Open AccessHAPPE—A pilot programme using humanities to teach junior doctors empathy in a palliative medicine posting
Author(s) -
Eng Koon Ong
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
the asia pacific scholar
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2424-9335
pISSN - 2424-9270
DOI - 10.29060/taps.2021-6-1/oa2251
Subject(s) - empathy , likert scale , test (biology) , intervention (counseling) , palliative care , medicine , psychology , scale (ratio) , medical education , family medicine , nursing , psychiatry , paleontology , developmental psychology , physics , quantum mechanics , biology
Physician empathy is declining due to an unproportionate focus on technical knowledge and skills. The medical humanities can counter this by allowing connection with our patients. This is a pilot study that aims to investigate the acceptability, efficacy, and feasibility of a humanities educational intervention to develop physician empathy.Methods: Junior doctors at the Division of Supportive and Palliative Care at the National Cancer Centre Singapore between July 2018 and June 2019 attended two small-group sessions facilitated by psychologists to learn about empathy using literature and other arts-based materials. Feasibility was defined as a completion rate of at least 80% while acceptability was assessed by a 5-question Likert-scale questionnaire. Empathy was measured pre- and post-intervention using Jefferson’s Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE) and the modified-CARE (Consultation and Relational Empathy) measure.Results: Seventeen participants consented, and all completed the programme. Acceptability scores ranged from 18 to 50 out of 50 (mean 38, median 38). There was an increase in JSPE scores (pre-test mean 103.6, SD=11.0 and post-test mean 108.9, SD=9.9; t (17) =2.49, P=.02). The modified-CARE score increased between pre-test mean of 22.9(SD=5.8) and a post-test mean of 28.5(SD=5.9); t (17) = 5.22, P<0.001.Conclusion: Results indicate that the programme was acceptable, effective, and feasible. The results are limited by the lack of longitudinal follow-up. Future studies that investigate the programme’s effect over time and qualitative analysis can better assess its efficacy and elicit the participants' experiences for future implementation and refinement.