MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414258408 · doi:10.3390/healthcare13182290

Supporting Meaningful Choices: A Decision Aid for Individuals Facing Existential Distress and Considering Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy

2025· article· en· W4414258408 on OpenAlexaff
Ariane Bélanger, Sue-Ling Chang, Jean-François Stephan, Florence Moureaux, Diane Tapp, Robert Foxman, Pierre Gagnon, Johanne Hébert, Houman Farzin, Michel Dorval

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health CentreUniversité du Québec à RimouskiMichel-SarrazinCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCanadian Arthritis Patient AllianceHEC MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision aidsUsabilityMultidisciplinary approachDistressHealth professionalsHealth careDecision support systemExistentialism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Given the limitations of traditional approaches to treating existential distress in seriously ill patients, psilocybin-assisted therapy (PAT) has emerged as a promising treatment option. However, weighing up the potential risks and benefits of this approach can be challenging for both healthcare professionals and patients. Decision aids can play a key role in supporting shared decision making by clarifying options, improving knowledge, and enhancing decision quality. To date, there is no decision aid specific to PAT. This descriptive study aimed to develop a decision aid for individuals considering this therapy. Methods: A paper-based/electronic decision aid was developed with a multidisciplinary steering committee following the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration (IPDAS). Development included conducting a literature review and prototype design, evaluating acceptability and usability by potential users (i.e., patients and healthcare professionals), and producing a final version. Questionnaires, direct feedback, and semi-structured interviews with potential users allowed for evaluation and refinement of design and content. Results: The final version of the decision aid is presented as a booklet, covering areas such as PAT education, comparison of treatment options, and personal reflection. Feedback from patients (n = 5) and healthcare professionals (n = 5) guided improvements, helping clarify content, ensuring balanced information, optimizing its length for usability, and providing decision-making support. Conclusions: The decision aid developed in this study demonstrated satisfactory acceptability and usability, meeting IPDAS criteria. By providing balanced and accessible information, it may facilitate shared decision-making for individuals considering PAT, representing a significant step forward in this emerging area of palliative care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207