Consistency Analysis in Medical Empathy Intervention Research

Various studies have examined the effectiveness of interventions to increase empathy in medical professionals. However, inconsistencies may exist in the definitions, interventions, and assessments of empathy. Inconsistencies jeopardize the internal validity and generalization of the research findings. The main purpose of this study was to examine the internal consistency among the definitions, interventions, and assessments of empathy in medical empathy intervention studies. We also examined the interventions and assessments in terms of the knowledge–attitude–behavior aspects. We conducted a literature search for medical empathy intervention studies with a design of randomized controlled trials and categorized each study according to the dimensions of empathy and knowledge–attitude–behavior aspects. The consistencies among the definitions, interventions, and assessments were calculated. A total of 13 studies were included in this study. No studies were fully consistent in their definitions, interventions, and assessments of empathy. Only four studies were partially consistent. In terms of knowledge–attitude–behavior aspects, four studies were fully consistent, two studies were partially consistent, and seven studies were inconsistent. Most medical empathy intervention studies are inconsistent in their definitions, interventions, and assessments of empathy, as well as the knowledge–attitude–behavior aspects between interventions and assessments. These inconsistencies may have affected the internal validity and generalization of the research results.