IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v10y2017i4d10.1007_s40271-016-0209-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Compassion in Healthcare: A Comprehensive and Critical Review

Author

Listed:
  • Shane Sinclair

    (University of Calgary)

  • Lara B. Russell

    (University of Victoria
    Providence Health Care)

  • Thomas F. Hack

    (CancerCare Manitoba
    University of Manitoba)

  • Jane Kondejewski

    (University of Calgary)

  • Richard Sawatzky

    (Providence Health Care
    Trinity Western University)

Abstract

Background There is international concern about the lack of compassion in healthcare systems. A valid and reliable tool for measuring compassion in healthcare systems and educational institutions is required. This comprehensive and critical narrative synthesis identified and compared existing measures of compassionate care in clinical settings. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases and grey literature were searched to identify studies that report information on instruments that measure compassion or compassionate care in clinicians, nurses, healthcare students and patients. Textual qualitative descriptions of included studies were prepared. Instruments were evaluated using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. Results Nine studies containing information on the Compassion Competence Scale, a self-report instrument that measures compassion competence among Korean nurses; the Compassion Scale, the Compassionate Care Assessment Tool©, and the Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale™, patient-reported instruments that measure the importance of healthcare provider compassion; the Compassion Practices Scale, an instrument that measures organisational support for compassionate care; and instruments that measure compassion in educational institutions (instructional quality and a Geriatric Attitudes Scale), were included. Each instrument is associated with significant limitations. Most only measure certain aspects of compassion and lack evidence of adaptability to diverse practice settings. The EMPRO of self-report instruments revealed a lack of psychometric information on measurement reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability, respondent, administrative and scoring burden, and use in subpopulations. Conclusion The findings of this narrative synthesis identified an unmet need for a psychometrically validated instrument that comprehensively measures the construct of compassion in healthcare settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Shane Sinclair & Lara B. Russell & Thomas F. Hack & Jane Kondejewski & Richard Sawatzky, 2017. "Measuring Compassion in Healthcare: A Comprehensive and Critical Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(4), pages 389-405, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0209-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0209-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-016-0209-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-016-0209-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Noorhidayu Monyati Mohamed Noor & Mohd Ismail Ibrahim & Suhaily Mohd Hairon & Maizun Mohd Zain & Mohd Saiful Nazri Satiman, 2022. "Validation and Translation of the Relational Aspect of Care Questionnaire into the Malay Language (RAC-QM) to Evaluate the Compassionate Care Level of Healthcare Workers from the Patient’s Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-15, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0209-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.