Family Practice Advance Access originally published online on November 4, 2004
Family Practice 2004 21(6):699-705; doi:10.1093/fampra/cmh621
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Family Practice Vol. 21, No. 6 © Oxford University Press 2004, all rights reserved.
The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure
a General Practice and Primary Care, Division of Community-based Sciences, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow G12 9LX, b Department of Community Health Sciences—General Practice Section, University of Edinburgh, 20 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9DX, and c Highlands and Islands Health Research Institute, University of Aberdeen, The Greenhouse, Beechwood Business Park North, Inverness IV2 3ED, UK
Email: stewmercer{at}blueyonder.co.uk
Background. Empathy is a key aspect of the clinical encounter but there is a lack of patient-assessed measures suitable for general clinical settings.
Objectives. Our aim was to develop a consultation process measure based on a broad definition of empathy, which is meaningful to patients irrespective of their socio-economic background.
Methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field.
Results. The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly skewed distribution (skew –1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less skewed distribution (skew –0.634, kurtosis –0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients).
Conclusions. These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients' perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.
Keywords. Consultation, empathy, general practice, primary care.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. S C Fung, A. Hua, L. Tam, and S. W Mercer Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the CARE Measure in a primary care setting in Hong Kong Fam. Pract., October 1, 2009; 26(5): 398 - 406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. R. Wheatley, M. A. Kelley, N. Peacock, and J. Delgado Women's Narratives on Quality in Prenatal Care: A Multicultural Perspective Qual Health Res, November 1, 2008; 18(11): 1586 - 1598. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. G Evans, A. Edwards, S. Evans, B. Elwyn, and G. Elwyn Assessing the practising physician using patient surveys: a systematic review of instruments and feedback methods Fam. Pract., April 1, 2007; 24(2): 117 - 127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Zhang, J. Rohrer, T. Borders, and T. Farrell Patient Satisfaction, Self-Rated Health Status, and Health Confidence: An Assessment of the Utility of Single-Item Questions American Journal of Medical Quality, January 1, 2007; 22(1): 42 - 49. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. W Mercer, A. McConnachie, M. Maxwell, D. Heaney, and G. C. Watt Relevance and practical use of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure in general practice Fam. Pract., June 1, 2005; 22(3): 328 - 334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|