Search

The importance of compassion is widely recognized and it is receiving increasing research attention. Yet, there is lack of consensus on definition and a paucity of psychometrically robust measures of this construct. Without an agreed definition and adequate measures, we cannot study compassion, measure compassion or evaluate whether interventions designed to enhance compassion are effective. In response, this paper proposes a definition of compassion and offers a systematic review of self- and observer-rated measures. Following consolidation of existing definitions, we propose that compassion consists of five elements: recognizing suffering, understanding the universality of human suffering, feeling for the person suffering, tolerating uncomfortable feelings, and motivation to act/acting to alleviate suffering. Three databases were searched (Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Medline) and nine measures included and rated for quality. Quality ratings ranged from 2 to 7 out of 14 with low ratings due to poor internal consistency for subscales, insufficient evidence for factor structure and/or failure to examine floor/ceiling effects, test–retest reliability, and discriminant validity. We call our five-element definition, and if supported, the development of a measure of compassion based on this operational definition, and which demonstrates adequate psychometric properties.

Sixteen sessions of individual cognitive behavior therapy for people with psychosis (CBTp) is recommended. However, access to CBTp is poor, so the potential of low intensity CBTp (fewer than 16 sessions of face-to-face contact) is being explored. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of 10 controlled trials evaluating low intensity CBTp. Significant between-group effects were found on the primary outcome, symptoms of psychosis, at post-intervention (d = − 0.46, 95% CI: − 0.06, − 0.86) and follow-up (d = − 0.40, 95% CI: − 0.06, − 0.74). Study quality did not moderate post-intervention psychosis outcomes, nor did contact time/number of sessions or therapy format (individual versus group). Between-group effects on secondary outcomes (depression, anxiety and functioning) were not significant at post-intervention, but became significant at follow-up for depression and functioning outcomes (but not for anxiety). Overall, findings suggest that low intensity CBTp shows promise with effect sizes comparable to those found in meta-analyses of CBTp more broadly. We suggest that low intensity CBTp could help widen access. Future research is called for to identify mechanisms of change and to ascertain moderators of outcome so that low intensity CBTp targets key mechanisms (so that scarce therapy time is used effectively) and so that interventions offered are matched to patient need.