Ageism is a widespread but often overlooked form of discrimination that can manifest both positively and negatively in healthcare. In clinical practice, discriminatory attitudes towards older adult can impact the quality and equality of medical care. Empathy plays a crucial role in mitigating such biases among physicians. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of family physicians toward age discrimination and to assess the relationship between these attitudes and physicians’ empathy levels, along with the influence of various sociodemographic factors. A descriptive, cross-sectional survey was conducted between May and August 2021 among family physicians, residents, and specialists working in Samsun, Turkey. Data were collected via online, phone, or face-to-face surveys using the Attitude Scale of Age Discrimination (ASAD) and the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy – Health Professional version (JSPE-HP). A total of 299 physicians participated. Participants exhibited high levels of empathy (mean JSPE: 81.6±9.49) and generally positive attitudes toward older adults (mean ASAD: 88.19±8.65). Age, gender, and professional experience significantly influenced both empathy and ageism scores. Older, female, and more experienced physicians showed more empathetic and less ageist attitudes. A statistically significant, low-level positive correlation was found between empathy and positive attitudes toward older adults.
Background/Aim: Ageism can influence the quality of geriatric dental care, yet evidence among dental students remains inconsistent across cohorts. This study compares ageism between students at two institutions within the same district sharing identical training requirements and evaluated the questionnaire's internal consistency. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the 15-item, six-component ageism questionnaire was administered online to 100 undergraduate dental students (65 from Institution 1; 35 from Institution 2). Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha; Welch's t-tests compared institutions, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level ≤ 0.008 for the six component comparisons. Results: The mean total score was 48.81 (SD 5.83). Overall internal consistency was weak (α = 0.521). The total score did not differ significantly between institutions (48.58 vs. 49.23; t (54.12) = 0.48, p = 0.634), and no component difference was observed with Bonferroni adjustment. Conclusions: Ageist attitudes did not differ between institutions, but the questionnaire's weak overall reliability limits interpretation. Larger samples, confirmatory factor analysis, and testing of measurement invariance are warranted.
