MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201128094 · doi:10.1177/09697330211012049

Medical assistance in dying legislation: Hospice palliative care providers’ perspectives

2021· article· en· W3201128094 on OpenAlexaffabout
Soodabeh Joolaee, Anita Ho, Kristie Serota, Matthieu Hubert, Daniel Z. Buchman

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Ethics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsKrembil FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegalizationPalliative careThematic analysisNursingMedicineQualitative researchHospice careFamily medicineEnd-of-life careLegislationSociologyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: After over 4 years since medical assistance in dying legalization in Canada, there is still much uncertainty about how this ruling has affected Canadian society. OBJECTIVE: To describe the positive aspects of medical assistance in dying legalization from the perspectives of hospice palliative care providers engaging in medical assistance in dying. DESIGN: In this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted an inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with hospice palliative care providers. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Multi-disciplinary hospice palliative care providers in acute, community, residential, and hospice care in Vancouver and Toronto, Canada, who have engaged in end-of-life care planning with patients who have inquired about and/or requested medical assistance in dying. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The research proposal was approved by University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board in Vancouver and University Health Network in Toronto. Participants were informed regarding the research goals, signed a written consent, and were assigned pseudonyms. RESULTS: The 48 participants included hospice palliative care physicians (n = 22), nurses (n = 15), social workers (n = 7), and allied health providers (n = 4). The average interview length was 50 min. Positive aspects of medical assistance in dying legalization were identified at (1) the individual level: (a) a new end-of-life option, (b) patients' last chance to express control over their lives, (c) patient and family comfort and relief, and (d) a unique learning experience for hospice palliative care providers; (2) the team level: (a) supportive collegial relationships, (b) broadened discussions about end-of-life and palliative care, and (c) team debriefs provide opportunities for education and support; and (3) the institutional level: (a) improved processes to facilitate the implementation logistics. CONCLUSION: While being involved in the medical assistance in dying process is complex and challenging, this study sheds light on the positive aspects of medical assistance in dying legalization from the hospice palliative care provider's perspectives. Medical Assistance in Dying legalization has resulted in improved end-of-life conversations between hospice palliative care providers, patients, and their families. Improved communication leads to a better understanding of patients' end-of-life care plans and bridges some of the existing gaps between hospice palliative care and medical assistance in dying.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing EthicsSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207