PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 23, 2026BMJ Open0 citationsOpen Access

Arts-based empathy education in healthcare: a critical systematic review of pedagogical mechanisms and evidence gaps

View Full Paper
SMSanaz MojarradLKLaleh KhojastehASAfshin Soori

Key Points

  • The objective is to identify how arts-based interventions facilitate empathy development and assess existing methodological limitations.
  • Conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies on arts-based interventions.
  • Extracted data on methodology and outcomes from eligible studies.
  • Applied quality assessment tools to analyze the robustness of the evidence.
  • Seventeen studies showed various arts-based interventions with empathy effects, particularly theatre (mean d=0.83) and poetry (mean d=0.49).
  • One narrative medicine study indicated sustained empathy gains at two-year follow-up (d=0.82).
  • Highlighted methodological concerns included small sample sizes and geographical bias, limiting definitive recommendations.

Abstract

Objectives To systematically identify and synthesise the pedagogical mechanisms through which arts-based interventions (theatre, poetry, narrative medicine) may support empathy development in healthcare learners, while critically appraising the contextual implementation factors and methodological limitations of the existing evidence base. Design Systematic review with narrative synthesis, conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Collection and CINAHL Plus, from inception to 31 August 2025. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Peer-reviewed empirical studies involving undergraduate or postgraduate healthcare students or professionals. Eligible studies reported on arts-based educational interventions designed to enhance empathy (including theatre, poetry or narrative medicine) and included quantitative or qualitative outcome measures of empathy or related constructs. No restrictions were placed on study design. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data on intervention characteristics and outcomes, and assessed methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools. A narrative synthesis was conducted to examine patterns across intervention modalities. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) were calculated for quantitative pre-post or controlled designs; meta-analysis was precluded due to high heterogeneity in study designs, populations and outcome measures. Results From 1094 records screened, 17 studies involving 835 participants (median sample size=28) met inclusion criteria. There were eight theatre-based, five poetry-based and four narrative medicine interventions. Theatre interventions, which emphasised embodied learning, showed patterns of large empathy effects (mean d=0.83). Poetry interventions, focusing on reflective practice, showed patterns of moderate effects (mean d=0.49). One study of narrative medicine demonstrated a pattern of sustained gains at 2-year follow-up (d=0.82). Key limitations of the evidence base include small sample sizes, substantial measurement heterogeneity (12 different empathy instruments), geographical bias (88% of studies from high-income, Western countries), and a predominance of pre–post study designs. Conclusions Arts-based interventions show mechanism-specific patterns of potential benefit for empathy in healthcare learners. However, significant methodological limitations in the current evidence constrain definitive practice recommendations. Educators may consider piloting brief, facilitator-led interventions based on local resources, while acknowledging the need for more robust evidence. Future research must prioritise standardised outcome measures, rigorous controlled and longitudinal trial designs, and studies in diverse cultural contexts. PROSPERO registration number CRD42025116174.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mojarrad et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e9b91385696592c86ec0b2https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-110509
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper