MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414438022 · doi:10.1177/08404704251363081

Non-regulated but involved: Exploring the experiences of unregulated support providers in MAiD service delivery in Canada

2025· article· en· W4414438022 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Clinton Ekaeze, Devidas Menon, Tania Stafinski

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsThematic analysisService providerLegalizationPsychosocialService (business)Qualitative researchHealthcare service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its legalization in 2016, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada has undergone significant development, yet the roles of Unregulated Support Providers (USPs) remain largely overlooked in research and policy discussions. This study investigates the experiences of and challenges faced by USPs supporting patients choosing MAiD in Canada. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 USPs across Canada, recruited via purposive sampling. Thematic analysis was employed to explore experiences and identify patterns of service provision, collaboration, and barriers to care. USPs offer emotional, educational, and logistical support to patients and families navigating MAiD-related decisions. Despite their contributions, they face barriers, such as financial inaccessibility and lack of formal recognition. Participants advocated for greater integration into the formal healthcare system and regulation to enhance accountability, accessibility, and patient safety. USPs can play an important yet overlooked role in MAiD. Their formal recognition could enhance psychosocial care for patients.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.345
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207