Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

Digital clinical empathy in a live chat: multiple findings from a formative qualitative study and usability tests

Authors: Hanna Luetke Lanfer, Doreen Reifegerste, Winja Weber, Paula Memenga, Eva Baumann, Julia Geulen, Stefanie Klein, Anne Müller, Andrea Hahne, Susanne Weg-Remers

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Background

Clinical empathy is considered a crucial element in patient-centered care. The advent of digital technology in healthcare has introduced new dynamics to empathy which needs to be explored in the context of the technology, particularly within the context of written live chats. Given the growing prevalence of written live chats, this study aimed to explore and evaluate techniques of digital clinical empathy within a familial cancer-focused live chat, focusing on how health professionals can (a) understand, (b) communicate, and (c) act upon users’ perspectives and emotional states.

Methods

The study utilized a qualitative approach in two research phases. It examined the expected and implemented techniques and effectiveness of digital clinical empathy in a live chat service, involving semi-structured interviews with health professionals (n = 9), focus group discussions with potential users (n = 42), and two rounds of usability tests between health professionals (n = 9) and users (n = 18). Data were examined using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Expected techniques of digital clinical empathy, as articulated by both users and health professionals, involve reciprocal engagement, timely responses, genuine authenticity, and a balance between professionalism and informality, all while going beyond immediate queries to facilitate informed decision-making. Usability tests confirm these complexities and introduce new challenges, such as balancing timely, authentic responses with effective, personalized information management and carefully framed referrals.

Conclusions

The study reveals that the digital realm adds layers of complexity to the practice of clinical empathy. It underscores the importance of ongoing adaptation and suggests that future developments could benefit from a hybrid model that integrates the strengths of both AI and human health professionals to meet evolving user needs and maintain high-quality, empathetic healthcare interactions.

Available only for authorised users

Leiberg S, Anders S. The multiple facets of empathy: a survey of theory and evidence. Prog Brain Res. 2006;156:419–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(06)56023-6.CrossRefPubMed

Batson CD. These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena. In: Decety J, Ickes W, editors. The Social Neuroscience of Empathy: The MIT Press; 2009. p. 3–16. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0002.

Ekman E, Krasner M. Empathy in medicine: Neuroscience, education and challenges. Med Teach. 2017;39:164–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1248925.CrossRefPubMed

Maibom HL. Empathy. Abingdon, Oxon, York N. NY: Routledge, 2020.| Series: New problems of philosophy: Routledge; 2020.

Osler L. Taking empathy online. Inquiry. 2021;1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2021.1899045.

Sanders JJ, Dubey M, Hall JA, Catzen HZ, Blanch-Hartigan D, Schwartz R. What is empathy? Oncology patient perspectives on empathic clinician behaviors. Cancer. 2021;127:4258–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/CNCR.33834.CrossRefPubMed

van Vliet LM, Back AL. The different faces of empathy in cancer care: from a desired virtue to an evidence-based communication process. Cancer. 2021;127:4137–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33833.CrossRefPubMed

Hojat M, Maio V, Pohl CA, Gonnella JS. Clinical empathy: definition, measurement, correlates, group differences, erosion, enhancement, and healthcare outcomes. Discov Health Syst. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44250-023-00020-2.CrossRef

Derksen F, Bensing J, Lagro-Janssen A. Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63:e76–84. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660814.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Durkin J, Usher K, Jackson D. Embodying compassion: a systematic review of the views of nurses and patients. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28:1380–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14722.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Fragkos KC, Crampton PES. The effectiveness of Teaching Clinical Empathy to Medical students: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of Randomized controlled trials. Acad Med. 2020;95:947–57. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003058.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Wündrich M, Schwartz C, Feige B, Lemper D, Nissen C, Voderholzer U. Empathy training in medical students - a randomized controlled trial. Med Teach. 2017;39:1096–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1355451.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Arli SK, Bakan AB. An investigation of the relationship between intercultural sensitivity and compassion in nurses. Int J Intercultural Relations. 2018;63:38–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.12.001.CrossRef

14.

Mehnert-Theuerkauf A, Hufeld JM, Esser P, Goerling U, Hermann M, Zimmermann T, et al. Prevalence of mental disorders, psychosocial distress, and perceived need for psychosocial support in cancer patients and their relatives stratified by biopsychosocial factors: rationale, study design, and methods of a prospective multi-center observational cohort study (LUPE study). Front Psychol. 2023;14:1125545. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1125545.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Schwan D. Should physicians be empathetic? Rethinking clinical empathy. Theor Med Bioeth. 2018;39:347–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-018-9463-y.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Powell PA, Roberts J. Situational determinants of cognitive, affective, and compassionate empathy in naturalistic digital interactions. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;68:137–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.024.CrossRef

17.

Walther JB. Computer-mediated communication. Communication Res. 1996;23:3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001.ADSCrossRef

18.

Grondin F, Lomanowska AM, Jackson PL. Empathy in computer-mediated interactions: a conceptual framework for research and clinical practice. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2019;26:17. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12298.CrossRef

19.

Salmoiraghi A, Hussain S. A systematic review of the Use of Telepsychiatry in Acute Settings. J Psychiatr Pract. 2015;21:389–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRA.0000000000000103.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Yellowlees P, Richard Chan S, Burke Parish M. The hybrid doctor-patient relationship in the age of technology - telepsychiatry consultations and the use of virtual space. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015;27:476–89. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1082987.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Sperandeo R, Cioffi V, Mosca LL, Longobardi T, Moretto E, Alfano YM, et al. Exploring the question: does Empathy work in the same way in online and In-Person therapeutic settings? Front Psychol. 2021;12:671790. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671790.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Farber BA, Ort D. Clients’ Perceptions of Changes in Their Therapists’ Positive Regard in Transitioning from In-Person Therapy to Teletherapy. Psychother Res. 2022;1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2022.2146544.

23.

Weinberg H. Obstacles, challenges, and benefits of Online Group Psychotherapy. Am J Psychother. 2021;74:83–8. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20200034.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Pelau C, Dabija D-C, Ene I. What makes an AI device human-like? The role of interaction quality, empathy and perceived psychological anthropomorphic characteristics in the acceptance of artificial intelligence in the service industry. Comput Hum Behav. 2021;122:106855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106855.CrossRef

25.

Roy R, Naidoo V. Enhancing chatbot effectiveness: the role of anthropomorphic conversational styles and time orientation. J Bus Res. 2021;126:23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.051.CrossRef

26.

Adam M, Wessel M, Benlian A. AI-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance. Electron Markets. 2021;31:427–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00414-7.CrossRef

27.

Kim WB, Hur HJ. What makes people feel Empathy for AI chatbots? Assessing the role of competence and warmth. Int J Human–Computer Interact. 2023;1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2219961.

28.

McLean G, Osei-Frimpong K. Chat now… examining the variables influencing the use of online live chat. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2019;146:55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.017.CrossRef

29.

van Dolen W, Weinberg CB. An empirical investigation of factors affecting Perceived Quality and Well-Being of Children using an online child Helpline. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122193.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

National Cancer Institute. NCI’s Cancer Information Service. 2023. https://www.cancer.gov/contact. Accessed 23 Jul 2023.

31.

Reifegerste D, Rosset M, Czerwinski F, et al. Understanding the pathway of cancer information seeking: cancer information services as a supplement to information from other sources. J Canc Educ. 2023;38:175–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02095-yCrossRefPubMed

32.

Memenga P, Baumann E, Luetke Lanfer H, Reifegerste D, Geulen J, Weber W, et al. Intentions of patients with cancer and their relatives to use a live chat on familial cancer risk: results from a cross-sectional web-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e45198. https://doi.org/10.2196/45198

33.

Luetke Lanfer H, Reifegerste D, Berg A, Memenga P, Baumann E, Weber W, et al. Understanding trust determinants in a live chat service on familial cancer: qualitative triangulation study with focus groups and interviews in Germany. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e44707. https://doi.org/10.2196/44707

34.

Brody C, Star A, Tran J. Chat-based hotlines for health promotion: a systematic review. Mhealth. 2020;6:36. https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-2019-di-13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Asada M. Development of artificial empathy. Neurosci Res. 2015;90:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2014.12.002.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Gilbert S, Harvey H, Melvin T, Vollebregt E, Wicks P. Large language model AI chatbots require approval as medical devices. Nat Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02412-6.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Hernandez J, Lovejoy J, McDuff D, Suh J, O’Brien T, Sethumadhavan A, Guidelines for Assessing and Minimizing Risks of Emotion Recognition Applications. In:, Interaction I et al. (ACII); 28/09/2021–01/10/2021; Nara, Japan: IEEE; 2021. p. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII52823.2021.9597452.

38.

Deiana G, Dettori M, Arghittu A, Azara A, Gabutti G, Castiglia P. Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: evaluating ChatGPT responses to vaccination myths and misconceptions. Vaccines (Basel). 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071217.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Ghassemi M, Oakden-Rayner L, Beam AL. The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. Lancet Digit Health. 2021;3:e745–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00208-9.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Gkinko L, Elbanna A. Hope, tolerance and empathy: employees’ emotions when using an AI-enabled chatbot in a digitalised workplace. ITP. 2022;35:1714–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2021-0328.CrossRef

41.

Miner AS, Milstein A, Hancock JT. Talking to machines about Personal Mental Health problems. JAMA. 2017;318:1217–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.14151.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Jannai D, Meron A, Lenz B, Levine Y, Shoham Y. Human or Not? A Gamified Approach to the Turing Test: arXiv; 2023.

43.

Ho A, Hancock J, Miner AS. Psychological, relational, and Emotional effects of Self-Disclosure after Conversations with a Chatbot. J Commun. 2018;68:712–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy026.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Jiang Q, Zhang Y, Pian W. Chatbot as an emergency exist: mediated empathy for resilience via human-AI interaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inf Process Manag. 2022;59:103074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103074.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Loveys K, Prina M, Axford C, Domènec ÒR, Weng W, Broadbent E, et al. Artificial intelligence for older people receiving long-term care: a systematic review of acceptability and effectiveness studies. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022;3:e286–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(22)00034-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Nadarzynski T, Miles O, Cowie A, Ridge D. Acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-led chatbot services in healthcare: a mixed-methods study. Digit Health. 2019;5:2055207619871808. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207619871808.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Moylan CA, Carlson ML, Campbell R, Fedewa T. It’s hard to Show Empathy in a text: developing a web-based Sexual Assault Hotline in a College setting. J Interpers Violence. 2022;37:NP16037–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211025036.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Navarro P, Sheffield J, Edirippulige S, Bambling M. Exploring Mental Health professionals’ perspectives of text-based online counseling effectiveness with Young people: mixed methods pilot study. JMIR Ment Health. 2020;7:e15564. https://doi.org/10.2196/15564.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Black L, McClellan KA, Avard D, Knoppers BM. Intrafamilial disclosure of risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: points to consider. J Community Genet. 2013;4:203–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-012-0132-y.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Konrad K. Lautes Denken. In: Mey G, Mruck K, editors. Handbuch qualitative Forschung in Der Psychologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2010. pp. 476–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_34.CrossRef

51.

Doi T. Usability Textual Data Analysis: a formulaic coding think-aloud protocol method for usability evaluation. Appl Sci. 2021;11:7047. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11157047.CrossRef

52.

Richardson S, Mishuris R, O’Connell A, Feldstein D, Hess R, Smith P, et al. Think aloud and Near live usability testing of two complex clinical decision support tools. Int J Med Inf. 2017;106:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.06.003.CrossRef

53.

Mayring P, Fenzl T. Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. In: Baur N, Blasius J, editors. Handbuch Methoden Der Empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2019. pp. 633–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_42.CrossRef

54.

Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing. United States if America: Sage Publications, Inc; 2015.

55.

Decock S, de Clerck B, Lybaert C, Plevoets K. Testing the various guises of Conversational Human Voice: the impact of formality and personalization on customer outcomes in online complaint management. J Internet Commer. 2021;20:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2020.1848060.CrossRef

56.

Lea S, Martins A, Morgan S, Cargill J, Taylor RM, Fern LA. Online information and support needs of young people with cancer: a participatory action research study. Adolesc Health Med Ther. 2018;9:121–35. https://doi.org/10.2147/AHMT.S173115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Radford ML. Encountering virtual users: a qualitative investigation of interpersonal communication in chat reference. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2006;57:1046–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20374.CrossRef

58.

Coll M-P, Viding E, Rütgen M, Silani G, Lamm C, Catmur C, Bird G. Are we really measuring empathy? Proposal for a new measurement framework. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;83:132–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.10.009.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Maramba I, Chatterjee A, Newman C. Methods of usability testing in the development of eHealth applications: a scoping review. Int J Med Inf. 2019;126:95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.03.018.CrossRef

60.

Gray DM, Joseph JJ, Olayiwola JN. Strategies for Digital Care of vulnerable patients in a COVID-19 world-keeping in Touch. JAMA Health Forum. 2020;1:e200734. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0734.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Newcomb AB, Duval M, Bachman SL, Mohess D, Dort J, Kapadia MR. Building Rapport and Earning the Surgical Patient’s Trust in the Era of Social Distancing: Teaching Patient-Centered Communication During Video Conference Encounters to Medical Students. J Surg Educ. 2021;78:336–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.06.018.

Title: Digital clinical empathy in a live chat: multiple findings from a formative qualitative study and usability tests
Authors: Hanna Luetke Lanfer
Doreen Reifegerste
Winja Weber
Paula Memenga
Eva Baumann
Julia Geulen
Stefanie Klein
Anne Müller
Andrea Hahne
Susanne Weg-Remers
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10785-8

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Digital clinical empathy in a live chat: multiple findings from a formative qualitative study and usability tests

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Engaging stakeholders to level up COPD care in LMICs: lessons learned from the “Breathe Well” programme in Brazil, China, Georgia, and North Macedonia

Evaluation of 17 years of MERIN (Meningitis and Encephalitis register in Lower Saxony, Germany) surveillance system: participants acceptability survey, completeness and timeliness of data

Value-based healthcare implementation in the Netherlands: a quantitative analysis of multidisciplinary team performance

Assessing public health service capability of primary healthcare personnel: a large-scale survey in Henan Province, China

‘Counselling is not just providing information’: perceptions of caregivers and stakeholders on the design of nutrition and health counselling interventions for families with young children in rural Kenya

Disadvantaged groups have greater spatial access to pharmacies in New York state