Patients’ Perceptions of Dental Students’ Empathic, Person‐Centered Care in a Dental School Clinic in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empathy has been identified as a crucial foundation in building an effective dentist-patient relationship. The aim of this study was to assess patients' perceptions of dental students' empathic care in the primary oral health care clinic at International Medical University in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in May-October 2014. The study also assessed the validity and reliability of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure in this setting; the association between number of encounters and students' CARE Measure scores; and the association between students' empathy (measured by the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire) and CARE Measure scores. Participants were 283 patients (aged ≥18 years) who were asked to self-complete the ten-item CARE Measure immediately after their clinical encounter with students who provided care under supervision of the teaching staff. The results showed that the CARE Measure demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.95). A single factor solution emerged, accounting for 69% of the variance. The mean CARE Measure score in the consultations was 43.55±6.14, and 26% of the students achieved the maximum possible score of 50. The mean number of encounters with each student was 2.33±2.78. An increase of one episode was associated with an insignificant average CARE score decrease of 0.05 (-0.28, 0.38), whereas students' empathy was associated with a small increase in average CARE Measure score of 0.63 (0.08, 1.18). These results provide evidence of the measure's ability to support feedback to dental students on their empathy when interacting with patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".