Interprofessional Intentional Empathy Centered Care (IP-IECC) in Healthcare Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training interprofessional healthcare teams continues to advance practice for patient-centered care. Empathy research is also advancing and has been explored in social work, psychology, and other healthcare areas. In the absence of understanding empathy in an interprofessional setting, educators are limited in preparing teams to develop empathy as part of core competencies This grounded theory study explored for a theory of how interprofessional healthcare teams conceptualize and operationalize empathy in their practice. Azjen's theory of planned behavior and Barrett-Lennard's cyclical model of empathy framed the study. Data were collected using 6 focus groups and 24 semistructured interviews of varied healthcare professionals working in an interprofessional setting in Ontario, Canada. Systematic data analysis utilizing Auerbach and Silverstein's (2003) approach revealed participants engaged in and valued empathy as a team. Empathy was identified as purposeful and intentional behaviors believed to be meaningful for positive patient outcomes. In addition, professionals identified the role of genuine intent in the practice of empathy. As a result of this study, a grounded theory of interprofessional intentional empathy centered care explains the conceptualization and operationalization of empathy in practice. Collective empathy in an interprofessional team model contributes to improved patient outcomes. The work of this study ascertains that empathy is not accidental; it should be cultivated in the form of intentional and genuine team experiences. This study advances social change by further identifying how the practice of empathy can be integrated into interprofessional healthcare education and praxis.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 it