| Literature DB >> 33517619 |
Areum Han1, Tae Hui Kim2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Studies using simulation-based programs for empathy enhancement have been conducted mostly for health profession students and medical care providers in Western countries. No empirical research has been conducted for non-medical care providers of older adults in community settings in Asian countries. The purposes of this mixed-methods study were: to explore experiences and perceived usability of non-medical care providers of older adults in a simulation-based empathy enhancement program; and to examine if the program is effective in improving empathy and relevant outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Compassion fatigue; Empathy; Health personnel; Quasi-experimental studies; Simulation training
Year: 2021 PMID: 33517619 PMCID: PMC7960746 DOI: 10.30773/pi.2020.0290
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychiatry Investig ISSN: 1738-3684 Impact factor: 2.505
General characteristics of participants (N=104)
| Variables | N (%) or M±SD |
|---|---|
| Age | 45.86±10.78 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 18 (17.3) |
| Female | 86 (82.7) |
| Current job | |
| Social worker | 52 (50.0) |
| Direct care worker | 52 (50.0) |
| Education level | |
| Middle school | 2 (1.9) |
| High school | 24 (23.1) |
| College | 63 (60.6) |
| Graduate and above | 15 (14.4) |
| Marital status | |
| Married | 77 (74.0) |
| Never married | 17 (16.3) |
| Widowed | 5 (4.8) |
| Divorced | 5 (4.8) |
| Religion | |
| No religion | 32 (30.8) |
| Protestantism | 27 (26.0) |
| Catholicism | 35 (33.7) |
| Buddhism | 10 (9.6) |
| Working area | |
| Urban | 92 (88.5) |
| Rural | 12 (11.5) |
| License types | |
| Care worker only | 14 (13.5) |
| Social worker only | 50 (48.1) |
| Both of them | 16 (15.4) |
| Neither of them | 24 (23.1) |
M: mean, SD: standard deviation
Pretest-posttest comparisons in outcome measures (N=104)
| Variables | Pretest (M±SD) | Posttest (M±SD) | t or Z | p | Cohen’s d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EQ-short | 10.39±3.23 | 10.65±3.56 | -1.167[ | 0.243 | 0.230 |
| JSE-HP | |||||
| Total | 104.87±10.07 | 106.20±11.37 | -2.133[ | 0.033[ | 0.428 |
| PT | 58.28±5.39 | 58.64±5.96 | -1.147[ | 0.251 | 0.226 |
| CC | 35.93±5.31 | 36.62±5.22 | -2.018[ | 0.044 | 0.404 |
| SS | 8.37±2.46 | 9.11±2.67 | -2.566[ | 0.010[ | 0.520 |
| ProQoL5 | |||||
| CS | 39.28±4.78 | 39.21±4.92 | -0.285[ | 0.775 | 0.056 |
| STS (-) | 27.00±4.60 | 26.10±5.16 | 2.329[ | 0.022[ | 0.184 |
| B (-) | 23.98±4.38 | 23.17±4.42 | -2.426[ | 0.015[ | 0.490 |
| CES | 116.39±12.52 | 116.67±12.49 | -0.387[ | 0.699 | 0.022 |
| PWI-SF (-) | 16.85±6.47 | 16.76±8.64 | -0.660[ | 0.509 | 0.130 |
A minus sign in parentheses indicates that a decline in each variable means positive outcomes.
statistically significant at p<0.05,
assessed by paired t-test,
assessed by Wilcoxon signed rank test.
CES: Caring Efficacy Scale, EQ-short: Empathy Quotient-Short form, JSE-HP: Health Professional Version of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy, JSE-HP-CC: compassionate care subscale of JSE-HP, JSE-HP-PT: perspective taking subscale of JSE-HP, JSE-HP-SS: standing in the patient’s shoe subscale of JSE-HP, M: mean, ProQoL5: Professional Quality of Life Scale 5, Pro-QoL5-B: burnout subscale of ProQoL5, ProQoL5-CS: compassion satisfaction subscale of ProQoL5, ProQoL5-STS: secondary traumatic stress subscale of ProQoL5, PWI-SF: Psychosocial Well-being Index-Short form, SD: standard deviation
Findings of the program evaluation questionnaire (N=104)
| Questions | M±SD | N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Total scores | 4.20±0.54 | |
| Q1. The content was easy to understand. | 4.07±0.80 | 84 (81) |
| Q2. The way the program was delivered was easy to understand. | 4.13±0.71 | 88 (85) |
| Q3. The program helped me understand older adults. | 4.42±0.65 | 99 (95) |
| Q4. The program helped me think from perspectives of older adults. | 4.52±0.62 | 99 (95) |
| Q5. Overall, the program was helpful to me. | 4.23±0.66 | 95 (91) |
| Q6. Overall, I was satisfied with the program. | 4.12±0.74 | 88 (85) |
| Q7. I could apply what I learned from the program to my real life. | 3.95±0.76 | 82 (79) |
| Q8. The program is useful in educating care workers of older adults. | 4.20±0.67 | 91 (88) |
| Q9. I recommend the program to colleagues at my work. | 4.15±0.71 | 89 (86) |
| Q10. I recommend the program to care workers of older adults. | 4.26±0.70 | 93 (90) |
N (%) means the number (%) who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement among 104 care providers. M: mean, SD: standard deviation