A scoping review of variations in psychedelic interventions for psychological suffering associated with the end of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychedelic substances are recognized for their potential to ease psychological suffering linked to end-of-life issues, yet policy remains restrictive. The wide range of both substances and therapeutic approaches used in end-of-life populations has not been adequately covered by reviews to date. AIM: To identify and learn from the variety that exists within the research on therapeutic psychedelic interventions reported in populations coping with psychological suffering associated with life-threatening illness and the end of life itself. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework for scoping reviews, updated methodological guidance, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guideline, data extracted from selected studies covered intervention details, substances used, participant characteristics, measured outcomes, and theorized mechanisms. RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies on six types of psychedelic substances for end-of-life issues were identified, with case study designs most common. Interventions were categorized into dosing alone, preparation/dosing/integration, and dosing with any psychotherapeutic support not provided within the tripartite model. Most studies reported challenging experiences, with a large proportion considering them therapeutic. Outcome measures spanned biopsychosocial-spiritual domains, with affective and cognitive-affective sub-domains most often assessed; neurobiological mechanisms were reported in 54 % of studies, psychological in 51 %, and spiritual in 44 %, indicating diverse therapeutic processes. CONCLUSION: There is extraordinary variety in how psychedelics are studied to address the experience of psychological suffering associated with end-of-life concerns. The variability in psychedelic research reflects an early and exploratory phase, differences in beliefs about how therapeutic psychedelic interventions effect change, and the genuine richness in possibilities for therapeutic psychedelic interventions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".