MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015163151 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2019.0603

Defining the Roles and Research Priorities for Psychedelic-Assisted Therapies in Patients with Serious Illness: Expert Clinicians' and Investigators' Perspectives

2020· article· en· W3015163151 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yvan Beaussant, Justin J. Sanders, Zachary Sager, James A. Tulsky, Ilana M. Braun, Craig D. Blinderman, Anthony P. Bossis, Ira Byock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicineThematic analysisDistressQualitative researchAnxietyPopulationPsychiatryPsychotherapistClinical psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Recent and preprohibition studies show that patients with serious illness might benefit from psychedelic-assisted therapies for a range of symptoms, physical, psychosocial, and existential. Objective: To explore the potential roles and research priorities of these therapies in patients with serious illness. Design, Setting, and Participants: Qualitative study based on semistructured interviews with 17 experts in serious illness care and/or psychedelic research from the United States and Canada. Measurements: The interview guide elicited participants' perspectives on (1) the potential roles of psychedelic-assisted therapies in this setting, (2) research priorities relevant to this population, and (3) the potential for integrating psychedelic-assisted therapies into existing delivery models of serious illness care. We used thematic analysis until thematic saturation. Results: Domain I: Participants had polar views on the therapeutic potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies, ranging from strong beliefs in their medical utility to reluctance about their use in this patient population. They shared concerns related to the risks of adverse effects, such as delirium or worsening of psychological distress. Domain II: Research priorities primarily concerned patients with clinically diagnosed psychosocial distress, such as depression, anxiety, or demoralization. Participants also articulated potential roles extending beyond traditional medical diagnosis. Domain III: Participants emphasized essential safety and efficacy guidelines relevant to the integration of these therapies into existing models of care. Conclusion: This qualitative study highlights issues and priorities for research on psychedelic-assisted therapies in patients with serious illness and proposes a conceptual framework for integrating these therapies into existing delivery models of serious illness care.

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)0.235
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.172
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2350.172
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.028
Scholarly communication0.0150.012
Open science0.0040.018
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.337 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207