MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, observational study on empathy among doctors practicing in the private, public hospital sector and faculty at a medical university in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia that utilised convenience sampling for data collection. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) a validated tool was used to measure empathy.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 127 doctors, 52% (n= 66) were males and 48% (n=61) females. There was no significant difference in empathy between male (M=46.44; SD=6.01) and female (M=45.05, SD=5.69) doctors; t (123) = 1.326, p=0.187. Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to assess the linear relationship between age and empathy and revealed no correlation between the two variables: r (125) =0.15, p=0.099. Medical-based doctors (M= 47.47, SD=5.98) demonstrated more empathy than surgicalbased (M=44.32, SD=5.41); t (123) =-3.09, p=0.002. Those already specialised in their fields (M=47.38, SD=4.57) had more empathy than those who had not (M= 44.36, SD=6.52); t (123) =-2.96, p = 0.004. Doctors in the university (M=47.97, SD=4.31) tended to have more empathy than those in the public hospitals (M= 44.63, SD=6.27); t (117) =-2.91, p=0.004. Academicians had more empathy than non-academicians but there was no difference between those who were in clinical practice and not.
CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that medical-based doctors demonstrate more empathy than surgical-based doctors, and there appeared to be no correlation between age and empathy. However, clinical experience and growth within the specialty seem to improve empathy. Doctors teaching in the university setting demonstrated more empathy than those practicing in the hospital setting. Inclusion of empathy-related sessions in the undergraduate and post-graduate curriculum could bridge the gap in empathy noted with age, discipline, and experience in practice. Further research on empathy among doctors using a wider population in Malaysia and a TEQ questionnaire validated to the Asian population would provide better insight regarding this area of medical practice. Future research on outcomes of inclusion of programmes targeted at improving empathy to create awareness during practice would support patient satisfaction and safety.
Results: This review discusses the current status of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy for SCI, criteria to considering for the application of MSC therapy and novel biological therapies that can be applied together with MSCs to enhance its efficacy. Bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMSCs), umbilical cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs) and adipose tissue-derived MSCs (ADSCs) have been trialed for the treatment of SCI. Application of MSCs may minimize secondary injury to the spinal cord and protect the neural elements that survived the initial mechanical insult by suppressing the inflammation. Additionally, MSCs have been shown to differentiate into neuron-like cells and stimulate neural stem cell proliferation to rebuild the damaged nerve tissue.
Conclusion: These characteristics are crucial for the restoration of spinal cord function upon SCI as damaged cord has limited regenerative capacity and it is also something that cannot be achieved by pharmacological and physiotherapy interventions. New biological therapies including stem cell secretome therapy, immunotherapy and scaffolds can be combined with MSC therapy to enhance its therapeutic effects.