Department of Sociology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Health (London). 2022 Jul;26(4):475-494. doi: 10.1177/1363459320967055. Epub 2020 Oct 19.
Citing their students' low levels of empathy, medical educators have scrambled to implement curricula with the hopes of buffering against the corrosive effects of biomedical and clinical experiences in medical school. The assumption undergirding these studies by social scientists and medical educators alike is that immersion in biomedical education and clinical experience erodes students' empathic capacities, and that exposure to humanities and social sciences content will amend these losses. But we do not know if this assumption is correct. In this project, we empirically assess this assumption by utilizing a unique data set constructed from student applicant and survey data from the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). We test whether medical school students ( = 8255) from the United States (U.S.) with different academic backgrounds represented by their college major have different levels of empathy, net of demographic control variables. We report two findings. First, we find that students who majored in humanities or interpretive social sciences disciplines have higher empathy scores than their peers who majored in the positivistic social sciences and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines. Second, we find that the relationship between empathy and time in medical school is more nuanced than we would expect from the existing literature.
由于学生同理心水平较低,医学教育工作者竞相实施课程,希望能够缓冲医学院生物医学和临床经验的腐蚀性影响。社会科学家和医学教育工作者进行这些研究的假设是,沉浸在生物医学教育和临床经验中会削弱学生的同理心能力,而接触人文和社会科学内容将弥补这些损失。但我们不知道这个假设是否正确。在这个项目中,我们通过利用美国医学院申请服务(AMCAS)和美国医学院协会(AAMC)从学生申请人和调查数据中构建的独特数据集,从实证上评估了这一假设。我们测试了来自美国的医学生(n=8255),他们的专业代表了不同的学术背景,是否在控制了人口统计学变量后具有不同的同理心水平。我们报告了两个发现。首先,我们发现主修人文或解释性社会科学学科的学生比主修实证社会科学和 STEM(科学、技术、工程和数学)学科的学生具有更高的同理心分数。其次,我们发现同理心与医学院学习时间之间的关系比我们从现有文献中预期的要复杂。