| Literature DB >> 35548503 |
Miyo Hori1, Eisho Yoshikawa2,3, Daichi Hayama4, Shigeko Sakamoto1, Tsuneo Okada5, Yoshinori Sakai6, Hideomi Fujiwara7, Kazue Takayanagi8, Kazuo Murakami1, Junji Ohnishi1,9.
Abstract
While empathy is considered a critical determinant of the quality of medical care, growing evidence suggests it may be associated with both one's own positive and negative moods among healthcare professionals. Meanwhile, sense of coherence (SOC) plays an essential role in the improvement of both psychological and physical health. Reportedly, individual SOC reaches full stability after around age 30. The aim of this study was first to evaluate the mediatory role of SOC on the association between empathy and individual moods among 114 healthcare professionals in a general hospital, and then to examine the moderating effect of age on this association. Participants completed a range of self-report demographic questionnaires, Empathy Process Scale (EPS), the 13-item Antonovsky's SOC, and Profile of Mood States (POMS). Findings showed that SOC mediated the relations between empathy (EPS) and both POMS-Vigor (POMS-V: self-vigor mood) and POMS-Depression (POMS-D: self-depression mood). Notably, moderated mediation analysis revealed that there was a significant interaction (age × SOC) on self-vigor mood (POMS-V) in healthcare professionals. The indirect effect of empathy (EPS) on self-vigor mood (POMS-V) through SOC was significant at over mean age "32.83." Although there was no significant interaction with age regarding the indirect effect of empathy (EPS) on self-depression mood (POMS-D), in the sub-category level analysis of empathy (EPS), we found a significant interaction item [age × empathy for other's negative affect (EPS-N)] on SOC. This indirect effect was also significant at over mean age "32.83." Taken, together, the current study highlighted the significant mediator of SOC on that empathy amplifies self-vigor mood and attenuates self-depression mood as a protective factor among the Japanese healthcare professionals. Some components of these processes may depend on the moderating role of age, indicating that we may need to consider the SOC development with age for more effective empathy performance interventions among healthcare professionals.Entities:
Keywords: age; empathy; healthcare professional; moderated mediation analysis; moods; sense of coherence (SOC)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35548503 PMCID: PMC9083206 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.847381
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1(A) Schematic model of sense of coherence (SOC) as a mediator between empathy (EPS) and self-moods (POMS): the proposed Model 4 adapted from Hayes (2018). X, independent variable; Y, dependent variable; M, mediator. The path a, X (EPS) to M (SOC); the path b, from M (SOC) to Y (POMS). The path c’ means the “direct” effect of X (EPS) on Y (POMS) and the path a*b means “indirect” effect of X on Y through M. The total effect of X (EPS) on Y (POMS) means the sum of the direct effect (c’) and the indirect effect (a*b). EPS, empathy process scale; SOC, sense of coherence; POMS, profile of mood state. (B) Schematic model of age as a moderator of the mediation model: the proposed Model 59 adapted from Hayes (2018). X, independent variable; Y, dependent variable; M, mediator; Mo, moderator. The path a, X (EPS) to M (SOC); the path b, from M (SOC) to Y (POMS). The path c’ means the “direct” effect of X (EPS) on Y (POMS) and the path a*b means “indirect” effect of X on Y through M. The total effect of X (EPS) on Y (POMS) means the sum of the direct effect (c’) and the indirect effect (a*b). All pathways are moderated by Mo (age). EPS; Empathy process scale; SOC: Sense of coherence; POMS: Profile of mood state.
Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables.
| Age | SOC | POMS-D | POMS-V | EPS | EPS-C | EPS-N | EPS-P | |
| Age | ||||||||
| SOC | 0.13 | |||||||
| POMS-D | –0.08 | −0.60 | ||||||
| POMS-V | 0.11 | 0.37 | –0.16 | |||||
| EPS | –0.05 | 0.30 | −0.21 | 0.31 | ||||
| EPS-C | –0.13 | 0.22 | –0.14 | 0.18 | 0.84 | |||
| EPS-N | 0.08 | 0.17 | –0.10 | 0.31 | 0.82 | 0.53 | ||
| EPS-P | –0.05 | 0.39 | −0.34 | 0.32 | 0.84 | 0.56 | 0.58 | |
| Means | 32.83 | 54.84 | 53.91 | 46.82 | 113.41 | 38.12 | 36.39 | 38.89 |
| SD | 8.86 | 12.68 | 12.49 | 8.81 | 14.82 | 5.68 | 5.52 | 6.13 |
SOC, sense of coherence; POMS-D, profile of mood state depression-dejection; POMS-V, profile of mood state vigor; EPS, empathy process scale; EPS-C, empathy process scale for cognition; EPS-N, empathy process scale for other’s negative affects; EPS-P, empathy process scale for other’s positive affects; SD, standard deviation.
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, N = 114.
FIGURE 2Mediation effect of SOC on the relationship between empathy and self-vigor mood (POMS-V). EPS, empathy; SOC, sense of coherence; POMS-V, profile of mood state vigor.
Indirect effect of SOC on the association between empathy (EPS) and depressive (POMS-D) and positive mood (POMS-V).
| B | BootSE | BootLLCI | BootULCI | ||
| POMS-V | EPS | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.12 |
| EPS-C | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.29 | |
| EPS-N | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.23 | |
| EPS-P | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.33 | |
| POMS-D | EPS | –0.22 | 0.06 | –0.34 | –0.11 |
| EPS-C | –0.46 | 0.17 | –0.79 | –0.12 | |
| EPS-N | –0.33 | 0.14 | –0.62 | –0.05 | |
| EPS-P | –0.59 | 0.13 | –0.86 | –0.34 |
B, regression coefficient; SE, standard error; LLCI, lower limit of confidential interval; ULCI, upper limit of confidential interval.
When the bootstrap 95% CI did not include zero, the indirect association was taken to be significant at the 0.05 level.
POMS-D, profile of mood state depression-dejection; POMS-V, profile of mood state vigor; EPS, empathy process scale; EPS-C, empathy process scale for cognition; EPS-N, empathy process scale for other’s negative affects; EPS-P, empathy process scale for other’s positive affects.
FIGURE 3Mediation effect of SOC on the relationship between empathy and self-depression mood (POMS-D). EPS, empathy; SOC, sense of coherence; POMS-D, profile of mood state depression-dejection.