Personality Traits and Empathy in Relation to Attitudes About Communication Between Medical Students and Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medical profession requires continuous knowledge acquisition, effective communication skills, an appropriate level of empathy, and a personality profile that can support high-quality patient care. (1) The purpose of this study was to research whether there are associations or correlations between personality dimensions, empathy, and the attitudes of medical students regarding the learning of communication skills. (2) We conducted a pilot study with 267 first- and sixth-year medical students from the George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences, and Technology of Targu Mures as the subjects. The students were evaluated using the DECAS personality inventory, the Romanian communication skills ability scale, and Toronto empathy scale. (3) Our results showed that regarding the level of empathy (p = 0.09) and positive attitudes related to communication skills (p = 0.52), there were no statistically significant differences between first- and sixth-year medical students. On the other hand, in the case of negative attitudes, it was observed that there was a statistical significance (p = 0.0003). It was also observed that there was a positive association between agreeableness and empathy (OR = 6.12, p < 0.0001) and a negative association between emotional stability and empathy (OR = 0.45, p = 0.01). Correlations were also found between positive attitudes related to communication skills with patients and the personality dimensions of conscientiousness (r = 0.21, p = 0.0004) and agreeableness (r = 0.15, p = 0.01), as well as between negative attitudes related to communication skills with patients and the agreeableness dimension (r = −0.23, p = 0.0001) and emotional stability dimension (r = −0.13, p = 0.02). Furthermore, the two proposed models confirmed the influence that personality and empathy have on attitudes towards learning communication skills. (4) The findings of this study show that both the personality structure and the empathy of a student are linked to their attitudes about communication.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".