Empathy in UK pharmacy students: assessing differences by gender, level in the degree programme, part-time employment and medical status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Empathy is an important aspect of patient–healthcare professional interactions.Aims: To investigate whether gender, level in the degree programme, employment and health status affected empathy scores of undergraduate pharmacy students.Method: All undergraduate pharmacy students (n=529) at Queen’s University Belfast were invited via email to completean online validated empathy questionnaire. Empathy scores were calculated and non-parametric tests used to determine associations between factors.Results: Response rate was 60.1% (318/529) and the mean empathy score was 106.19. Scores can range from 20 to 140,with higher scores representing a greater degree of empathy. There was no significant difference between genders (p=0.211). There was a significant difference in scores across the four levels of the programme (p<0.001); scores were lowest at Level 1 and greatest at Level 4 (final year). There were no significant differences in scores for respondents who had a part-time job, a chronic condition, or took regular medication in comparison to those who did not (p=0.028,p=0.880, p=0.456, respectively).Conclusion: A reasonable level of empathy was found relative to other studies; this could be further enhanced at lower levels of the degree pathway.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".