Evaluating the Effectiveness of Empathy-Based Education in Undergraduate Nursing: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article has been amended to include factual corrections. An error was identified subsequent to its original publication. This error was acknowledged on page 6, volume 64, issue 1. The online article and its erratum are considered the version of record. Background: Empathy is an essential trait in nursing practice that improves the quality of patient care. Nursing curricula that incorporate empathy-based experiential learning (i.e., hands-on educational experiences and reflections designed to foster and develop emotional intelligence) promote students' self-awareness and confidence when providing care to patients. This scoping review examined studies that explored the effects of educational interventions on the development of empathy in undergraduate nursing students. Method: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE using keywords related to nursing education and translated into CINAHL, EMBASE, and ERIC databases. Results: A total of 6,238 studies were identified. After duplicate and unrelated articles were excluded, 18 publications were considered for this review. Sixteen studies concluded empathy interventions were effective, five indicated the need for further research, and two implicated a need for standardization in empathy-evaluation tools. Conclusion: This review endorses the effectiveness of educational interventions and supports their implementation to promote empathy in undergraduate nursing students. [ J Nurs Educ . 2024;63(6):367–371.]
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".