Kindness: Poor cousin or equal kin to Compassion and Empathy in the Healthcare Literature? A Scoping Review.

IF 1.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Leader Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI:10.1136/leader-2024-001034
Nicki Macklin, Laura Wilkinson-Meyers, Anthony Dowell
{"title":"Kindness: Poor cousin or equal kin to Compassion and Empathy in the Healthcare Literature? A Scoping Review.","authors":"Nicki Macklin, Laura Wilkinson-Meyers, Anthony Dowell","doi":"10.1136/leader-2024-001034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review seeks to understand how kindness, compassion and empathy are defined and conceptualised within existing healthcare services literature.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Little consensus exists on how healthcare literature defines and conceptualises kindness. Kindness is often conflated with the terms compassion and empathy, which both have more prominence in the literature. However, evidence would suggest that all three terms are indeed different. To advance kindness as a key tenet of quality improvement and human experience outcomes in healthcare, a consensual definition must be established in the evidence base.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed published research identified using search queries across five databases and one search engine. Studies were included in this review if the definition, measurement and/or conceptualisation of kindness, empathy and/or compassion were stated objectives of the work and the research was directly relevant to healthcare settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1348 results were screened, and with additional snowballing of some articles for relevant references, 107 progressed to full-text screening. Forty-two articles were subsequently included in this scoping review. By synthesising this evidence, we establish key commonalities and differences for kindness, compassion and empathy. We present a model for understanding how empathy, compassion and kindness can be viewed on a stimulus-response-action continuum. We also explore the definitional challenges expressed by many authors who call for these terms to be treated as separate concepts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review evidence demonstrates that kindness, compassion and empathy have clear themes that stand them apart, and they occupy different places on the stimulus-response-action continuum. Importantly, kindness deserves its own place in literature as a primary concept, not as a second tier to compassion or empathy. By comparing each term, these positions are now highlighted. They can help us to more articulately define, conceptualise and value kindness, compassion and empathy for their unique contributions to the humanity of healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":36677,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Leader","volume":" ","pages":"293-304"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Leader","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2024-001034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This scoping review seeks to understand how kindness, compassion and empathy are defined and conceptualised within existing healthcare services literature.

Introduction: Little consensus exists on how healthcare literature defines and conceptualises kindness. Kindness is often conflated with the terms compassion and empathy, which both have more prominence in the literature. However, evidence would suggest that all three terms are indeed different. To advance kindness as a key tenet of quality improvement and human experience outcomes in healthcare, a consensual definition must be established in the evidence base.

Methods: We reviewed published research identified using search queries across five databases and one search engine. Studies were included in this review if the definition, measurement and/or conceptualisation of kindness, empathy and/or compassion were stated objectives of the work and the research was directly relevant to healthcare settings.

Results: 1348 results were screened, and with additional snowballing of some articles for relevant references, 107 progressed to full-text screening. Forty-two articles were subsequently included in this scoping review. By synthesising this evidence, we establish key commonalities and differences for kindness, compassion and empathy. We present a model for understanding how empathy, compassion and kindness can be viewed on a stimulus-response-action continuum. We also explore the definitional challenges expressed by many authors who call for these terms to be treated as separate concepts.

Conclusions: This review evidence demonstrates that kindness, compassion and empathy have clear themes that stand them apart, and they occupy different places on the stimulus-response-action continuum. Importantly, kindness deserves its own place in literature as a primary concept, not as a second tier to compassion or empathy. By comparing each term, these positions are now highlighted. They can help us to more articulately define, conceptualise and value kindness, compassion and empathy for their unique contributions to the humanity of healthcare.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在医疗文献中,善良是同情和同理心的穷表亲还是近亲?范围审查。
目的:本综述旨在了解仁慈、同情和共情是如何在现有的医疗服务文献中定义和概念化的。关于医疗文献如何定义和概念化善良,几乎没有共识。善良经常与同情和同理心这两个词混为一谈,这两个词在文学作品中都更为突出。然而,有证据表明,这三个术语确实是不同的。为了将善良作为医疗保健质量改进和人类体验结果的关键原则,必须在证据基础上建立一个共识定义。方法:我们回顾了在五个数据库和一个搜索引擎中使用搜索查询确定的已发表的研究。如果仁慈、共情和/或同情的定义、测量和/或概念化是研究的既定目标,并且研究与医疗保健环境直接相关,则本综述将纳入研究。结果:共筛选1348个结果,加上一些相关参考文献的滚雪球效应,107个结果进入全文筛选。42篇文章随后被纳入这一范围审查。通过综合这些证据,我们建立了善良、同情和同理心的关键共性和差异。我们提出了一个模型来理解同理心、同情和善良是如何在刺激-反应-行动连续体中被看待的。我们还探讨了许多作者所表达的定义挑战,他们呼吁将这些术语视为单独的概念。结论:本综述证据表明,善良、同情和共情具有明确的主题,它们在刺激-反应-行动连续体中占据不同的位置。重要的是,善良应该在文学中作为一个主要概念占有一席之地,而不是作为同情或同理心的第二层。通过比较每个术语,这些位置现在被突出显示。它们可以帮助我们更清楚地定义、概念化和重视善良、同情和同理心,因为它们对人类医疗保健的独特贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Leader
BMJ Leader Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.40%
发文量
57
期刊最新文献
Winding up to wind down: designing the end of one's medical career with intentionality. Diagnosing conflict in clerkship: insights from medical students' experiences. The Kind Organisation. 'What Matters to Staff Programme': eight steps to improve staff well-being at work. Impact of microgeography on communication dynamics in a healthcare environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1