학술논문
The relationship between Empathy and listening styles is complex: implications for doctors in training.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Beheshti A; Centre for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.; Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.; Arashlow FT; Medical Students Research Center (MSRC), Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.; Fata L; Centre for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.; Barzkar F; Centre for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. barzkarfarzane@gmail.com.; Baradaran HR; Centre for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Source
Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101088679 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1472-6920 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14726920 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Med Educ Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Background: Effective communication is the key to a successful relationship between doctors and their patients. Empathy facilitates effective communication, but physicians vary in their ability to empathize with patients. Listening styles are a potential source of this difference. We aimed to assess empathy and listening styles among medical students and whether students with certain listening styles are more empathetic.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 97 medical students completed the Jefferson scale of Empathy (JSE) and the revised version of the Listening Styles Profile (LSP-R). The relationship between empathy and listening styles was assessed by comparing JSE scores across different listening styles using ANOVA in SPSS software. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: Overall, the students showed a mean empathy score of 103 ± 14 on JSE. Empathy scores were lower among clinical students compared to preclinical students. Most of the medical students preferred the analytical listening style. The proportion of students who preferred the relational listening style was lower among clinical students compared to preclinical students. There was no significant relationship between any of the listening styles with empathy.
Conclusion: Our results do not support an association between any particular listening style with medical students' empathic ability. We propose that students who have better empathetic skills might shift between listening styles flexibly rather than sticking to a specific listening style.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 97 medical students completed the Jefferson scale of Empathy (JSE) and the revised version of the Listening Styles Profile (LSP-R). The relationship between empathy and listening styles was assessed by comparing JSE scores across different listening styles using ANOVA in SPSS software. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: Overall, the students showed a mean empathy score of 103 ± 14 on JSE. Empathy scores were lower among clinical students compared to preclinical students. Most of the medical students preferred the analytical listening style. The proportion of students who preferred the relational listening style was lower among clinical students compared to preclinical students. There was no significant relationship between any of the listening styles with empathy.
Conclusion: Our results do not support an association between any particular listening style with medical students' empathic ability. We propose that students who have better empathetic skills might shift between listening styles flexibly rather than sticking to a specific listening style.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)