MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4391818464 · doi:10.11124/jbies-24-00026

Mapping the landscape of medical assistance in dying through exploring barriers and facilitators among providers in Canada

2024· article· en· W4391818464 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Karine Légère, Alison Luke, Shelley Doucet

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Établissements canadiensUniversité de MonctonUniversity of New Brunswick
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBusinessNursingMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In June 2016, medical assistance in dying (MAiD) became legal in Canada following changes to the Criminal Code.1 This allowed doctors and nurse practitioners (NPs) to administer or assist in MAiD without legal repercussions. Two permissible methods can be employed when administering MAiD in Canada: direct administration of medications by a health care provider to induce death at the person’s request or self-administration of medications prescribed by a health care provider to induce death. Individuals must meet specific conditions to qualify for MAiD, and safeguards have been implemented to ensure its proper use. Since the original legislation, there have been several significant revisions to the eligibility criteria and safeguards, and more changes are expected, including the eligibility of persons suffering solely from a mental illness, which has been postponed until March 2024.1 Significant revisions to the legislation were made following the Superior Court of Québec’s 2019 Truchon decision.1 As of March 2021, the law no longer requires a person’s natural death to be “reasonably foreseeable.” The person must, however, meet the following eligibility criteria: i) be 18 years or older with decision-making capacity; ii) be eligible for publicly funded health care services; iii) make a request for MAiD that is voluntary and free from external pressure; iv) be able to give informed consent after receiving all the necessary information; v) have a severe and incurable illness, disease, or disability (excluding mental illness, until March 17, 2024); vi) be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and vii) be in enduring, intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated under conditions the person deems acceptable.1 Along with these changes, the federal government introduced a 2-track approach to safeguards for MAiD based on whether a person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable (Track 1)2 or not reasonably foreseeable (Track 2). Additionally, the federal government introduced the waiver of final consent, defined as “an arrangement in writing between the person (on Track 1) requesting MAiD and their provider that the provider would administer substances to cause their death after they have lost decision-making capacity.”2(p.24) The rapidly changing MAiD legislation has implications for various practice guidelines and policies3 as well as implications for health care providers and perceptions of their role in MAiD.4,5 In Canada, physicians, NPs, and medical residents play a crucial role in the context of MAiD. These professionals ensure high-quality assessments, as well as decision-making and administration of MAiD. They are essential for providing a process that follows the legal and ethical standards set by the federal government. Having a sufficient number of MAiD providers is also critical to ensure access to MAiD for eligible patients. The most recent data indicate that the number of MAiD providers has increased, with 1837 providers in 2022. Since 2019, the annual average increase in MAiD providers has been 18.2%, reflecting a consistent growth in the number of health care professionals engaging in the provision of MAiD.6 Concurrently, the growth rate of the provision of MAiD has outpaced the increase in practitioners, averaging 32.7% annually over the same period.6 This notable difference in growth rates implies a considerable rise in the average number of MAiD procedures per practitioner each year. These observed statistical trends compelled the authors to explore the factors influencing providers to engage in this relatively new medical practice. Our scoping review protocol7 in this issue of JBI Evidence Synthesis outlines the objectives, methods, and reporting procedures for the review’s question: What are the perceived barriers and facilitators for engaging in the practice of MAiD for physicians, NPs, and medical residents in Canada? Our comprehensive review will offer valuable insights to better understand the motivations and challenges faced by providers capable of providing MAiD within different contexts. Conducting this scoping review will be a foundational step in informing and shaping future research by comprehensively mapping the literature, identifying research gaps, and informing future research questions. Analysis of key themes in the review will guide the development of hypotheses and conceptual frameworks for subsequent research. Including studies from various contexts may enhance understanding of how contextual, cultural, or legislative differences may influence barriers and facilitators for engaging in MAiD. Additionally, the scoping review can inform policy recommendations and best practices, positioning future research as a valuable resource for shaping ethical guidelines and health care practices. By building on existing knowledge, we hope the subsequent research will contribute to the evolving discourse on MAiD.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,377
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,736

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,097
Tête enseignante GPT0,353
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesTravaux en français237 207