Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2002 Nov;52(484):901–905.

The importance of empathy in the enablement of patients attending the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital.

Stewart W Mercer 1, David Reilly 1, Graham C M Watt 1
PMCID: PMC1314441  PMID: 12434958

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient enablement in general practice is known to be limited by consultation length. However, the processes within the consultation that lead to enablement are not well understood. AIMS: To investigate patient enablement in a setting where time is less of a constraint than in primary care, in order to determine the importance of other factors in enablement. DESIGN OF STUDY: Exploratory questionnaire-based study. SETTING: Two hundred consecutive outpatients attending four doctors at the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital, an NHS-funded integrated complementary and orthodox medicine unit. METHOD: Information was collected on enablement and a range of other factors, including the patients expectations, their perception of the doctors empathy, and the doctors own confidence in the doctor-patient relationship. RESULTS: Although there were many factors that correlated with enablement, multi-regression analysis showed patients expectation, doctor's empathy (as perceived by the patient), and doctor's own confidence in the therapeutic relationship to be the three key factors. Together they accounted for 41% of the variation in enablement, with empathy being the single most important factor (66% of the explained variation in enablement). CONCLUSION: Patient enablement at the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital is mainly related to the patients perception of the doctor's empathy.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (73.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996 Jul;37(1):53–72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cromarty I. What do patients think about during their consultations? A qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 1996 Sep;46(410):525–528. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Di Blasi Z., Harkness E., Ernst E., Georgiou A., Kleijnen J. Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet. 2001 Mar 10;357(9258):757–762. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04169-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gore J., Ogden J. Developing, validating and consolidating the doctor-patient relationship: the patients' views of a dynamic process. Br J Gen Pract. 1998 Jul;48(432):1391–1394. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Howie J. G., Heaney D. J., Maxwell M., Walker J. J. A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract. 1998 Apr;15(2):165–171. doi: 10.1093/fampra/15.2.165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Howie J. G., Heaney D. J., Maxwell M., Walker J. J., Freeman G. K. Developing a 'consultation quality index' (CQI) for use in general practice. Fam Pract. 2000 Dec;17(6):455–461. doi: 10.1093/fampra/17.6.455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Howie J. G., Heaney D. J., Maxwell M., Walker J. J., Freeman G. K., Rai H. Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):738–743. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kind P., Dolan P., Gudex C., Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998 Mar 7;316(7133):736–741. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7133.736. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. London M. Motivating the back injury patient. Rehab Manag. 1999 Feb-Mar;12(2):46-8, 81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rees L., Weil A. Integrated medicine. BMJ. 2001 Jan 20;322(7279):119–120. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7279.119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Reilly D. Enhancing human healing. BMJ. 2001 Jan 20;322(7279):120–121. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7279.120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Reynolds W. J., Scott B. Do nurses and other professional helpers normally display much empathy? J Adv Nurs. 2000 Jan;31(1):226–234. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01242.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Stott N. C., Davis R. H. The exceptional potential in each primary care consultation. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1979 Apr;29(201):201–205. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Taylor M. B. Compassion: its neglect and importance. Br J Gen Pract. 1997 Aug;47(421):521–523. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Vincent C., Furnham A. Why do patients turn to complementary medicine? An empirical study. Br J Clin Psychol. 1996 Feb;35(Pt 1):37–48. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1996.tb01160.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wolfe F., Kong S. X., Watson D. J. Gastrointestinal symptoms and health related quality of life in patients with arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2000 Jun;27(6):1373–1378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES