Empathy training for service employees: A mixed-methods systematic review

Abstract

Following the surge for empathy training in service literature and its increasing demand in service industries, this study systematically reviews empirical papers implementing and testing empathy training programs in various service domains. A mixed-methods systematic review was performed to identify and describe empathy training programs and discuss their effectiveness in service quality, service employees' well-being, and service users' satisfaction. Included papers met those eligibility criteria: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods study; one training in empathy is identifiable; described training(s) developed for or tested with service employees dealing with service users. We searched health, business, education, and psychology databases, such as CINAHL, Medline ABI/Inform Global, Business Source Premier, PsycINFO, and ERIC. We used the Mixed-Method Assessment Tool to appraise the quality of included papers. A data-based convergent synthesis design allowed for the analysis of the data. A total of 44 studies published between 2009 to 2022 were included. The narrative presentation of findings was regrouped into these six dimensions of empathy training programs: 1) why, 2) who, 3) what, 4) how, 5) where, and 6) when and how much. Close to 50% of studies did not include a definition of empathy. Four main empathic competencies developed through the training programs were identified: communication, relationship building, emotional resilience, and counseling skills. Face-to-face and group-setting interventions are widespread. Our systematic review shows that the 44 papers identified come only from health services with a predominant population of physicians and nurses. However, we show that the four empathic skills identified could be trained and developed in other sectors, such as business. This is the first mixed-methods, multi-disciplinary systematic review of empathy training programs in service research. The review integrates insights from health services, identifies research limitations and gaps in existing empirical research, and outlines a research agenda for future research and implications for service research.

Fig 1. Flow chart of the systematic review process.