Importance of communication in medical practice and medical education: An emphasis on empathy and attitudes and their possible influences

Table 1 Specialization and sex

Group	Specialty	Sex		Total (n =32)
		Female (n = 13)	Male (n = 19)
Internal medicine	General internal medicine; Gastroenterology; Cardiology	3	4	7
Surgical specialties	General surgery; Neurosurgery; Visceral surgery; Thoracic surgery; Vascular surgery	2	4	6
Surgical subspecialties	Gynecology; ENT	1	2	3
Non-surgical subspecialties	Anesthesiology; Neurology; Psychiatry	2	4	6
Pediatrics	Pediatrics; Child and adolescent psychiatry	0	3	3
General medicine	General medicine	5	2	7

Demographic data were assessed at the beginning of each interview for each participant via questionnaire. For one participant, the information regarding specialty was not available. This participant was included in the qualitative data analysis only when this information was not relevant.

Table 2 Ingredients of the “ideal medical history taking”: Identified themes

		Percent	n = 33
Positive associations
Knowledge		72.73	24
Relationship building: +		66.67	22
	Trust: +	39.40	13
Structure		60.61	20
Precision		60.61	20
Attitude	Personality	57.58	19
	Empathy	45.45	15
Negative associations
Language barrier		33.33	11
Relationship building: -		48.48	16
	Trust: -	15.15	5
Incomplete information gathering		27.27	9
Time pressure		30.30	10
Interruptions		18.18	6

Qualitative data analysis was carried out as explained in the method section (step model of inductive category development). Themes were extracted from the audiotaped interviews. The table shows the number and percentage of interviews a theme was identified within.

Table 3 Quotes on the importance of knowledge

	% quotes	n quotes	n specialists	n (q)/n (s)
Internal medicine	13.96	6	7	0.86
General medicine	27.90	12	7	1.71
Non-surgical subspecialties	20.93	9	6	1.50
Paediatrics	11.63	5	3	1.67
Surgical specialities	18.60	8	6	1.34
Surgical sub-specialities	6.98	3	3	1.00
Total	100	43	32

The percentage and frequency of quotes about the importance of knowledge are shown for each specialist group. Multiple statements on each theme were possible for each participant. It is to be noted that considering the different number of specialists in each group, the number of quotes per group alone is not an accurate measure of the distribution of quotes in the groups. The quotient of the number of quotes in each group per number of specialists was highest for general medicine, pediatricians, and non-surgical subspecialties (1.71, 1.67, and 1.50 respectively).

Table 4 Quotes on the importance of relationship establishment

	% quotes	n quotes	n specialists	n (q)/n (s)
Internal medicine	7.55	4	7	0.57
General medicine	18.87	10	7	1.43
Non-surgical subspecialties	32.08	17	6	2.83
Paediatrics	11.32	6	3	2.00
Surgical specialities	26.42	14	6	2.33
Surgical sub-specialities	3.77	2	3	0.67
Total	100	53	32

The percentage and frequency of quotes about the importance of relationship establishment are shown for each specialist group. Multiple statements on each theme were possible for each participant. It is to be noted that considering the different number of specialists in each group, the number of quotes per group alone is not an accurate measure of the distribution of quotes in the groups. The quotient of the number of quotes in each group per number of specialists was highest for non-surgical subspecialties, surgical specialties, and pediatricians (2.83, 2.33, and 2.00 respectively).