MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390795308 · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1843

Exploring Canadian genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with discussing medical assistance in dying (<scp>MAiD</scp>)

2024· article· en· W4390795308 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca C. Candlish, Susan Creighton, Daryl Pullman, Alison M. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalWomen's Health Research InstituteMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic counselingPublic healthQuality of Life ResearchHuman geneticsMedicinePsychologySociologyNursingGeneticsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) is the Canadian equivalent of Physician aid-in-dying (PAD) in the United States. Through changes to the eligibility criteria for MAiD in 2021, Canada now has one of the most permissive assisted dying regimens in the world. This study describes Canadian genetic counselors' experiences, knowledge, and preparedness to discuss MAiD with their patients. Survey responses were collected from Canadian genetic counselors (n = 44) and were followed by semi-structured interviews with 14 survey participants. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and interview transcripts were analyzed using phronetic iterative analysis and an interpretive description approach. Survey data revealed that genetic counselors have discussed MAiD with patients referred for cancer, neurologic, metabolic, connective tissue, and cardiac indications (n = 18, 40.9%). While most thought that it was important for genetic counselors to be knowledgeable of (n = 41, 93.2%) and prepared to discuss MAiD (n = 43, 97.7%), many were not familiar with the eligibility criteria (n = 27, 61.4%) and the process for accessing MAiD in Canada (n = 29, 65.9%). Interview participants described discussions about MAiD that were initiated by themselves or their patients. Most participants felt prepared to explore a patient's thoughts about MAiD when the patient initiated the discussion but did not feel well-prepared to share detailed information about MAiD. Participants were interested in education and professional guidance to assist them in preparing to discuss MAiD. Learning objectives were developed based on participants' suggestions to assist genetic counselors in their clinical work and self-directed research and to aid in the development of professional guidelines and educational materials for practicing genetic counselors and genetic counseling trainees. As genetic counselors continue engaging in discussions about MAiD, it is critical that these sensitive conversations are approached with increased knowledge and awareness of MAiD legislation, the ethical issues surrounding MAiD in Canada, and relevant patient resources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207