AN EXPANDED ANALYSIS OF WHICH FEATURES CONVEY EMPATHY TO PATIENTS IN SCIENTIFIC WRITING
Author(s)
Martha Gauthier, MA1, Brandon Foster, PhD1, Susan Daniels, PhC, RPH, M2, Laura Watts, PhD3.
1Patient-Centered Outcomes, Lumanity, Boston, MA, USA, 2Patient Strategy and Engagement, Lumanity, London, United Kingdom, 3Medical and Scientific Communications, Lumanity, Yardley, PA, USA.
1Patient-Centered Outcomes, Lumanity, Boston, MA, USA, 2Patient Strategy and Engagement, Lumanity, London, United Kingdom, 3Medical and Scientific Communications, Lumanity, Yardley, PA, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Empathy in healthcare interactions is linked to better patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes, yet few studies have examined the role of empathy in written scientific communication. A pilot study with patients, patient advocates, and medical writers showed empathy is important to scientific writing. This expanded analysis examined which writing features are most influential to the perception of empathy in scientific/health-related writing.
METHODS: Following informed consent, respondents completed an online survey. Respondents defined empathy in scientific writing, rated its importance, and evaluated 40 writing features (identified through a literature review and pilot study) for their contribution to empathy. Respondents ranked writing samples representing varying levels of empathy and technicality by preference.
RESULTS: Among 109 respondents (46.8% female; 48.2% aged ≥50 years), 51.9% identified as patients, 21.3% as caregivers, 25.9% as family members of individuals with chronic illness, and 19.4% as patient advocates. Over half (54.1%) reported reading scientific/health-related information at least weekly. Most (89/108 [82.4%]) considered empathy as “very” or “extremely” important, with empathic scientific writing commonly defined as clear communication of complex information with respect, understanding, and compassion for the patient experience. The top 5 features enhancing empathy (weighted mean [SD] >4.1 [0.2]) were text that is easy to read/understand, use of emotionally supportive terms, focus on patient health/care over the treatment being described, knowing text was written by a human, and acknowledging patient emotions. Respondents significantly preferred more empathetic/less technical (P <0.01) or moderately empathetic/moderately technical (P <0.01) scientific writing samples to those that were less empathetic/more technical.
CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the importance of empathy in scientific writing, characterized by text readability/clarity, acknowledgment of lived experiences, and compassion toward those affected. Identification of these features will inform ongoing efforts to create an empathy metric for scientific writing, with the goal of promoting patient engagement and trust in health communication.
METHODS: Following informed consent, respondents completed an online survey. Respondents defined empathy in scientific writing, rated its importance, and evaluated 40 writing features (identified through a literature review and pilot study) for their contribution to empathy. Respondents ranked writing samples representing varying levels of empathy and technicality by preference.
RESULTS: Among 109 respondents (46.8% female; 48.2% aged ≥50 years), 51.9% identified as patients, 21.3% as caregivers, 25.9% as family members of individuals with chronic illness, and 19.4% as patient advocates. Over half (54.1%) reported reading scientific/health-related information at least weekly. Most (89/108 [82.4%]) considered empathy as “very” or “extremely” important, with empathic scientific writing commonly defined as clear communication of complex information with respect, understanding, and compassion for the patient experience. The top 5 features enhancing empathy (weighted mean [SD] >4.1 [0.2]) were text that is easy to read/understand, use of emotionally supportive terms, focus on patient health/care over the treatment being described, knowing text was written by a human, and acknowledging patient emotions. Respondents significantly preferred more empathetic/less technical (P <0.01) or moderately empathetic/moderately technical (P <0.01) scientific writing samples to those that were less empathetic/more technical.
CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the importance of empathy in scientific writing, characterized by text readability/clarity, acknowledgment of lived experiences, and compassion toward those affected. Identification of these features will inform ongoing efforts to create an empathy metric for scientific writing, with the goal of promoting patient engagement and trust in health communication.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
PCR117
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient Engagement
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas