MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917876077

A Cross-Sectional Study of Palliative Care Nurse Attitudes Toward Medical Assistance in Dying

2018· article· en· W2917876077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathy A. Pfaff, Laurie Freeman‐Gibb

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyPalliative careNursingMedicineFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada decriminalized physician assisted dying for persons suffering grievous and irremediable medical conditions. In Canada, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) is not provided by professional nurses; however, nurses are involved in providing physical care, education, and support for persons who are in various stages of the process. Its integration in palliative care settings has been controversial as MAiD is philosophically at odds with a palliative care approach that seeks to neither hasten nor prolong natural death. Therefore, it has potential to create moral and ethical distress among palliative care nurses who respect adherence to the tenets of palliative care.\nObjectives: The objectives of this study were to explore the attitudes of palliative care nurses toward MAiD and to identify their professional support needs.\nMethods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of palliative care registered nurses and registered practical nurses in Ontario, Canada. Letters that provided a link to an online survey were sent to participants by standard mail. Participants completed a novel instrument, the Nurse Attitudes Toward MAiD Scale (NATMS) that included 24 items ranked on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= ‘strongly disagree’ to 5= ‘strongly agree’). Data analyses included univariate and bivariate statistics, and linear regression.\nResults: The final sample (N=239) included 173 registered nurses and 66 registered practical nurses who had worked in nursing for >20 years, and in palliative care for >10 years. The overall score on the NATMS was 3.42 + 0.62. Perceived expertise in the social domain of palliative care (β = 0.16; p=0.02), personal importance of religion/faith (β = -0.40; p=0.00), professional importance of religion/faith (β = -0.22; p=0.01) and nursing designation (β=-.18; p=0.03) predicted the NATMS score. Ethics training and clear policies for MAiD integration were reported as required supports in palliative care work environments.\nConclusions: This is the first study to reveal the perceived importance of religion, versus religious affiliation alone, as significant in influencing provider attitudes toward assisted dying. Organizations are encouraged to address the professional needs of palliative care nurses. To support MAiD integration, further research is needed to understand differences in attitudes between registered nurses and registered practical nurses, and how the social domain of palliative care influences nurse attitudes toward MAiD.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207