Interventions to promote medical student well-being: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an overview of systematic reviews that explore the effectiveness of interventions to enhance medical student well-being. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, APA PsychInfo, CINAHL and Scopus were searched from database inception until 31 May 2023 to identify systematic reviews of interventions to enhance medical student well-being. Ancestry searching and citation chasing were also conducted. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews V.2 tool was used to appraise the quality of the included reviews. A narrative synthesis was conducted, and the evidence of effectiveness for each intervention was rated. RESULTS: 13 reviews (with 94 independent studies and 17 616 students) were included. The reviews covered individual-level and curriculum-level interventions. Individual interventions included mindfulness (n=12), hypnosis (n=6), mental health programmes (n=7), yoga (n=4), cognitive and behavioural interventions (n=1), mind-sound technology (n=1), music-based interventions (n=1), omega-3 supplementation (n=1), electroacupuncture (n=1) and osteopathic manipulative treatment (n=1). The curriculum-level interventions included pass/fail grading (n=4), problem-based curriculum (n=2) and multicomponent curriculum reform (n=2). Most interventions were not supported by sufficient evidence to establish effectiveness. Eleven reviews were rated as having 'critically low' quality, and two reviews were rated as having 'low' quality. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level interventions (mindfulness and mental health programmes) and curriculum-level interventions (pass/fail grading) can improve medical student well-being. These conclusions should be tempered by the low quality of the evidence. Further high-quality research is required to explore additional effective interventions to enhance medical student well-being and the most efficient ways to implement and combine these for maximum benefit.

When describing harms and benefits to potential trial participants, participant information leaflets are inadequate.

BACKGROUND: Providing informed consent for trials requires providing trial participants with comprehensive information about the trial, including information about potential risks and benefits. It is required by the ethical principle of respecting patient autonomy. Our study examines the variation in the way information about potential trial benefits and harms is shared in participant information leaflets (PILs). METHODS: A total of 214 PILs and informed consent forms from clinical trials units (CTUs) and Clinical Research Facilities (CRFs) in Ireland and the UK were assessed by two authors independently, to check the extent to which they adhered to seven recently developed principles. Discrepancies were resolved by a third. RESULTS: Usage of the seven principles varied widely between PILs regardless of the intended recipient or trial type. None of the PILs used more than four principles, and some (4%) used none. Twenty-seven per cent of PILs presented information about all known potential harms, whereas 45% presented information on all known potential benefits. Some PILs did not provide any potential harms or potential benefits (8%). There was variation in the information contained in adult and children PILs and across disease areas. CONCLUSION: Significant variation exists in how potential trial benefits and harms are described to potential trial participants in PILs in our sample. Usage of the seven principles of good practice will promote consistency, ensure informed ethical decision-making and invoke trust and transparency. In the long term, a standardised PIL template is needed.

Talking in primary care (TIP): protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial in UK primary care to assess clinical and cost-effectiveness of communication skills e-learning for practitioners on patients' musculoskeletal pain and enablement.

INTRODUCTION: Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews. ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18010240.

Beyond empathy training for practitioners: Cultivating empathic healthcare systems and leadership.

Empathic care benefits patients and practitioners, and empathy training for practitioners can enhance empathy. However, practitioners do not operate in a vacuum. For empathy to thrive, healthcare consultations must be situated in a nurturing milieu, guided by empathic, compassionate leaders. Empathy will be suppressed, or even reversed if practitioners are burned out and working in an unpleasant, under-resourced environment with increasingly poorly served and dissatisfied patients. Efforts to enhance empathy must therefore go beyond training practitioners to address system-level factors that foster empathy. These include patient education, cultivating empathic leadership, customer service training for reception staff, valuing cleaning and all ancillary staff, creating healing spaces, and using appropriate, efficiency saving technology to reduce the administrative burden on healthcare practitioners. We divide these elements into environmental factors, organisational factors, job factors, and individual characteristics.

Towards an empathic hidden curriculum in medical school: A roadmap.

The "hidden curriculum" in medical school includes a stressful work environment, un-empathic role models, and prioritisation of biomedical knowledge. It can provoke anxiety and cause medical students to adapt by becoming cynical, distanced and less empathic. Lower empathy, in turn, has been shown to harm patients as well as practitioners. Fortunately, evidence-based interventions can counteract the empathy dampening effects of the hidden curriculum. These include early exposure to real patients, providing students with real-world experiences, training role models, assessing empathy training, increasing the focus on the biopsychosocial model of disease, and enhanced wellbeing education. Here, we provide an overview of these interventions. Taken together, they can bring about an "empathic hidden curriculum" which can reverse the decline in medical student empathy.

The Effect of Practitioner Empathy on Patient Satisfaction : A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Practitioners who deliver enhanced empathy may improve patient satisfaction with care. Patient satisfaction is associated with positive patient outcomes ranging from medication adherence to survival. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of health care practitioner empathy on patient satisfaction, using a systematic review of randomized trials. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus to 23 October 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials published in any language that evaluated the effect of empathy on improving patient satisfaction as measured on a validated patient satisfaction scale. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and strength-of-evidence assessments were done by 2 independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen eligible randomized trials (80 practitioners; 1986 patients) were included in the analysis. Five studies had high risk of bias, and 9 had some concerns about bias. The trials were heterogeneous in terms of geographic locations (North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa), settings (hospital and primary care), practitioner types (family and hospital physicians, anesthesiologists, nurses, psychologists, and caregivers), and type of randomization (individual patient or clustered by practitioner). Although all trials suggested a positive change in patient satisfaction, inadequate reporting hindered the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the overall effect size. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity in the way that empathy was delivered and patient satisfaction was measured and incomplete reporting leading to concerns about the certainty of the underpinning evidence. CONCLUSION: Various empathy interventions have been studied to improve patient satisfaction. Development, testing, and reporting of high-quality studies within well-defined contexts is needed to optimize empathy interventions that increase patient satisfaction. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Stoneygate Trust. (PROSPERO: CRD42023412981).

On the need for empathy in the acute hospital setting.

This article reviews the need for empathy, and what happens in its absence in an acute hospital setting, using the example of a homeless man in an emergency department. Three simple but meaningful changes that all healthcare practitioners can make are recommended to promote empathy.

Teaching an empathy-focused approach to difficult consultations: a pilot session and co-production evaluation workshop.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are annoyed, upset, angry or uncooperative may be categorised as having behavioural problems, shifting the blame from healthcare providers to patients. This can exacerbate the problem. Adopting an empathic approach to such consultations can reduce anger and frustration and improve patient care. APPROACH: A pilot teaching session was introduced to the second year of the medical degree at Leicester Medical School with the aim of preparing students to deal with difficult consultations and helping them to understand the impact of empathy in such situations. The teaching involved the use of prior reading, videos and simulated patients acting the role of angry and frustrated patients. It was delivered to groups of 8 students by a team of 20 GP tutors. Approximately 300 second year medical students took part in the session. EVALUATION: Ninety per cent of students felt they had a better understanding of how an empathic approach could help in difficult consultations. Most GP tutors also felt better prepared to deal with difficult consultations because of teaching the session. Following the initial evaluation, a co-production workshop was convened comprising of tutors, students and patient representatives to review the teaching materials and evaluation. Potential improvements to the session were identified. CONCLUSION: We were able to deliver a successful pilot session that improved students' understanding of the skills needed and had a positive impact on GP tutors involved in the session. A subsequent co-production workshop identified key strategies to improve the session for future years.

Oral Azacitidine for Maintenance Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia After Induction Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of oral azacitidine (ONUREG), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral azacitidine for maintenance treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) after induction therapy compared with watch-and-wait plus best supportive care (BSC) and midostaurin. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. In the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo: median OS gain of 9.9 months (24.7 months versus 14.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.55-0.86), p < 0.001). The median time to relapse was also better for oral azacitidine, and the incidences of TEAEs were similar for the two arms. The company excluded two of the comparators listed in the scope, low-dose cytarabine and subcutaneous azacitidine, informed only by clinical expert opinion, leaving only best supportive care (BSC) and midostaurin for the FLT3-ITD and/or FLT3-TKD (FLT3 mutation)-positive subgroup. An ITC comparing oral azacitidine to midostaurin as maintenance therapy in the appropriate subgroup demonstrated that the OS and relapse-free survival (RFS) HRs were favourable for oral azacitidine when compared with midostaurin. However, in the only available trial of midostaurin as maintenance treatment in AML that was used for this ITC, subjects were not randomised at the maintenance phase, but at induction, which posed a substantial risk of bias. The revised and final probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) presented by the company, including a commercial arrangement, was £32,480 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for oral azacitidine versus watch-and-wait plus BSC. Oral azacitidine was dominant versus midostaurin in the FLT-3 subgroup. The ERG's concerns included the approach of modelling haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the generalisability of the population and the number of cycles of consolidation therapy pre-treatment in the QUAZAR AML-001 trial to UK clinical practice, and uncertainty in the relapse utility. The revised and final ERG base case resulted in a similar probabilistic ICER of £33,830 per QALY gained versus watch-and-wait plus BSC, but with remaining uncertainty. Oral azacitidine remained dominant versus midostaurin in the FLT-3 subgroup. After the second NICE appraisal committee meeting, the NICE Appraisal Committee recommended oral azacitidine (according to the commercial arrangement), within its marketing authorisation, as an option for maintenance treatment for AML in adults who are in complete remission, or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, after induction therapy with or without consolidation treatment, and cannot have or do not want HSCT.

Patient perceptions of empathy in primary care telephone consultations: A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical empathy can enhance patient outcomes. This study examined patients' perceptions of empathy in primary care consultations delivered by telephone. METHODS: A mixed methods study was nested in a larger feasibility study conducted May-October 2020. Adults reporting a UK primary care consultation in the previous 2 weeks completed an online survey. A sample of survey respondents participated in a semi-structured qualitative interview. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Survey respondents (n = 359) rated practitioners as between 'good' and 'very good' at established patient-reported indicators of clinical empathy. Telephone consultations were rated slightly lower than face-to-face or other consultations. 30 survey respondents were interviewed. Three qualitative themes identified how telephone consultations can shape clinical empathy: setting for an empathic encounter; feeling connected; being acknowledged. CONCLUSION: Primary care patients typically perceive good levels of clinical empathy in telephone consultations; specific features of telephone consultations may facilitate and/or hinder clinical empathy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To ensure patients feel listened to, acknowledged and understood, practitioners may need to increase their empathic verbalisations in telephone consultations. By using verbal responses to demonstrate active listening and by clearly describing and/or implementing next steps in management, practitioners may be able to enhance clinical empathy in telephone consultations.

Why might medical student empathy change throughout medical school? a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Several studies suggest that medical student empathy declines throughout medical school. However, no studies have synthesised the evidence regarding why empathy declines. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies investigating why student empathy may change throughout medical school. METHODS: We included any qualitative study that investigated why empathy might change during medical school. We searched the Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, ERIC, and APA PsycInfo databases for relevant studies. All databases were searched from their inception to 18 July 2022. We also searched the reference lists of the included studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute tool to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies. Overall confidence in our results was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach. We used thematic methods to synthesise our findings. RESULTS: Our searches yielded 2523 records, and 16 studies involving a total of 771 students were eligible for analysis. Most studies (n = 11) were from Europe or North America. The descriptive themes and sub-themes were identified for each study. Increased complexity in patients and their diseases, together with the 'hidden curriculum' (including a stressful workload, prioritisation of biomedical knowledge, and (sometimes) poor role models), led to student adaptations, such as cynicism and desensitisation. Students' prior lives and professional experiences appeared to exacerbate the decline in empathy. However, there were bias concerns for most of the included studies. DISCUSSION: Many of the included studies included were small, and some did not include demographic participant data. Given the likely benefits of providing empathic care for patients and practitioners, medical education interventions should focus on developing an 'empathic hidden curriculum' that mitigates the decline in medical student empathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A protocol for this systematic review was submitted for registration with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 28 July 2022 (registration number CRD42022347856).

Pralsetinib for RET Fusion-Positive Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto®), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG's concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.

Patient perspectives of positive messages from clinicians: a qualitative secondary analysis and conceptual model.

Background: A review and meta- analysis of empathic communication and patients' expectations of interventions has shown that if positive messages are delivered there is a small but measurable reduction of pain and anxiety and some improvements in physical outcomes. Aim: To identify elements of health messages that may have a positive impact on patient health outcomes to guide effective nurse-patient- communication. Methods: Data were extracted from each study in a qualitative analysis of a systematic review investigating the health effects of positive messages, and analysed following the principles of thematic analysis. Findings: Central to effective positive messages were good communication skills. Five key features were identified. Discussion: The non-treatment care categories such as cognitive care and emotional care can significantly influence health outcomes across a range of interactions. Conclusion: Strategies to facilitate positivity can be incorporated into nursing education programs designed to improve patient outcomes.

A survey of clinical empathy training at UK medical schools.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of enhancing practitioner empathy include better patient outcomes and improved job satisfaction for practitioners. Evidence suggests empathy can be taught and empathy is listed as an outcome for graduates in the General Medical Council requirements. Despite this, empathy training is not mandatory on medical school curricula and the extent to which medical students are given empathy-specific training is unknown. AIM: To conduct a survey of empathy training currently offered to medical students in UK medical schools. METHODS: An invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to all UK medical schools (n = 40). The survey was developed through a consultancy and pilot process to ensure validity and reliability. Questions explored what empathy-focused training is offered, and asked educators whether or not they believed that current provision of empathy training is sufficient. In parallel, medical school websites were searched to identify what information regarding empathy-focused training is described as being part of the degree course. Descriptive statistics were used to describe empathy training delivery from the results of the online materials survey and closed survey questions. Thematic analysis was used to explore free text comments. RESULTS: Response rate was 70% (28/40), with 28 medical schools included in the analysis. Twenty-six schools reported that their undergraduate curriculum included some form of empathy-focused training with variation in what, when and how this is delivered. Thematic analysis revealed two overarching themes with associated sub-themes: (i) empathy-focused training and development (considering where, when and how empathy training should be integrated); (ii) challenges presented by including empathy on the curriculum (considering the system, students and faculty). All schools agreed empathy training should be on the undergraduate curriculum. CONCLUSION: This is the first nationwide survey of empathy-focused training at UK medical schools. While some form of empathy-focused training appears to be provided on the undergraduate curriculum at most UK medical schools, empathy is rarely specifically assessed. Most medical educators do not feel their school does enough to promote empathy and the majority would like to offer more.

Why might medical student empathy change throughout medical school? Protocol for a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies suggest that medical student empathy declines throughout medical school. However, no studies have systematically investigated why. The objective of our proposed review is to conduct a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies investigating the reasons empathy may change throughout medical school. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We have searched MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, ERIC and APA PsycINFO for relevant studies. We will also search reference lists of included studies and contact experts to identify additional studies. We will include any qualitative study investigating the reasons why empathy changes throughout medical school. We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute tool to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies. We will use thematic analysis to synthesise our results. For all included studies, we will summarise the main characteristics including the number of participants, medical school year, country and gender. In our discussion, we will summarise the limitations of the evidence (including the risk of bias and inconsistency), and provide a general interpretation of the results and important implications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not require ethical approval since no original data will be collected. The results of this review will be published through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Additionally, this review will inform changes to the enhanced empathy curriculum at the Leicester Medical School.

Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: The way information about potential harms of trial intervention is shared within participant information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and can cause subjective 'nocebo' harms. This study aimed to develop principles to improve the composition of information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms within PILs so that variability and avoidable harms are reduced. METHODS: We conducted a two-round modified online Delphi survey, followed by a consensus meeting. For the first round of the survey, 27 statements were developed based on previous research and relevant guidance from the UK, the USA and the World Health Organization. Participants included members from each of the following stakeholder groups: patient and public representatives, research ethics committee members, industry representatives, medico-legal experts, psychologists and trial managers. Each participant was asked to rate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. In the second round, participants were invited to reappraise their ratings after reviewing the results of the first round. Finally, two members from each stakeholder group participated in a meeting to confirm those statements for which there was agreement. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty participants completed round 1, and 201 participants completed round 2. In round 1, consensus was reached for 16 statements. In round 2, consensus was reached for an additional three statements. The consensus meeting confirmed the survey results and consolidated the statements. This process resulted in seven principles: (1) all potential harms of a given intervention should be listed, (2) all potential harms should be separated into serious and less serious, (3) it must be made explicit that not all potential harms are known, (4) all potential benefits should be listed, (5) all potential benefits and harms need to be compared with what would happen if the participant did not take part in the trial, (6) suitable visual representations should be added where appropriate and (7) information regarding potential benefits and harms should not be presented apart by one or more pages. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified Delphi process successfully generated seven principles that can and should be used to guide how information is conveyed to patients in information leaflets regarding potential trial benefits and harms.

Empathy in patient-clinician interactions when using telecommunication: A rapid review of the evidence.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the replacement of many face-to-face healthcare consultations with telephone consultations. Little is known about the extent to which empathy can be expressed in telephone consultations. Our objective is to review evidence related to empathy in telephone consultations including clinical outcomes, and patient/practitioner experiences. Methods: Searches of Medline/Ovid and PsycINFO/Ovid were undertaken. Titles and abstract screening, data extraction, and risk of bias were undertaken by two reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved in discussion with additional reviewers. Included studies were specific to tele-communications with empirical data on empathy related to patient outcomes/views, published (in English), 2010-2021. Studies that did not mention empathy explicitly were excluded. Results: Our search yielded 740 individual records and 8 studies (527 patients, 20 practitioners) met inclusion criteria: Some barriers to expression of empathy were noted, but no major obstacles were reported. However, data was sparse and most studies had a high risk of bias. Conclusion: Empathy in telephone consultations is possible, (though the loss of non-verbal cues and touch can present barriers) however the research does not yet identify how. Innovation: It is possible to establish and display empathy in telephone consultations, but future research needs to identify how this can be optimized. Funding: This work was supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research grant (project number 389). The University of Southampton's Primary Care Department is a member of the NIHR School for Primary Care Research and supported by NIHR Research funds. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Protocol registration. PROSPERO (CRD42021238087).

Experiences of empathy training in healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative studies.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise qualitative studies reporting student, practitioner, or patient experiences of empathy-training in healthcare. METHODS: We included qualitative studies exploring (i) student or practitioner experiences of empathy training, or (ii) patient experiences of being treated by someone who has undergone empathy training. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool to assess study quality. Thematic synthesis was used to integrate findings from studies and to generate new insights. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2768 citations, of which 23 (1487 participants) met inclusion criteria. Two clusters of themes were identified from included studies. Firstly, themes related to practitioner/trainee professionalism and wellbeing, where the main finding was that participants experienced benefit from therapeutic empathy training. Secondly, themes related to the understanding and treatment of patients, where the main finding was practitioners' deeper recognition of the positive impact of empathic care. CONCLUSIONS: This review found that taking part in empathy-focused training can benefit practitioner/student personal growth and professional development, and benefits patient care. This review is limited by the difficulty in defining empathy and heterogeneity amongst included studies. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These results support a rationale for empathy training and the development of a framework to ensure training is having the desired effect.