Conceptualization, use, and outcomes associated with empathy and compassion in physical medicine and rehabilitation: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this review is to scope the literature on the conceptualization, use, and outcomes associated with empathy and compassion in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Eligible studies included quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research that presented primary data on the conceptualization, use, and outcomes associated with empathy and compassion in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Relevant studies were identified through CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PEDRO. Twenty-four studies were included (participant n = 3715): 13 quantitative, six mixed-methods, and five qualitative. In qualitative analysis, empathy and compassion were conceptualized as both intrinsic and exhibitory. Where self-compassion was examined as an intervention for patients, improvements in anxiety, depression, and quality of life were reported. Survey data suggested that when rehabilitation health care providers were perceived to be more empathic, patients reported greater treatment satisfaction, acceptance, adherence, and goal attainment. Individuals receiving and health care providers who deliver rehabilitative care conceptualize empathy and compassion as valuable in physical medicine and rehabilitation settings, with cognitive and behavioural elements described. Health care provider empathy and compassion-based interventions may influence outcomes positively in this context. More research is needed to understand the mechanisms of action of empathy and compassion and effectiveness in physical medicine and rehabilitation settings.
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 | 0.014 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".