A meta‐synthesis exploring nurses' experiences of assisted dying and participation decision‐making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore nurses' experiences of assisted dying and understand how their perspectives inform their participation decision-making. BACKGROUND: Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue with the potential to create moral unrest for nurses. The nursing role in assisted dying varies between jurisdictions. DESIGN: Systematic review. A meta-synthesis using thematic analysis. METHODS: Three electronic databases were searched for primary qualitative studies published in English, from New Zealand, Australia or Canada, up to October 2022. Seven articles were included; themes were analysed and key themes were established. Reporting adhered to PRISMA. RESULTS: The findings highlight the complexity of nurses' decision-making about participation or non-participation in assisted dying and the moral, philosophical and social influences that impact on their decision-making. This is presented as a spectrum of influence which persuades or dissuades nurses to participate in assisted dying. The 12 themes have been categorised into four key themes: personal persuaders, personal dissuaders, professional persuaders and professional dissuaders. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that nurses should be involved in policy and procedure guideline development and be offered education and training programmes to ensure safe, confident and informed practice. The need for mentorship programmes was also prevalent in the research. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: It is crucial that nurses be offered education and training in assisted dying. Clear policy and procedure guidelines are essential, and nurses should be involved in the development of these.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".