Empathy, Moral Sensitivity, and Prosocial Behavior Among Medical Undergraduates in a South Indian Tertiary Care Teaching Institute: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study.

Introduction:  Empathy, moral sensitivity, and prosocialness are critical traits for medical professionals, as they affect patient care quality and ethical decision-making. These traits help address psychological complexities like stress and burnout in medical practice. Despite their importance, the relationships between these traits, especially among medical students, remain underexplored. This study aims to assess empathy, moral sensitivity, and prosocialness among medical students in South India, focusing on gender differences and their associations.

Materials And Methods:  This cross-sectional study was conducted at Saveetha Medical College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai, with 369 medical undergraduates. Data were collected using three standardized tools: the Interpersonal Reactivity Index for empathy, the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire, and the Prosocialness Scale for Adults. The questionnaire, including demographic data, was administered online with anonymity and consent. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic data. Inferential analyses, including t-tests, chi-square tests, Pearson correlations, and multivariate regression, examined relationships between empathy, moral sensitivity, pro-social behavior, and demographics. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Ethical approval was obtained from Saveetha Medical College's Ethics Committee.

Results:  The mean age of participants was 20.5 ± 2 years, with 183 males (49.6%) and 186 females (50.4%). The majority were first-year students (29.8%), followed by second-year (19.5%) and final-year part I students (19.2%). Final professional part II students and interns comprised 15.4% and 16%, respectively. Females scored significantly higher in empathy domains like perspective-taking (15 ± 3.3 vs. 14 ± 3.4), fantasy (14.4 ± 4 vs. 13.6 ± 3.3), and empathetic concern (15.3 ± 3.5 vs. 14.2 ± 3.1), with p values <0.05. Overall, 186 females (50.4%) had a mean empathy score of 59 ± 9, compared to 183 males (49.6%) with 56.2 ± 7.1 (Cohen's d = 0.33). In moral sensitivity, females scored higher in modifying autonomy (7 ± 2.3 vs. 6.3 ± 2.2), structuring moral meaning (4.6 ± 2 vs. 4.15 ± 1.6), and expressing benevolence (16 ± 4 vs. 15 ± 4), with significant differences (p < 0.05). The total moral sensitivity score was higher in females (57 ± 10 vs. 54 ± 9), with a moderate effect size (Cohen's d = 0.3). Males scored higher in prosocialness, with 183 males (49.6%) scoring 54 ± 7, compared to 186 females (50.4%) with 51.5 ± 7.2 (Cohen's d = 0.3). Weak but significant correlations were found between empathy and prosocialness (r = 0.132, p = 0.011) and between moral sensitivity and prosocialness (r = 0.479, p < 0.001). Regression analysis identified gender, prosocial behavior, and specific moral sensitivity dimensions as significant predictors of empathy scores.

Conclusion:  This study revealed significant gender differences in empathy, moral sensitivity, and prosocialness among medical students. Females scored higher in empathy and moral sensitivity, whereas males showed greater prosocial behavior. The positive correlations between empathy and prosocialness and between moral sensitivity and prosocialness highlight their interconnectedness. Educational interventions that target empathy and moral sensitivity could help nurture more compassionate, ethical healthcare professionals. Future research should explore how these traits evolve throughout medical education.