Compassionate Behavior of Clinical Faculty: Associations with Role Modelling and Gender Specific Differences.

Rosa Bogerd, Milou E W M Silkens, Benjamin Boerebach, Jos�� P S Henriques, Kiki M J M H Lombarts
Author Information
  1. Rosa Bogerd: Professional Performance and Compassionate Care Research Group, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands. ORCID
  2. Milou E W M Silkens: Erasmus School of Healthcare Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. ORCID
  3. Benjamin Boerebach: St. Antonius Hospital Emergency Medicine Department, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. ORCID
  4. Jos�� P S Henriques: Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. ORCID
  5. Kiki M J M H Lombarts: Professional Performance and Compassionate Care Research Group, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. ORCID

Abstract

Introduction: For future doctors, learning compassion skills is heavily dependent on female and male faculty's role modelling in practice. As such, more insight into the relationships between faculty's compassionate behavior, faculty gender and role modelling is needed.
Methods: In this cross-sectional survey, we analyzed 12416 resident evaluations of 2399 faculty members across 22 Dutch hospitals. The predictor variables were: observed compassionate behavior, faculty gender (reference category: female), and an interaction term between those two. Our outcome variables were: person, teacher and physician role model. All variables, except for faculty gender, were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 "totally disagree" to 7 "totally agree".
Results: Female faculty scored slightly but significantly higher (M = 6.2, SD = 0.7) than male faculty (M = 5.9, SD = 0.6) on observed compassionate behavior. Observed compassionate behavior was significantly positively associated with being seen as a role model teacher (b = 0.695; 95% CI = 0.623 - 0.767), physician (b = 0.657; 95% CI = 0.598 - 0.716) and person (b = 0.714; 95% CI = 0.653 - 0.775). Male gender showed significant negative associations with role model teacher (b = -0.847; 95% CI = -1.431 - -0.262), physician (b = -0.630, 95% CI = -1.111 - -0.149) and person (b = -0.601, 95% CI = -1.099 - -0.103). The interaction term showed positive significant associations with role model teacher (b = 0.157, 95% CI = 0.061 - 0.767), physician (b = 0.116, 95% CI = 0.037 - 0.194) and person (b = 0.102, 95% CI = 0.021 - 0.183).
Discussion: Dutch residents, in general, observed their faculty to be compassionate towards patients and families and faculty's observed compassionate behavior is related to being seen as a role model. However, male faculty benefit more from demonstrating compassion, as it has a greater positive influence on their perceived role model status compared to female faculty.

References

  1. Med Educ. 2016 Mar;50(3):264-6 [PMID: 26896006]
  2. Acad Med. 2014 Jun;89(6):934-9 [PMID: 24871246]
  3. CMAJ. 1998 Oct 6;159(7):765-9 [PMID: 9805021]
  4. BMC Med Educ. 2020 Sep 22;20(1):325 [PMID: 32962692]
  5. Perspect Med Educ. 2016 Apr;5(2):125-128 [PMID: 27001528]
  6. PLoS One. 2024 Jul 10;19(7):e0305007 [PMID: 38985731]
  7. Soc Sci Med. 1996 Oct;43(8):1253-61 [PMID: 8903130]
  8. PLoS One. 2010 Dec 29;5(12):e15202 [PMID: 21206906]
  9. Surgery. 1999 Feb;125(2):127-34 [PMID: 10026744]
  10. Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Sep;159(9):1563-9 [PMID: 12202278]
  11. J Surg Educ. 2021 Jul-Aug;78(4):1182-1188 [PMID: 33257299]
  12. JAMA. 2020 Jan 7;323(1):70-81 [PMID: 31910284]
  13. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Sep;80(3):315-20 [PMID: 20638813]
  14. Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1672-85 [PMID: 24305037]
  15. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Mar;37(4):714-722 [PMID: 34405349]
  16. N Engl J Med. 2022 Mar 31;386(13):1284-1287 [PMID: 35353969]
  17. J Am Board Fam Med. 2011 May-Jun;24(3):229-39 [PMID: 21551394]
  18. Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Jun;95(3):313-8 [PMID: 24731957]
  19. J Surg Educ. 2021 Nov-Dec;78(6):e100-e111 [PMID: 34750078]
  20. Acad Med. 2002 Apr;77(4):323-8 [PMID: 11953298]
  21. Patient Educ Couns. 2016 May;99(5):733-8 [PMID: 26654958]
  22. Perspect Med Educ. 2019 Dec;8(6):346-352 [PMID: 31728840]
  23. J Am Med Womens Assoc (1972). 2003 Spring;58(2):69-75 [PMID: 12744418]
  24. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32089 [PMID: 22427818]
  25. Med Educ. 2016 Mar;50(3):332-42 [PMID: 26896018]
  26. BMC Palliat Care. 2016 Jan 19;15:6 [PMID: 26786417]
  27. Int J Med Educ. 2020 Jan 30;11:31-36 [PMID: 32007950]
  28. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Mar;37(4):900-911 [PMID: 34545471]
  29. BMC Palliat Care. 2022 May 18;21(1):80 [PMID: 35585622]
  30. Psychol Bull. 2010 May;136(3):351-74 [PMID: 20438142]
  31. Acad Med. 2013 Jan;88(1):26-34 [PMID: 23165277]
  32. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Mar;81(3):338-44 [PMID: 16529138]
  33. Health Expect. 2022 Aug;25(4):1691-1702 [PMID: 35661516]
  34. JAMA. 2006 Sep 6;296(9):1071-8 [PMID: 16954486]
  35. Acad Med. 2011 Mar;86(3):359-64 [PMID: 21248604]
  36. PLoS One. 2011 May 03;6(5):e19142 [PMID: 21559275]
  37. Med Educ. 2000 Aug;34(8):630-4 [PMID: 10964210]
  38. Acad Med. 2004 Sep;79(9):832-9 [PMID: 15326005]
  39. Anesthesiology. 2016 Nov;125(5):1056-1065 [PMID: 27606931]
  40. BMC Med Educ. 2024 Jan 17;24(1):72 [PMID: 38233807]
  41. West J Med. 1994 Apr;160(4):335-7 [PMID: 8023482]
  42. BMJ. 2007 Jul 28;335(7612):184-7 [PMID: 17656543]
  43. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2021 Apr 1;41(2):94-103 [PMID: 34009839]
  44. Med Educ. 2012 Apr;46(4):381-9 [PMID: 22429174]
  45. Anesthesiology. 2009 Oct;111(4):709-16 [PMID: 19707115]
  46. BMJ. 2008 Mar 29;336(7646):718-21 [PMID: 18369229]
  47. Eval Health Prof. 2016 Mar;39(1):21-32 [PMID: 25280728]
  48. J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Jul;23(7):948-53 [PMID: 18612722]
  49. Med Hypotheses. 2017 Sep;107:92-97 [PMID: 28915973]
  50. J Educ Health Promot. 2022 Mar 23;11:92 [PMID: 35573607]
  51. Acad Med. 2016 Feb;91(2):215-20 [PMID: 26200579]
  52. Med Teach. 2013 Sep;35(9):e1422-36 [PMID: 23826717]
  53. Annu Rev Public Health. 2004;25:497-519 [PMID: 15015932]
  54. Perspect Med Educ. 2017 Feb;6(1):44-50 [PMID: 27987074]

MeSH Term

Humans
Female
Empathy
Male
Cross-Sectional Studies
Faculty, Medical
Netherlands
Sex Factors
Adult
Surveys and Questionnaires
Internship and Residency
Attitude of Health Personnel

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0=0facultyb95%CI-rolecompassionatemodel-0behaviorgenderobservedpersonteacherphysicianfemalemalefaculty'svariables-1compassionmodellingDutchwere:interactiontermscored"totally7significantlyM6SDseen767showedsignificantassociationspositiveIntroduction:futuredoctorslearningskillsheavilydependentpracticeinsightrelationshipsneededMethods:cross-sectionalsurveyanalyzed12416residentevaluations2399membersacross22hospitalspredictorreferencecategory:twooutcomeexcept7-pointLikertscaleranging1disagree"agree"Results:Femaleslightlyhigher259Observedpositivelyassociated695623657598716714653775Malenegative847431262630111149601099103157061116037194102021183Discussion:residentsgeneraltowardspatientsfamiliesrelatedHoweverbenefitdemonstratinggreaterinfluenceperceivedstatuscomparedCompassionateBehaviorClinicalFaculty:AssociationsRoleModellingGenderSpecificDifferences

Similar Articles

Cited By