26/10/2023

Abstract:
● What phenomenon/problem is being studied
● Who are the participants
● What methods were used/what was measured
● What was found
● What are the conclusions
● Remember – include only the bare essentials

Introduction(Importance of topic, Key elements, Brief aim)

● You are using the introduction to set up a RATIONALE for your theoretical model and
why it needs testing
● You need to provide an evidenced argument for your model as a whole and also each
individual predictor
● You could include a path diagram of your model(but you don’t have to – it’s helpful for
complicated models)
● Refer to the theoretical model here and the operational model in the results
● Provide a hypothesis at the end and state the expected directions of relationships!

Methods:

Design
● cross-sectional online survey to test a specified theoretical model
● You need to specify the variables in your model
● ‘Predictor’ variables and outcome/’predicted’ variable
● Don’t mention IVs and DVs (these are terms from experimental reports and you did
NOT do an experiment!)

Participants
● N, demographics (sex ratio, age info)
● be specific about relevant online issues (how your participants were recruited / sampled)
● Don’t forget tomention how many responses you got initially and then how many you
were left with after data cleaning include any pertinent information here
● (additional demographics and single-time questions, inclusion/exclusion criteria if
relevant)
Materials or Measures:
● General sentence(s) stating a battery of questionnaires were used (including a
researcher designed section, if applicable) consisting of:
● Researcher designed section
● demographics and/or detail any single item measures used in the study
● Outcome Scale (or equivalent if you’ve used something else) Each of your predictor
scales

Procedure
● As usual but you also need to briefly mention/consider:
● the survey authoring tool you used
● website address (don’t need to include this in your reference list)
● Indicate why you selected it (e.g., free to use, easy to customise etc.
● have a look at the Qualtrics website for more information)
● How you tweaked your ethics for an online sample Just a sentence or two saying how
you tweaked getting consent, right to withdraw, debrief etc.
● If you had any issues with your online survey (e.g., some questions not recording data
correctly) describe this and provide some quick information on how you addressed this
(consider this in more detail in the Discussion, if relevant)

Results:
● Descriptive scale statistics(and any necessary interpretation) Information on
meeting the assumptions for multiple regression analysis (and any necessary
interpretation)
● A summary of your model(and any necessary interpretation) Information on your
individual predictors(and any necessary interpretation)Descriptive Stats for all
variables (predictors and outcome)
● Can be displayed together with alpha coefficients of the reliability analysis in
Table 1 comment on the distributions of scores within your sample
● What do high scores on each scale actually mean - is the average score in your
sample higher/lower that normal?
● What do the standard deviations tell you
● Remember – reporting Mean Gender = 1.3 is meaningless – so if you have
categorical variables, then report frequencies not means and SDs

Multiple regression
● You need a statement telling the reader what you actually did and for
what purpose:
● “A multiple regression was run to predict variability in the enjoyment of the
module using number of books read and number of books purchased as
predictors.“
● Assumptions of multiple regression say whether multicolinearity was
violated or not
 be specific here – comment on correlations, tolerance and VIF
● –If it was violated, what did you do about it?
●

Discussion:

Ethical consideration:

References:

Abstract:. The current study seeks to explore how empathy levels impact the decision to
pursue a profession in healthcare. The total number of participants (N=52) was
determined. This poll is divided into four pieces, one for each empathy attribute and one
for healthcare jobs.

Introduction

Empathy: The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend

our egos and live in another's world” - Plato. Empathy in nursing is a critical and
indispensable aspect of healthcare, serving as the cornerstone of patient
centered care. The concept of empathy within the nursing profession goes
beyond mere sympathy; it encompasses the ability to understand and share the
feelings and emotions of patients
Importance of topic: The significance of understanding empathy in the context of
healthcare is going to help us find the potential reasons why people may be
inspired to work in healthcare. Our Theoretical Model- Empathy is one of the
fundamental tools of the therapeutic relationship between the carers and their
patients and it has been proven that its contribution is vital to better health
outcomes . As it allows the health care providers to detect and recognize the
users’ experiences, worries, and perspectives , it strengthens the development
and improvement of the therapeutic relationship between the two parts . It is
widely acknowledged that the health professional’s empathetic ability leads to
better therapeutic results. Theme is based on empathy and the predictors are
Emotional recognition, perspective-taking, and affective response that may have
a factor of movdidting people to work in the fild of healthcare.Despite the fact that
empathy is critical in the nursing field, research have shown that nurses only
have poor or intermediate empathy skills (Ançel, 2006; Kuo et al. 2011, J.
Stickley and Williams, 2010). More effort should be made to improve the current
situation for nurses (Levettjones et al., 2017). The Predictors were picked to To
support empathy as we believe that empathy is a and important Factor of why
people choose to go to Healthcare.Medical students who choose specialisations
with a more human touch had higher levels of empathy. Possessing anything in
common. Patients' experiences helped healthcare staff sympathise with them
more. Medical education that prioritised science above the humanities It is
thought that trainee worry reduces empathy levels. Work experience and
working circumstances have been shown to either raise or reduce empathy
levels, but stress and burnout have been shown to lower empathy
level,Childhood experiences have been shown to have a long-term impact on
individual trait empathy in social science.Cognitive pressure, on the other hand,
impedes empathy experience and reduces sympathetic behaviours, which is
especially important for healthcare personnel who are constantly faced with
heavy workloads and commitments. As a result, they experience and exhibit
empathy in various ways. As shown empathy has an effect on a person decision
chose to pick healthcare as a carire, our hypothesise that the three predictor
variables (emotion recognition, perspective taking, and affective
responsiveness), act as positive predictors of choosing a healthcare career.
The American Association of Medical Colleges has mandated empathy as a
learning aim for medical school curriculum (Anderson et al., 1999). Numerous
research have proposed approaches to improve empathy in healthcare curricula
(Levettjones et al., 2017). Previous study has shown that with the correct sort of
teaching, nurses' empathy levels may be increased. According to Cunico et al.
(2012), the researchers evaluated if a training programme would increase
nursing students' empathetic capacities. A cohort longitudinal study was used.
Finally, the study's findings revealed that the training programme was effective,
and that the intervention group's students' empathy capacities improved more
than the control group's (Cunico et al., 2012). Maria et al. (2015) examined an
experiential ostomate simulation designed to increase empathy in undergraduate
nursing students.In China, a variety of courses have been developed to increase
students' empathy levels at medical schools. Ma and Yang investigated how
teaching empathy through psychodrama may improve nursing undergraduates in
a 2015 study. Following a 27-hour session, the Jefferson Scale of Empathy
Medical Student version (S-version) was utilised to assess the students' degree
of empathy (Hojat and Gonnella, 2015). They observed that employing this
teaching technique raised the pupils' empathy levels.

Empathy is a complicated concept, yet it can be defined by anybody, Empathy is

the ability to comprehend another person's feelings.
coined empathy in the early 1900s but the definition has changed over time Lipps
developed the concept of understanding another person's emotions (Jahoda
2005). Discussions of empathy, according to Stotland and colleagues, may
stretch back to "the beginnings of philosophical thought" (Stotland, Matthews,
Sherman, Hansson, & Richardson, 1978). Over the years the term has been
changed and used to measure behavioral and cognitive threats (Batson 2011;
Davis 1996). Despite its long history, empathy is not a well-defined concept.
Instead, there are as many definitions as there are writers (Decety & Jackson,
2004; de Vignemont & Singer, 2006). The main issue with empathy is that to
begin evaluating study findings on 'empathy,' one must first define what is being
investigated and the degree of misunderstanding with similar terms can cause
confusion if not structured(Brown, Harkins, & Beech, 2012; Gerdes, Segal, &
Lietz, 2010). Researchers have many different methods of conducting empathy
(Mann & Barnett, 2012), while the definition of diversity should not be
discouraged (e.g., Duan & Hill, 1996), More research should be encouraged
regardless of their methods it should go to promote understanding and eliminate
misunderstanding in the future (Eisenberg et al. (1991, 64). This article will
investigate how our hypothesis, that the three predictor variables (emotion
recognition, perspective taking, and affective responsiveness) work as positive
predictors of selecting a healthcare profession.
Emotion recognition because we wanted to determine how strong individuals'
empathy levels are when they come into contact with other people, particularly in
the nursing sector where they must deal with a large number of casualties while
adhering to strict timetables.

Methods: For the purpose of the current study, a total of 51 participants were gathered in our
survey, the website Qualrices was used to create our survey. The survey was issued to nursing
students as well as other students, and our age range was between the ages of 18 and 50and
residing in the United Kingdom.

Design: The current survey was intended to be a quantitative research strategy that would
provide us with all of the information we require. Participants in our study were required to
complete an experience questionnaire for each section questions were made based on our
predictors variables

Each section has its questionnaire. The questionnaire was created using the scales we
collected. Using our variables, we constructed questions about emotion detection, perspective-
taking, and affective response. The survey needed participants to complete four sections.

Participants: A total of 51 participants were gathered in our survey, we used the website
Qualrices to create our survey. The survey was issued to nursing students as well as other
students, and our age range was between the ages of 19and 43. The gender distribution of the
sample was 9 males and 18 females the mean is 19.5 and the median/ is 19
Materials: The materials that was used for this survey was QUALTRICS which was used to make
the survey and the four scales we used to make the questions for our survey Participants were
asked to answer 36 questions on a five-point scale ranging from "almost never" to "almost
always" in the first segment. The second section contains six statements to which participants
were asked to respond on a five-point scale ranging from "does not describe me well" to
"describes me very well." Section three contains 10 questions to which they responded on a five-
point scale ranging from "almost never" to "almost always." The final element is an Outcome
scale - FIT-choice scale factor 3, 1-7 likert scale." This section asks you to score five
propositions on a seven-point scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree."

Procedure: The research study's goals and objectives were explained to them.
Sociodemographic information was gathered based on the study's relevance. Questions were
made based on emotion detection, perspective taking, and affective response, and healthcare
was built. The survey had four sections the participants had to go through, In the first section
Participants were requested to answer 36 items on a five-step scale ranging from "almost
never" to "almost always". Section two comprises six items to which the participants were asked
to react on a five-point scale ranging from "does not describe me well" to "describes me very
well." Section three has ten items on which they reacted on a five-point scale ranging from
"almost never" to "almost always." The last section is an Outcome scale - FIT-choice scale
factor 3, 1-7 likert scale.” asks you to rate five assertions on a seven-point scale ranging from
"strongly agree" to "strongly disagree”.

The participants were told about the study's goals and how the information would be utilised as
well participants were notified that the survey was entirely optional and that they could pull out
at any moment during the survey. They will have up to two weeks after the end of the research
to remove their data.

Results:

The total number of participants is N = 51. The mean age of the sample is
Scales Mean Standard
deviation

Emotional 3.25 0.56

recognition

Perspective taking 3.77 0.62

Affective 2.99 0.53

response

Healthcare 3.66 0.86

Fig: Table showing the mean and standard deviation of the four predictors of
empathy

Emotional Perspective taking Affective response Healthcare

Recognition

0.0 -0.059 -0.194 -0.017

Fig: Table showing the correlation between the predictors of empathy and
healthcare as a profession.
Fig: Graph depicting the correlation between predictors of empathy and
healthcare as a profession

Discussion: The aim of the current study was to explore the correlation between
predictors of empathy and choosing healthcare as a profession. Empathy is
awareness about other people's emotions and understanding their feelings and it
acts a crucial factor in establishing trust and meeting the needs of the patients. It
has received a lot of research attention in order to emphasize on building
empathy in healthcare professionals. Empathy, undoubtedly, has an important
role to play in any professional involved in an alliance of a physician and a
patient. Empathy converted into action is compassion and is believed to act as
an important factor in patient care.

In the current study, the hypothesis was that the three predictor variables (emotion
recognition, perspective taking, and affective responsiveness), act as positive predictors
of choosing a healthcare career. An online survey was created with the help of the
software QUALTRICS. The survey had four sections in it, three predictors of empathy
and one for assessing the participants’ interest in choosing healthcare as a profession.
The first predictor, Affective responses had 10 questions, Emotional recognition had 36
questions, perspective taking had 7 questions and healthcare had 5 questions.

A total of 51 participants were initially selected by random sampling. It was found that
there were many unfinished surveys and the final count of completed surveys was
brought down to 28 participants after data cleaning and sorting out of the incomplete
profiles. The sample had a gender distribution of 9 males and 19 females.
In a qualitative research study, when questioned about empathy, nurse students
emphasized the three components of the concept. Participants defined it as the nurse's
ability to understand and experience the feelings, ideas, and wishes of others, as well
as the nurse's ability to comprehend the emotional and cognitive condition of the person
with whom they work.(Deliangi A. et. al, 2017)

Several factors contribute to a lack of empathy or low empathy levels. The most
significant include the vast number of health care consumers that doctors must
deal with, a lack of enough time, a concentration on treatment, a dominating
culture in medical schools, and a lack of empathy training. (Hojat M.,
2013) .Presumptions, a sense of superiority from health experts, and a fear of
boundary breach are further factors. Time constraints, anxiety, a lack of self-
awareness, a lack of suitable training, and differences in socioeconomic level all
work against empathy (King and Holosko, 2012).

Despite the fact that empathy is a fundamental quality characteristic for the
health care professions, research demonstrates that health professionals are
unable to appropriately communicate and execute it.. Empirical education
through learning processes, according to research in undergraduate nursing
students, can favorably enhance empathy. Education is seen as highly significant
by both students and professionals for the reinforcement of sympathetic abilities
(Metes. S, 2OO7).

Ethical consideration:

Several procedures were followed in order to protect and respect the participants'
right to privacy. A valid consent was taken from the participants and they were
also informed that they have the right to withdraw their participation during any
part of the research. Confidentiality of the data was ensured to the participants.
Nature of the research was clearly explained to the participants. Discriminatory
practice was avoided in participant selection. Attempts were made to avoid the
use of offensive, stereotypical or discriminatory words in the survey.
References:

Álvarez-Castillo, J.L., Fernández-Caminero, G. and González-González, H.

(2018) ‘Is empathy one of the big three? identifying its role in a dual-process
model of ideology and blatant and subtle prejudice’, PLOS ONE, 13(4).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195470.

Ardenghi, S. et al. (2020) ‘Attachment styles as predictors of self-reported

empathy in medical students during pre-clinical years’, Patient Education and
Counseling, 103(5), pp. 965–970. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2019.11.004.

Burtson, P.L. and Stichler, J.F. (2010) ‘Nursing work environment and Nurse
Caring: Relationship among motivational factors’, Journal of Advanced Nursing,
66(8), pp. 1819–1831. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05336.x.

Deligianni A., Kyriakidou M., Kaba E., Kelesi M., Rovithis M., Fasoi G., Rikos N.,
Stavropoulou A. Empathy equals: the meaning of empathy as it perceived by Greek nurse
students—a qualitative study. Glob. J. Health Sci. 2017;9:171–180. doi:
10.5539/gjhs.v9n1p171.

Giménez‐Espert, M. del and Prado‐Gascó, V.J. (2018) ‘The role of empathy and
emotional intelligence in nurses’ communication attitudes using regression
models and fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis models’, Journal of
Clinical Nursing, 27(13–14), pp. 2661–2672. doi:10.1111/jocn.14325.

Herrera, F. et al. (2018) ‘Building long-term empathy: A large-scale comparison

of traditional and virtual reality perspective-taking’, PLOS ONE, 13(10).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204494.

Harrison, A. et al. (2010) ‘Emotional functioning in eating disorders: Attentional

bias, emotion recognition and emotion regulation’, Psychological Medicine,
40(11), pp. 1887–1897. doi:10.1017/s0033291710000036

Hojat M., Louis D.Z., Maio V., Wang X., Rossi G. Empathy and health care quality. Am.
J. Med. Qual. 2013;28:6–7. doi: 10.1177/1062860612464731. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
[Google Scholar]
King S.J., Holosko M.J. The development and initial validation of the empathy scale for
social workers. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 2012;22:174–185. doi:
10.1177/1049731511417136.

Levett‐Jones, T. and Cant, R. (2020) ‘The empathy continuum: An evidenced‐

based teaching model derived from an integrative review of Contemporary
Nursing Literature’, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(7–8), pp. 1026–1040.
doi:10.1111/jocn.15137.

Liaw, S.Y. et al. (2017) ‘Career choice and perceptions of nursing among
healthcare students in Higher Educational Institutions’, Nurse Education Today,
52, pp. 66–72. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2017.02.008.

Miers, M.E., Rickaby, C.E. and Pollard, K.C. (2007) ‘Career choices in health
care: Is nursing a special case? A content analysis of survey data’, International
Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(7), pp. 1196–1209.
doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.04.010.

Metes S. The empathetic tendencies and skills of nursing students. Soc. Behav. Personal.
2007;35:1181–1188. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2007.35.9.1181.

Takamatsu, R. (2018) ‘Measuring affective responses to cuteness and Japanese

kawaii as a multidimensional construct’, Current Psychology, 39(4), pp. 1362–
1374. doi:10.1007/s12144-018-9836-4.

Soheili, M. et al. (2020) ‘Nurses’ empathy in different wards: A cross-sectional

study’, Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 25(2), p. 117.
doi:10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_84_19.

Son, H.-K. (2021) ‘The effects of simulation problem-based learning on the

empathy, attitudes toward caring for the elderly, and team efficacy of
Undergraduate Health Profession Students’, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), p. 9658.
doi:10.3390/ijerph18189658.
Wan, Q. et al. (2019) ‘A big-five personality model-based study of empathy
behaviors in clinical nurses’, Nurse Education in Practice, 38, pp. 66–71.
doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2019.06.005.

Williams, B. et al. (2012) ‘psychometric testing of the jefferson scale of empathy

health profession students’ version with australian paramedic students’, Nursing
& Health Sciences, 15(1), pp. 45–50. doi:10.1111/j.1442-
2018.2012.00719.x.

Witherspoon, M. et al. (2023) ‘The impact of a role-play patient simulation on

nursing students as measured by the Comprehensive State Empathy Scale’,
Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 18(3). doi:10.1016/j.teln.2023.04.016.

Wu, L.T. et al. (2015) ‘Why not nursing? A systematic review of factors
influencing career choice among healthcare students’, International Nursing
Review, 62(4), pp. 547–562. doi:10.1111/inr.12220.

YANIK, A. and SAYGILI, S. (2014) ‘Validity and reliability of the Turkish version
of Jefferson Scale of empathy for nursing students’, Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of
Medical Sciences, 34(1), pp. 111–119. doi:10.5336/medsci.2013-37793.

Yu, H., Jiang, A. and Shen, J. (2016) ‘Prevalence and predictors of compassion
fatigue, Burnout and compassion satisfaction among oncology nurses: A cross-
sectional survey’, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 57, pp. 28–38.
doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.01.012.

Yu, H., Qiao, A. and Gui, L. (2021) ‘Predictors of compassion fatigue, Burnout,
and Compassion Satisfaction Among Emergency Nurses: A cross-sectional
survey’, International Emergency Nursing, 55, p. 100961.
doi:10.1016/j.ienj.2020.100961.

Zhu, Y. et al. (2021) ‘Developing an empathy educational model (EEM) for

undergraduate nursing students: A delphi technique’, Nurse Education in
Practice, 50, p. 102922. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102922.