Clinical Empathy, Personality Traits, and Resilience in Advanced Nursing Students: A Cross-Sectional Secondary Analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

Background/Objectives: Clinical empathy is a core competency in nursing education and is conceptually relevant to person-centered nursing care. However, limited evidence is available on how clinical empathy in advanced nursing students is associated with dispositional characteristics such as personality traits and resilience. This study aimed to examine cross-sectional associations between clinical empathy, Big Five personality traits, and resilience in third- and fourth-year nursing students. Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional secondary analysis was conducted using an existing survey database. The final analytic sample comprised 66 third- and fourth-year nursing students from a nursing school in Spain. Clinical empathy was assessed with the Jefferson Scale of Empathy, resilience with the 6-item Brief Resilience Scale, and personality traits with the Big Five Inventory-44. Life satisfaction, academic engagement, and general self-efficacy were included as secondary psychosocial variables. Descriptive analyses, correlation analyses, group comparisons, and exploratory multiple linear regression were performed. Results: Higher agreeableness was associated with higher total clinical empathy (ρ = 0.390, p = 0.001) and perspective-taking (ρ = 0.440, p < 0.001). Higher conscientiousness was also associated with higher total clinical empathy (ρ = 0.480, p < 0.001), perspective-taking (ρ = 0.432, p < 0.001), and compassionate care (ρ = 0.324, p = 0.008). In the exploratory multivariable cross-sectional model, agreeableness and conscientiousness were independently associated with total clinical empathy, whereas resilience was not. Findings involving the Standing in the Patient’s Shoes subscale should be interpreted cautiously because of its low internal consistency. Conclusions: In this exploratory sample of advanced nursing students, self-reported clinical empathy was associated mainly with agreeableness and conscientiousness. These findings should be interpreted as cross-sectional associations based on self-report data and should not be taken as evidence of causal effects, ethical behavior, or person-centered care practices. Further longitudinal and multicenter studies are needed to examine whether these associations are stable and whether they relate to observable educational or clinical outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.