4.5 Article

Perception of empathy in the therapeutic encounter: Effects on the common cold

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 85, 期 3, 页码 390-397

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.009

关键词

Patient-practitioner interaction; Therapeutic encounter; Empathy; CARE; Common cold

资金

  1. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health [NIH NCCAM 1-R01-AT-1428]
  2. NIH NCCAM
  3. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the effects of patient-practitioner interaction on the severity and duration of the common cold. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 719 patients with new cold onset. Participants were randomized to three groups: no patient-practitioner interaction, standard interaction or an enhanced interaction. Cold severity was assessed twice daily. Patients randomized to practitioner visits used the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure to rate clinician empathy. Interleukin-8 (IL-8) and neutrophil counts were obtained from nasal wash at baseline and 48 h later. Results: Patients' perceptions of the clinical encounter were associated with reduced cold severity and duration. Encounters rated perfect on the CARE score had reduced severity (perfect: 223, sub-perfect: 271, p = 0.04) and duration (perfect: 5.89 days, sub-perfect: 7.00 days, p = 0.003). CARE scores were also associated with a more significant change in IL-8 (perfect: mean IL-8 change 1586, sub-perfect: 72, p = 0.02) and neutrophil count (perfect: 49, sub-perfect: 12, p = 0.09). Conclusions: When patients perceive clinicians as empathetic, rating them perfect on the CARE tool, the severity, duration and objective measures (IL-8 and neutrophils) of the common cold significantly change. Practice implications: This study helps us to understand the importance of the perception of empathy in a therapeutic encounter. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据