4.6 Article

The Impact of Simulated Medical Consultations on the Empathy Levels of Students at One Medical School

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 89, 期 4, 页码 632-637

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000175

关键词

-

资金

  1. State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation
  2. National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To examine the impact of simulated medical consultations using standardized patients (SPs) on the empathy levels of fourth- and sixth-year students at the Unicamp medical school in Brazil. Method Throughout 2011 and 2012, the authors conducted this study with two classes of fourth-year (n = 124) and two classes of sixth-year (n = 123) medical students. Students completed the medical student version of the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy before and after simulated medical consultations with SPs, followed by an in-depth debriefing dealing with the feelings of the patient about the disease, such as fear, guilt, anger, and abandonment; the feelings of the doctor towards the patient; and other topics as they arose. Results The simulation activity increased the empathy scores of the fourth-year students (from 115.8 to 121.1, P < .001, effect size = 0.61) and of the sixth-year students (from 117.1 to 123.5, P < .001, effect size = 0.64). Conclusions Although the study results were obtained via self-reporta limitationthey suggest that the effective simulation of medical consultations with SPs may improve medical students' empathy levels. One unexpected result was that this activity, during the debriefing, became a forum for debating topics such as the doctor-patient relationship, the hidden curriculum, negative role models, and emotionally significant experiences of students in medical school. This kind of activity in itself may influence young doctors to become more empathetic and compassionate with their patients and foster a more meaningful way of practicing medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据