The development of empathy in the healthcare setting: a qualitative approach.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals' empathetic behaviors have been known to lead to higher satisfaction levels and produce better health outcomes for patients. However, empathy could decrease over time especially during training and clinical practice. This study explored factors that contributed to the development of empathy in the healthcare setting. Findings could be used to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of empathy training. METHOD: A qualitative approach, informed by aspects of grounded theory, was utilized to identify factors that enabled the development of empathy from the perspectives of doctors, nurses, allied healthcare workers and students. Twelve sessions of focus group discussions were conducted with 60 participants from two hospitals, a medical school, and a nursing school. Data was analyzed independently by three investigators who later corroborated to refine the codes, subthemes, and themes. Factors which influence the development of empathy were identified and categorized. This formed the basis of the creation of a tentative theory of empathy development for the healthcare setting. RESULTS: The authors identified various personal (e.g. inherent characteristics, physiological and mental states, professional identity) and external (e.g. work environment, life experience, situational stressors) factors that affected the development of empathy. These could be further categorized into three groups based on the stability of their impact on the individuals' empathy state, contributed by high, medium, or low stability factors. Findings suggest empathy is more trait-like and stable in nature but is also susceptible to fluctuation depending on the circumstances faced by healthcare professionals. Interventions targeting medium and low stability factors could potentially promote the development of empathy in the clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding factors that impact the development of empathy allows us to develop measures that could be implemented during training or at the workplace leading to improve the quality of care and higher clinical work satisfaction.

A qualitative study on health stigma and discrimination in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learnt from a public health perspective.

Background: Stigmatisation, misinformation and discrimination have been magnified globally due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The healthcare sector was not spared from this. We conducted a transnational study, using the Health Stigma and Discrimination framework (HSDF) to explore public perception and reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic in a multicultural context. Findings from the Asian arm of the study, sited in Singapore, are reported in this paper. Methods: This phenomenological research deployed semi-structured informant interviews using non-probability sampling approaches to recruit members of the public. Interviews were coded independently by two researchers and thematic analysis was used to analyse the responses. Results: Twenty-nine members of the public (23-80 years old) were interviewed between Oct 2020 to Feb 2021. Five major themes were identified: (i) perception of stigma amongst respondents, (ii) experiences of stigma amongst respondents, (iii) views on what drove stigma and misinformation, (iv) facilitators in preventing and reducing stigma and misinformation, and (v) ageist attitudes towards older adults. Overall, construction workers living in dormitories, healthcare workers, and to some extent tourists from China, were perceived to have been stigmatised and shunned by the public. Place-based stigmatisation was common; participants responded by avoiding places that had confirmed cases of COVID-19. Perceived stigma was temporary and not enduring, driven at the outset by fear of being infected. This study also identified the role played by trust in reducing stigmatisation. The relative absence of politicising of issues and high-quality information readily disseminated to the public were reported as factors that could have reduced and prevented stigma and misinformation on the various groups. Ageist attitudes were observed in some participants with older adults being labelled as vulnerable, susceptible to misinformation and being less able to cope during the pandemic. Conclusion: Through the lens of the HSDF, this study provided an exploratory account of the nature of stigma that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic in an Asian context. It also shed light on facilitators in preventing and reducing stigma during an outbreak especially the role of trust and communications during a public health crisis.

A social ecological approach to identify the barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination acceptance: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that has caused substantial impact on population health, healthcare, and social and economic systems around the world. Several vaccines have been developed to control the pandemic with varying effectiveness and safety profiles. One of the biggest obstacles to implementing successful vaccination programmes is vaccine hesitancy stemming from concerns about effectiveness and safety. This review aims to identify the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance and to organize the factors using the social ecological framework. METHODS: We adopted the five-stage methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley to guide this scoping review. Selection criteria was based on the PICo (Population, Phenomenon of interest and Context) framework. Factors associated with acceptance and hesitancy were grouped into the following: intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, and public policy factors using the social ecological framework. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies fulfilled this review's inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in Europe and North America, followed by Asia and the Middle East. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy rates varied across countries. Some common demographic factors associated with hesitancy were younger age, being female, having lower than college education, and having a lower income level. Most of the barriers and facilitators to acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines were intrapersonal factors, such as personal characteristics and preferences, concerns with COVID-19 vaccines, history/perception of general vaccination, and knowledge of COVID-19 and health. The remaining interpersonal, institution, community, and public policy factors were grouped into factors identified as barriers and facilitators. CONCLUSION: Our review identified barriers and facilitators of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy and organised them using the social ecological framework. While some barriers and facilitators such as vaccine safety are universal, differentiated barriers might exist for different target groups, which need to be understood if they are to be addressed to maximize vaccine acceptance.