The Experts below are selected from a list of 34242 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Graham Watt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the consultation and relational empathy care measure development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy based consultation process measure
Family Practice, 2004Co-Authors: Stewart W. Mercer, Margaret Maxwell, David Heaney, Graham WattAbstract:BACKGROUND: Empathy is a key aspect of the clinical encounter but there is a lack of patient-assessed measures suitable for general clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to develop a consultation process measure based on a broad definition of empathy, which is meaningful to patients irrespective of their socio-economic background. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. RESULTS: The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly Skewed Distribution (skew -1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less Skewed Distribution (skew -0.634, kurtosis -0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients' perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.
-
the consultation and relational empathy care measure development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy based consultation process measure
Family Practice, 2004Co-Authors: Stewart W. Mercer, Margaret Maxwell, David Heaney, Graham WattAbstract:Methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. Results. The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly Skewed Distribution (skew �1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less Skewed Distribution (skew �0.634, kurtosis �0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). Conclusions. These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients’ perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.
Stewart W. Mercer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the consultation and relational empathy care measure development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy based consultation process measure
Family Practice, 2004Co-Authors: Stewart W. Mercer, Margaret Maxwell, David Heaney, Graham WattAbstract:BACKGROUND: Empathy is a key aspect of the clinical encounter but there is a lack of patient-assessed measures suitable for general clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to develop a consultation process measure based on a broad definition of empathy, which is meaningful to patients irrespective of their socio-economic background. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. RESULTS: The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly Skewed Distribution (skew -1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less Skewed Distribution (skew -0.634, kurtosis -0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients' perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.
-
the consultation and relational empathy care measure development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy based consultation process measure
Family Practice, 2004Co-Authors: Stewart W. Mercer, Margaret Maxwell, David Heaney, Graham WattAbstract:Methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. Results. The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly Skewed Distribution (skew �1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less Skewed Distribution (skew �0.634, kurtosis �0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). Conclusions. These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients’ perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.
Thierry Lefrançois - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Spread rate of lumpy skin disease in the Balkans, 2015-2016.
Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2017Co-Authors: Alize Mercier, Elena Arsevska, Laure Bournez, Anne-christine Bronner, Didier Calavas, Julien Cauchard, Sylvain Falala, Philippe Caufour, Clément Tisseuil, Thierry LefrançoisAbstract:After its introduction in Turkey in November 2013 and subsequent spread in this country, lumpy skin disease (LSD) was first reported in the western Turkey in May 2015. It was observed in cattle in Greece and reported to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in August 2015. From May 2015 to August 2016, 1,092 outbreaks of lumpy skin disease were reported in cattle from western Turkey and eight Balkan countries: Greece, Bulgaria, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania. During this period, the median LSD spread rate was 7.3 km/week. The frequency of outbreaks was highly seasonal, with little or no transmission reported during the winter. Also, the Skewed Distribution of spread rates suggested two distinct underlying epidemiological processes, associating local and distant spread possibly related to vectors and cattle trade movements, respectively. (Resume d'auteur)
Margaret Maxwell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the consultation and relational empathy care measure development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy based consultation process measure
Family Practice, 2004Co-Authors: Stewart W. Mercer, Margaret Maxwell, David Heaney, Graham WattAbstract:BACKGROUND: Empathy is a key aspect of the clinical encounter but there is a lack of patient-assessed measures suitable for general clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to develop a consultation process measure based on a broad definition of empathy, which is meaningful to patients irrespective of their socio-economic background. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. RESULTS: The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly Skewed Distribution (skew -1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less Skewed Distribution (skew -0.634, kurtosis -0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients' perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.
-
the consultation and relational empathy care measure development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy based consultation process measure
Family Practice, 2004Co-Authors: Stewart W. Mercer, Margaret Maxwell, David Heaney, Graham WattAbstract:Methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. Results. The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly Skewed Distribution (skew �1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less Skewed Distribution (skew �0.634, kurtosis �0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). Conclusions. These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients’ perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.
David Heaney - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the consultation and relational empathy care measure development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy based consultation process measure
Family Practice, 2004Co-Authors: Stewart W. Mercer, Margaret Maxwell, David Heaney, Graham WattAbstract:BACKGROUND: Empathy is a key aspect of the clinical encounter but there is a lack of patient-assessed measures suitable for general clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to develop a consultation process measure based on a broad definition of empathy, which is meaningful to patients irrespective of their socio-economic background. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. RESULTS: The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly Skewed Distribution (skew -1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less Skewed Distribution (skew -0.634, kurtosis -0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients' perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.
-
the consultation and relational empathy care measure development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy based consultation process measure
Family Practice, 2004Co-Authors: Stewart W. Mercer, Margaret Maxwell, David Heaney, Graham WattAbstract:Methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. Results. The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly Skewed Distribution (skew �1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less Skewed Distribution (skew �0.634, kurtosis �0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). Conclusions. These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients’ perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.
