A Cross-Sectional Study of Empathy Among Healthcare and Non-Healthcare Students in Cyberjaya
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
Introduction: Empathy is a key psychological quality in current and future healthcare providers’ performance. Thus, fostering empathy in healthcare students has become a crucial component of their curriculum. Objective: This study attempted to compare empathy levels between healthcare and non-healthcare students and identify associated factors. Methods: The questionnaires used to collect the data which included the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and a self-reported sociodemographic inventory were completed by 311 students within Cyberjaya by convenience sampling. Descriptive statistics, independent t-test, and One-Way ANOVA were conducted for data analysis with a significant p-value of <0.05. Results: The mean empathy score for healthcare students was significantly higher compared to non-healthcare students (p = 0.043). Empathy was also seen to be significantly associated with gender, female, family background, and self-esteem (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in self-esteem between healthcare and non-healthcare students. Conclusion: Hence, it is evident that students of healthcare studies exhibit more empathy compared to non-healthcare regardless of the multiple factors explored in this paper. Nevertheless, empathy prevails as an important value to be taken into account by healthcare educators to instill this value in those majoring in this field to create a more warm and welcoming healthcare industry for the people.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it