Personality traits are associated with cognitive empathy in medical students but not with its evolution and interventions to improve it.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive empathy might decrease during medical school. Factors associated with its evolution remain poorly understood, as well as whether such factors could moderate the effect of an intervention to preserve cognitive empathy. The aim was to explore the associations between personality traits and both cognitive empathy at baseline and its changes at follow-up. The possible effect of an intervention depended upon personality traits was also examined. METHODS: The cohort consisted of fourth year medical students and the associations between personality traits, using the Short Big Five Inventory, and cognitive empathy changes at 3-month, using the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Student version (JSE-S), were examined. A randomization in two groups (Balint groups versus no intervention) allowed examining whether the effect of the intervention depended upon personality traits. Linear regressions were adjusted for gender, anticipated specialty choice, parental education, living status, financial insecurity, randomization group and baseline JSE-S. RESULTS: The cohort included 311 participants from October 2015 to December 2016 at Paris Diderot and Paris Descartes University. At follow-up, there was a JSE-S total score increase of 1.22(SD:9.10) in the intervention group, compared to a decrease of 1.64(SD:10.74) in the other group. Baseline JSE-S was positively associated with Extraversion and Conscientiousness and negatively with Neuroticism. In contrast, we found no associations between baseline personality traits and JSE-S change. There were no interactions between personality traits and randomization group. CONCLUSION: Although personality might be linked with cognitive empathy, medical students may benefit from strategies designed for improving cognitive empathy regardless of their personality.

Patient-Physician Agreement in Reporting and Prioritizing Existing Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to assess (1) the agreement between patient self-reports and general practitioner (GP) reports of the chronic conditions affecting the patients and (2) the agreement between patients and GPs on health priorities in a primary care setting. METHOD: Patients were recruited in the Parisian area of France by a convenience sample of GPs; eligibility criteria required that the GP was the patient's listed primary care provider for at least 12 months. Participants were asked to report all the patient's current chronic conditions by using a previously developed list of 124 chronic conditions and write a list of up to 3 priority conditions. RESULTS: From April to May 2017, 233 patients were recruited from 16 GP practices. Agreement between the number of conditions reported by patients and by GPs was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.59, 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.69). Agreement between patient self-reports and GP reports of each chronic condition ranged from very good (eg, κ = 0.85 for hypothyroidism) to poor (eg, κ = 0.12 for chronic anxiety disorder). Among the 153 patient-GP pairs for which both the patient and GP wrote a priority list, 45 (29.4%) of patients' first priorities did not appear anywhere on the corresponding GPs' lists, and 19 (12.4%) pairs had no matching priority condition. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between patients and their GPs varied widely depending on the diseases reported. Low agreement on health priorities suggests a need for improvement to ensure better alignment between patient and physician perspectives.