<i>“More support, less distress?</i> ”: Examining the role of social norms in alleviating practitioners’ psychological distress in the context of assisted dying services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores how providing assisted dying services affects the psychological distress of practitioners. It investigates the influence of professional norms that endorse such services within their field. Study 1 included veterinarians (N = 137, 75.2% female, Mage = 43.1 years, SDage = 12.7 years), and Study 2 health practitioner students (N = 386, 71.0% female, Mage = 21.0 years, SDage = 14.4 years). In both studies, participants indicated their degree of psychological distress following exposure to scenarios depicting assisted dying services that were relevant to their respective situations. In Study 1, we found that higher willingness to perform animal euthanasia was associated with lower distress, as were supportive norms. In Study 2, a negative association between a greater willingness to perform euthanasia and lower psychological distress occurred only when the provision of such services was supported by professional norms. In conclusion, psychological distress is buffered by supportive professional norms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".