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
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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Leader
BMJ Leader Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.40%
发文量
57
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信