Empathy levels among health professional students: a cross-sectional study at two universities in Australia

Figures & data

Table 1 Factor analysis (oblimin rotation) and mean scores of Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy – Health Profession Students version

Pattern matrix	Component			Mean	SD
	1	2	3
Health care providers’ understanding of the emotional status of the patients, as well as that of their families, is one important component of the health care provider–patient relationship (item 16)	0.656			5.92	1.86
Health care providers should try to think like their patients in order to render better care (item 17).	0.633			4.98	1.38
Understanding body language is as important as verbal communication in health care provider–patient relationships (item 4).	0.625			6.19	1.02
I believe that empathy is an important factor in patients’ treatment (item 20).	0.618			6.07	1.05
Health care providers should try to understand what is going on in their patients’ minds by paying attention to their nonverbal cues and body language (item 13).	0.613			5.85	1.15
Health care providers should try to stand in their patients’ shoes when providing care to them (item 9).	0.590			5.57	1.32
Patients feel better when their health care providers understand their feelings (item 2).	0.549			6.31	1.02
Empathy is a therapeutic skill without which a health care providers’ success is limited (item 15).	0.497			5.41	1.45
A health care provider’s sense of humor contributes to a better clinical outcome (item 5).	0.450			5.15	1.26
Patients value a health care provider’s understanding of their feelings, which is therapeutic in its own right (item 10).	0.408			5.71	2.12
Because people are different, it is difficult to see things from patients’ perspectives (item 6).		0.798		4.43	1.57
It is difficult for a health care provider to view things from patients’ perspectives (item 3).		0.722		4.55	1.40
I do not enjoy reading nonmedical literature or the arts (item 19).		0.403		5.39	1.72
Attentiveness to patients’ personal experiences does not influence treatment outcomes (item 8).			−0.740	5.54	1.35
Health care providers’ understanding of their patients’ feelings and the feelings of their patients’ families does not influence treatment outcomes (item 1).			−0.692	5.38	1.70
Attention to patients’ emotions is not important in patient interviewing (item 7).			−0.628	6.09	1.36
I believe that emotion has no place in the treatment of medical illness (item 14).		0.321	−0.512	6.23	1.19
Asking patients about what is happening in their personal lives is not helpful in understanding their physical complaints (item 12).			−0.455	5.81	1.31
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 (item 11).		0.346	−0.442	5.73	1.28

Note: For further information on the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy please see Hojat M, Mangione S, et al. (2001). The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: Development and Preliminary Psychometric Data. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 61(2):349–365.²⁵

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

Table 2 Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy – Health Profession Students version mean comparison scores across different variables

Variable	n	Mean (SD)	Significance
University
Monash	771	110.06 (11.76)
Edith Cowan	340	109.18 (13.31)	P=0.306
Course
Paramedic	184	106.37 (12.73)
Midwifery	349	111.39 (12.74)
Nursing	247	108.43 (12.76)
Paramedic/nursing	68	110.07 (10.41)
Occupational therapy	132	111.02 (10.94)
Physiotherapy	33	113.65 (10.05)
Medicine	53	110.92 (10.86)
Nutrition and dietetics	45	112.53 (8.51)	P<0.0001
Sex
Female	907	110.86 (11.67)
Male	204	105.31 (13.47)	P<0.0001
Age, years
<20	317	108.44 (11.77)
20–24	518	109.31 (12.06)
25–29	103	111.83 (12.38)
30–34	56	111.70 (12.35)
35–39	40	113.82 (11.13)
40–44	31	110.57 (14.11)
45–49	19	117.71 (18.33)
≥50	7	116.16 (8.54)	P=0.005
Level
Year 1	440	108.71 (12.52)
Year 2	359	111.01 (11.94)
Year 3	264	110.16 (11.59)
Year 4	45	110.02 (13.26)	P=0.086

Note: For further information on the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy please see Hojat M, Mangione S, et al. (2001). The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: Development and Preliminary Psychometric Data. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 61(2):349–365.²⁵

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

Table 3 Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy – Health Profession Students version level mean comparison scores across different health professions

Discipline/year level	n	Mean (SD)	Significance
Paramedic
Year 1	106	106.82 (12.69)
Year 2	25	108.88 (13.16)
Year 3	43	103.23 (11.81)
Total	174	106.22 (12.62)	P=0.153
Midwifery
Year 1	47	112.36 (13.83)
Year 2	223	111.42 (12.32)
Year 3	19	110.68 (13.64)
Total	289	111.40 (12.78)	P=0.055
Nursing
Year 1	131	106.99 (12.77)
Year 2	8	111.87 (9.76)
Year 3	81	110.66 (12.23)
Total	220	108.56 (12.64)	P=0.167
Paramedic/nursing
Year 1	33	110.67 (10.67)
Year 2	8	109.78 (9.78)
Year 3	21	110.39 (10.39)
Total	63	110.41 (10.41)	P=0.532
Occupational therapy
Year 1	34	110.73 (11.78)
Year 2	25	109.08 (11.68)
Year 3	38	113.00 (7.80)
Year 4	26	110.47 (13.04)
Total	123	111.02 (10.94)	P=0.468
Medicine
Year 1	49	110.83 (10.95)
Physiotherapy
Year 1	20	109.63 (11.25)
Year 2	13	107.43 (10.55)
Total	33	108.63 (10.87)	P=0.679
Nutrition and dietetics
Year 1	8	112.12 (11.78)
Year 2	20	113.15 (7.32)
Year 3	3	112.33 (8.50)
Year 4	10	111.70 (9.11)
Total	41	112.53 (8.51)	P=0.976

Note: For further information on the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy please see Hojat M, Mangione S, et al. (2001). The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: Development and Preliminary Psychometric Data. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 61(2):349–365.²⁵

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

HojatMMangioneS2001The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: Development and Preliminary Psychometric DataEducational and Psychological Measurement612349365

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar