have better empathy.

The standard deviation(S.D) values are found using those mean values and a graph is represented for the obtained values.

DISCUSSION:

Babar et al. (2013)⁽⁶⁾, Hojat et al. (2004)⁽⁷⁾, Hojat et al. (2009b)⁽⁸⁾, and Nunes et al. (2011)⁽⁹⁾ found that empathy levels decline as students' progress through undergraduate and/or graduate school, the IWU cohort displayed a rise in empathy levels among students in their third year, with fourth year empathy levels remaining high. A possibility for this difference could be due to the fact that the IWU cohort included participants from vmious majors that have not yet been exposed to clinical experience, whereas other studies only looked at medical or nursing students already immersed in clinical rotations. Alternative factors that may contribute to the rise in IWU students' empathy levels as they progress through school could include a positive perception of clinical experiences and classroom or clinical mentors.

This cross-sectional study examined whether relationships exist between empathy levels in healthcare professions students who had or had not identified a projected specialty upon entry into practice. The findings demonstrated no significant difference in empathy levels between students of all majors who have or who have not indicated a projected specialty. To the researchers knowledge, this was the first study in which empathy levels related to students across multiple healthcare professions majors with or without a projected specialty in their selected major was examined. One previous study (Ward et ai., 2009)⁽¹⁰⁾ examined empathy related to students projected specialty in nursing, however nursing was the only healthcare profession examined and the authors suggested the need for further nursing research.

CONCLUSION:

From my study we conclude that in all health disciplines we came to know that final years have more empathy when compared to first years. It may be due to their experiences among clinical practice. It is found that the dental students have better empathy when compared to nursing followed by physiotherapy and medical. The current study found that empathy levels increased at Saveetha University as students progress through education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

We thank , Professor and Head of the Department of Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing, Physiotherapy, Saveetha University , Chennai for kindly allowing me to carry out our research work.

REFERENCES:

1. Ouzouni, C., and Nakakis, K. (2012). An exploratory study of student nurses' empathy. Health Science Journal, 6(3), 534-552.

2. Mercer SW, Reynolds WJ. Empathy and quality of care. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(Suppl):S9–12. Medline:12389763.

3. Morse JM, Anderson G, Bottorff JL, et al. Exploring empathy: a conceptual fit for nursing practice? Image J Nurs Sch. 1992;24(4):273–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1547-5069.1992.tb00733.x. Medline:1452181.

4. Hojat M, Vergare MJ, Maxwell K, et al. The devil is in the third year: a longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Acad Med. 2009;84(9):118291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b17e55. Medline:19707055.

5. Neumann M, Bensing J, Mercer S, et al. Analyzing the ‘‘nature’’ and ‘‘specific effectiveness’’ of clinical empathy: a theoretical overview and contribution towards a theory-based research agenda. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):339–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.pec.2008.11.013. Medline:19124216.

6. Babar, M., Omar, H., Lim, L., Khan, S., Mitha, S., Ahmad, S., and Hasan, S. (2013). An assessment of dental students' empathy levels in Malaysia. International Journal of Medical Education, 4. 223-229.

7. Hojat, Mohammadreza, Mangione, Nasca, Rattner, Erdmann, Gonnella, and Magee. (2004). An empirical study of decline in empathy in medical school. Medical Education, 38(9), 934941. doi: 10.llllIj.1365-2929.2004.0191I.x

8. Hojat, M., Vergare, M., Maxwell, K., Brainard, G., Herrine, S., Isenberg, G., and Gonnella, J. (2009b). The devil is in the third year: A longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 84(9), 1182-1191. doi:l0.l097/ACM.Ob013e3181bI7e55.

9. Nunes, P., Williams, S., Sa, B., and Stevenson, K. (2011). A study of empathy decline in students from five health disciplines during their first year of training. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 12-17. doi:l0.5116/ijme.4d47.ddbO.

10. Ward, J., Schaal, M., Sullivan, J., Bowen, M., Erdmann, J., and Hojat, M. (2009). Reliability and validity of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy in undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 17(1), 73-88. doi: I 0.189111 061-3749.17.1.73.

Received on 29.06.2016 Modified on 06.07.2016

Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2016; 9(9):1472-1776.

DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X.2016.00286.9