Barriers and facilitators for engaging in the practice of medical assistance in dying among providers in Canada: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review will explore the perceived barriers and facilitators for engaging in the practice of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) from the perspective of physicians, nurse practitioners, and medical residents in Canada. INTRODUCTION: The number of MAiD requests in Canada is growing steadily and is predicted to continue to grow with the passing of Bill C-7 in 2021, which expands access to individuals whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. Under federal law, physicians and nurse practitioners are the only health care professionals permitted to assess for and administer MAiD. Providers are not obligated to engage in the practice of MAiD; therefore, patient access relies on providers' readiness to engage in the practice. More information is needed to understand the barriers and facilitators for engaging in MAiD care from the perspective of providers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that identify physicians, nurse practitioners, and medical residents' perceived barriers and facilitators for engaging in the practice of MAiD in Canada. Physicians, nurse practitioners, and medical residents who do not directly administer MAiD, including those who identify as conscientious objectors or non-participants, will be included. Studies looking at barriers and facilitators for providing MAiD care to individuals with dementia, mental illness, or for individuals under the age of 18 years will be excluded. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL with Full-text, and APA PsycINFO will be searched. Studies will be screened and data extracted by 2 independent reviewers using a tool created for this review. The scoping review findings will be presented in a narrative format and mapped in tables to address the review aims.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".