Article contents
The Empathic Process and Misconceptions that Lead to Burnout in Healthcare Professionals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 December 2017
Abstract
Empathy has been identified as a relevant variable in order to predict burnout in healthcare professionals. In addition, assertiveness and self-esteem have been considered relevant variables to develop empathic capacity. In the other hand, misconceptions surrounding empathy constitute a risk factor for burnout. Two adult samples (N = 252 and N = 275) were used to explore and confirm the underlying structure of two questionnaires. The Exercise of Process of Empathy (EPE) scale (18 items) confirmatory factor analysis including 5 dimensions (cognitive and emotional comprehension, attention, clarity and assertiveness), showed reasonable goodness- of-fit indices χ2(130) = 269.63, p < .001; RMSEA = .069 90% CI [0.058 – 0.079]; CFI = .965; TLI = .959. Alpha coefficient resulted .848. Common Misconceptions (EH) of empathy scale (16 items) confirmatory factor analysis, including 3 dimensions (feeling, confluence and character misconceptions) also obtained reasonable goodness-of-fit indices χ2(101) = 250.59, p < .001; RMSEA = .075 90% CI [0.063 – 0.087]; CFI = .952; TLI = .943. Alpha coefficient for Character resulted .727 (5 items), for Confluence .764 (5 items) and for Feeling .822 (6 items). The SEM model’s R2 resulted .303, being EH (misconceptions) a risk factor (b* = .171), EPE (empathy process) a protection factor (b* = –.183). The model partially explains how misconceptions empathy process and self-esteem (b* = –.334) relate to burnout syndrome in healthcare professionals; what is more, it heralds a potential means to prevent it.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2017
Footnotes
Villacieros, M., Olmos, R., & Bermejo, J.C. (2017). The empathic process and misconceptions that lead to burnout in healthcare professionals. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20. e68. Doi:10.1017/sjp.2017.66
References
- 2
- Cited by