Eliciting clinical empathy via transmission of patient-specific symptoms of Parkinson’s disease

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants

	Control (n = 23)	Test (n = 22)	p-Value
Age (SD)	48.5 (11.7)	44.1 (12.6)	0.227
Gender			0.026
Male	7 (30.4%)	14 (63.6%)
Female	16 (69.6%)	8 (36.4%)
Handedness			0.524
Right-handed	17 (73.9%)	18 (81.8%)
Left-handed	6 (26.1%)	4 (18.2%)
Occupational profession			0.297
Entrepreneurs/Business executives	3 (13.0%)	6 (27.3%)
Physicians	5 (21.7%)	3 (13.6%)
Occupational/Physical therapists	5 (21.7%)	1 (4.5%)
Professors/Researchers	2 (8.7%)	4 (18.2%)
Technologists	4 (17.4%)	1 (4.5%)
Medical/Pharmaceutical industry specialists	1 (4.3%)	4 (18.2%)
Financial/Sales experts	2 (8.7%)	2 (9.1%)
Nurses	1 (4.3%)	1 (4.5%)
Country of profession			0.396
Canada	13 (56.5%)	10 (45.5%)
United States	5 (21.7%)	6 (27.3%)
Brazil	1 (4.3%)	1 (4.5%)
Israel	2 (8.7%)	0 (0.0%)
New Zealand	2 (8.7%)	0 (0.0%)
Belgium	0 (0.0%)	1 (4.5%)
Czech Republic	0 (0.0%)	1 (4.5%)
Germany	0 (0.0%)	1 (4.5%)
Netherlands	0 (0.0%)	1 (4.5%)
Switzerland	0 (0.0%)	1 (4.5%)

Note. p-Values represent differences between participants groups.

Figure 1. SymPulse™ tele-empathy device for Parkinson’s disease.

Figure 2. Sequence of the SymPulse™ tele-empathy symptom transference. EMG: Electromyography; EMS: electrical muscle stimulation; FFT: fast Fourier transform.

Table 2. Frequency of communication and relationship of participants with anyone who has Parkinson’s disease

	Control (n = 23)	Test (n = 22)	p-Value
Frequency of communication with patient			0.482
Every day	5 (22.7%)	2 (8.7%)
Nearly every day	1 (4.5%)	2 (8.7%)
3 to 4 times a week	1 (4.5%)	0 (0.0%)
2 times a week	0 (0.0%)	1 (4.3%)
Once a week	1 (4.5%)	1 (4.3%)
2–3 times a month	0 (0.0%)	3 (13.0%)
Once a month	3 (13.6%)	4 (17.4%)
Once every 2–3 months	1 (4.5%)	1 (4.3%)
Once every 3–6 months	1 (4.5%)	1 (4.3%)
Once every 6–12 months	2 (9.1%)	2 (8.7%)
Less often than once every 12 months	6 (27.3%)	2 (8.7%)
Never	1 (4.5%)	4 (17.4%)
Relationship of patient to participant			0.203
Patient of mine being treated	5 (23.8%)	8 (42.1%)
Friend	4 (19.0%)	3 (15.8%)
Parent	3 (14.3%)	3 (15.8%)
Research participant	4 (19.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Spouse/Partner	1 (4.8%)	3 (15.8%)
Grandparent	3 (14.3%)	0 (0.0%)
Cousin	1 (4.8%)	1 (5.3%)
Aunt	0 (0.0%)	1 (5.3%)

Note. p-Values represent differences between participants groups.

Figure 3. Scores for trait empathy, using the JSE-HPS (Fields et al., 2011), with standard error bars. Total scale scores potentially range from 20 to 140.

Figure 4. Scores for state empathy, using the modified State Empathy Scale (adapted from Shen, 2010a), with standard error bars. Total scale scores potentially range from 0 to 48.

Table

	Not at all 0	1	2	3	Completely 4
1. The patient’s emotions are genuine
2. I can experience the same emotions as the patient when dealing with them
3. I am in a similar emotional state as the patient when dealing with them
4. I can feel the patient’s emotions
5. I can see the patient’s point of view
6. I recognize the patient’s situation
7. I can understand what the patient is going through with their symptoms
8. The patient’s reactions to their situation are understandable
9. When dealing with the patient, I am fully absorbed
10. I can relate to what the patient is going through with their symptoms
11. I can identify with the situation described by the patient
12. I can identify with the patient

Fields, S. K., Mahan, P., Tillman, P., Harris, J., Maxwell, K., & Hojat, M. (2011). Measuring empathy in healthcare profession students using the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: Health provider–Student version. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25, 287–293. doi:10.3109/13561820.2011.566648

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shen, L. (2010a). On a scale of state empathy during message processing. Western Journal of Communication, 74(5), 504–524. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.512278

 Google Scholar