Does watching a movie improve empathy? A cluster randomized controlled trial
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
BACKGROUND: We studied if watching a movie about the patient physician encounter alone or in combination with a communication skills training workshop could improve empathy score of medical students. METHODS: One hundred and thirty three medical students participated in one of the following four groups of the study. Group A: a three hour workshop (42 students); group B: watching the movie "The Doctor" (23 students); group C: watching the movie "The Doctor", then, participating in a three hour workshop the next day (22 students); group D: control group with no intervention (46 students). Participants completed Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE), Student Version to assess empathy score before and after the intervention, and one month later. A linear mixed effect model analyzed the effect of intervention across groups considering the effects of other significant variables. RESULTS: All of the three interventions had an immediate improving effect on empathy scores compared to control group. However, the improvement effect remained significant only in groups A (p=.015) and C (p=.001) one month later. CONCLUSIONS: Watching selected movies has a significant but transient effect on empathy of students. Combining two methods of watching the movie and communication skills workshop, seems to add the beneficial effects.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.182 | 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 it