Program Leaders’ and Educators’ Perspectives on the Factors Impacting the Implementation and Sustainment of Compassion Training Programs: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PHENOMENON: Training programs have been used to improve compassion in healthcare, but the factors necessary to make such programs successful and sustainable have not been identified. This thematic analysis aimed to bridge the gap between theory and practice by drawing on the experiences of international leaders and educators of compassion training programs to develop a clear understanding of what is relevant and effective and how compassion training is implemented and sustained. APPROACH: International leaders and educators of compassion training programs (N = 15) were identified through convenience sampling based on academic and gray literature searches. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews with these participants were conducted between June 2020 and November 2020 in order to identify facilitators, barriers, and environmental conditions influencing the implementation and maintenance of compassion training programs. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Six categories affecting the operationalization of compassion training programs were identified 1) origins, foundational principles and purpose, 2) curricular content, 3) methods of teaching and learning, 4) trainer qualities, 5) challenges and facilitators, and 6) evaluation and impact. INSIGHTS: Compassion training should be rooted in the construct of interest and incorporate patients' needs and their experience of compassion, with patient-reported compassion scores integrated before and after training. Compassion training should be delivered by highly qualified educators who have an understanding of the challenges associated with integrating compassion into clinical practice, a dedicated contemplative practice, and a compassionate presence in the classroom. Prior to implementing compassion training, leadership support should be secured to create an ethos of compassion throughout the organization.
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 | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".