BackgroundPhysician empathy is both theoretically and empirically critical to patient health, but research indicates that empathy declines throughout medical school and is lower than ideal among physicians. In this paper, we synthesize the published literature regarding interventions that were quantitatively evaluated to detect changes in empathy among medical students, residents, fellows and physicians.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and PsychINFO in June of 2014 to identify articles that quantitatively assessed changes in empathy due to interventions among medical students, residents, fellows and physicians.ResultsOf the 1,415 articles identified, 64 met inclusion criteria. We qualitatively synthesized the findings of qualified studies by extracting data for ten study metrics: 1) source population, 2) sample size, 3) control group, 4) random assignment, 5) intervention type, 6) intervention duration, 7) assessment strategy, 8) type of outcome measure, 9) outcome assessment time frame, and 10) whether a statistically significant increase in empathy was reported. Overall, the 64 included studies were characterized by relatively poor research designs, insufficient reporting of intervention procedures, low incidence of patient-report empathy assessment measures, and inadequate evaluations of long-term efficacy. 8 of 10 studies with highly rigorous designs, however, found that targeted interventions did increase empathy.ConclusionsPhysician empathy appears to be an important aspect of patient and physician well-being. Although the current empathy intervention literature is limited by a variety of methodological weaknesses, a sample of high-quality study designs provides initial support for the notion that physician empathy can be enhanced through interventions. Future research should strive to increase the sample of high-quality designs through more randomized, controlled studies with valid measures, explicit reporting of intervention strategies and procedures, and long-term efficacy assessments.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-219) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IMPORTANCE Parents’ beliefs about what they need to do to be a good parent when their children are seriously ill influence their medical decisions, and better understanding of these beliefs may improve decision support. OBJECTIVE To assess parents’ perceptions regarding the relative importance of 12 good-parent attributes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A cross-sectional, discrete-choice experiment was conducted at a children’s hospital. Participants included 200 parents of children with serious illness. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Ratings of 12 good-parent attributes, with subsequent use of latent class analysis to identify groups of parents with similar ratings of attributes, and ascertainment of whether membership in a particular group was associated with demographic or clinical characteristics. RESULTS The highest-ranked good-parent attribute was making sure that my child feels loved, followed by focusing on my child’s health, making informed medical care decisions, and advocating for my child with medical staff. We identified 4 groups of parents with similar patterns of good-parent–attribute ratings, which we labeled as: child feels loved (n = 68), child’s health (n = 56), advocacy and informed (n = 55), and spiritual well-being (n = 21). Compared with the other groups, the child’s health group reported more financial difficulties, was less educated, and had a higher proportion of children with new complex, chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Parents endorse a broad range of beliefs that represent what they perceive they should do to be a good parent for their seriously ill child. Common patterns of how parents prioritize these attributes exist, suggesting future research to better understand the origins and development of good-parent beliefs among these parents. More important, engaging parents individually regarding what they perceive to be the core duties they must fulfill to be a good parent may enable more customized and effective decision support.

Although clinicians may value respecting a patient' s or surrogate' s autonomy in decision-making, it is not always clear how to proceed in clinical practice. The confusion results, in part, from which conception of autonomy is used to guide ethical practice. Reliance on an individualistic conception such as the "in-control agent" model prioritizes self-sufficiency in decision-making and highlights a decisionmaker' s capacity to have reason transcend one' s emotional experience. An alternative model of autonomy, relational autonomy, highlights the social context within which all individuals exist and acknowledges the emotional and embodied aspects of decision-makers. These 2 conceptions of autonomy lead to different interpretations of several aspects of ethical decision-making. The in-control agent model believes patients or surrogates should avoid both the influence of others and emotional persuasion in decision-making. As a result, providers have a limited role to play and are expected to provide medical expertise but not interfere with the individual' s decisionmaking process. In contrast, a relational autonomy approach acknowledges the central role of others in decision-making, including clinicians, who have a responsibility to engage patients' and surrogates' emotional experiences and offer clear guidance when patients are confronting serious illness. In the pediatric setting, in which decision-making is complicated by having a surrogate decisionmaker in addition to a patient, these conceptions of autonomy also may influence expectations about the role that adolescents can play in decision-making. Pediatrics 2014;133:S16-S23

Most deaths in a children's hospital occur in ICUs after the withdrawal of life-sustaining technology. Race and palliative care involvement may influence the manner of a child's death.