| Name of the Instrument/Tool | Consultation And Relational Empathy measure (CARE) |
| First Description |
Mercer SW, Maxwell M, Heaney D, Watt GC. The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. Fam Pract. 2004 Dec;21(6):699-705 |
| Year | 2004 |
| Domains | |
| Concept of constructs | Quality of care |
| Population/Disease | Generic |
| Originally developed for | --- |
| Other rheumatic diseases where can be applied (only if validated) |
--- |
| Additional population with no rheumatic diseases |
No |
| Language: Originally published in | English |
| Available in Language | Chinese, Dutch, Japanese, Croatian |
| REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION | |
| Author/s | Mercer SW, Maxwell M, Heaney D, Watt GC. |
| Title | The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. |
| Journal | Fam Pract. |
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol | 21 |
| Num | 6 |
| Pages | 699-705 |
| Country | UK |
| Language | English |
| Other references of interest | |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28823250/ |
| Brief Description |
How empathic is your healthcare practitioner? A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient surveys |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15772120/ |
| Brief Description |
Relevance and practical use of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure in general practice |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33091246/ |
| Brief Description |
Five Golden Rings to Measure Patient-Centered Care in Rheumatology |
| Instrument/Tool Translations References | |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25727042/ |
| Brief Description |
Reliability and validity of the Croatian version of Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure in primary care setting |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24115011/ |
| Brief Description |
Validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the CARE Measure in a general medicine outpatient setting |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19587027/ |
| Brief Description |
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the CARE Measure in a primary care setting in Hong Kong |
| DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION | |
| Correspondence to | Stewart W Mercer |
| stewmercer@blueyonder.co.uk | |
| Address | General Practice and Primary Care, Division of Community-based Sciences, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow G12 9LX, UK |
| Website | --- |
| Available | --- |
| Links | --- |
| DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT | |
| Type Of Measure | Questionnaire |
| Brief Description |
Process measure of a clinician's empathy. CARE asks about whether the clinician made a patient feel at ease, let a patient tell their story, listened, was interested in the patient as a whole person, fully understood the patients’ concerns, showed care and compassion, was positive, explained things clearly, helped take control, and planned with the patien |
| Number of Items | 10 |
| Range | 10-50 |
| Responses options/scale |
No |
| Developed for | --- |
| PRACTICAL APPLICATION | |
| Method of administration | Self-administered |
| Recommendations to score |
The lowest score on each question is 1, and the highest is 5. The answer “does not apply” is given the average score. If more than two answers are absent, the score is not valid. Only 3.1% of patients will have an invalid CARE. Initial development on 2280 patients from 26 primary care physicians showed a mean score of 40.8 (SD 8.9), with a median of 41.0. A score below 38 is considered significantly below average, and a score higher than 43 is considered significantly above average, representing the bottom and top 25%, respectively. According to the developers, the current mean CARE score is 45.75 . The lowest 5% of scores is below 40.72 and the highest 5% is above 48.32. A meta-analysis of studies using CARE found the average score to be 40.48 (95% CI: 39.24-41.72), ranking below the lowest 5% of scores from the developer |
| Score Interpretation | The highest score represents a higher level of empathy |
| Cut-off points | <38: below average; >43: above average |
| Cut-off points applied to | --- |
| Smallest detectable change if described | --- |
| Smallest detectable change applied to | --- |
| Completion time by the patient | 10 minutes |
| Scoring time by the assessor | - minutes |
| Training to score | Not necessary |
| Strengths | Useful in clinical practice & research, Widely used, Easy to use |
| Limitations | --- |
| OTHER COMMENTS | |
| Other Comments | --- |