Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36287559›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Assessment of Oncology Advanced Practice Professional Willingness to Participate in Medical Aid in Dying.

Jonathan Singer, Courtney Daum, Megan J Shen, Gabrielle Zecha, Louise Kaplan, Kathy Plakovic, Meagan Blazey, Molly Arnold, Barbara Silko, Kelsey Baker and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jonathan SingerDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
Courtney DaumClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington.
Megan J ShenClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington.
Gabrielle ZechaDivision of Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Louise KaplanCollege of Nursing, Washington State University, Vancouver.
Kathy PlakovicFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington.
Meagan BlazeyFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington.
Molly ArnoldFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington.
Barbara SilkoFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington.
Kelsey BakerClinical Research Division, Department of Clinical Biostatistics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington.
Elizabeth T LoggersClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington.
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · USUniversity of Washington · USTexas Tech University · USWashington State University Vancouver · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: In 2021, New Mexico passed legislation allowing nurse practitioners and physician assistants (referred to herein as advanced practice professionals [APPs]) to prescribe medications for medical aid in dying (MAID). Other US states with existing MAID laws (eg, Washington) are also considering expanding MAID prescribing authority to APPs. There is a lack of research exploring APP knowledge of, willingness to, and comfort with acting as a prescribing or consulting clinician for MAID. Objective: To assess perspectives of oncology APPs regarding MAID, including their willingness to prescribe and/or consult for MAID and factors associated with willingness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, self-report survey study used data collected from APPs working at a comprehensive cancer center in Washington State in fall 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary survey question was whether APPs would be willing to participate in death with dignity, the term used for MAID in Washington. Survey questions evaluated how influential specific factors were on APP views on MAID as well as respondents' knowledge of and comfort with aspects of the MAID process. Results: Of 167 eligible APPs, 77 (46.1%) responded to the survey. Most respondents (68 [88.3%]) reported their race and ethnicity as White; 72 (93.5%) identified as a woman. Medical oncology (28 [36.4%]) was the most common field of practice, and 21 respondents (27.3%) reported having practiced as an APP for 6 to 10 years. Of all respondents, 61 (79.2%) reported having at least 1 patient who inquired about MAID; depending on the question, less than a third of respondents (5.0%-27.0%) endorsed feeling knowledgeable or very knowledgeable about any aspect of the MAID process. In this study, 39 APPs (50.6%) endorsed being willing to participate in MAID either as a consulting or prescribing clinician, whereas 31 (40.3%) were uncertain of whether they would participate. Willingness to participate was associated with having had more patients pursue MAID (33 of the 39 willing participants [84.6%] vs 15 of the 31 unsure participants [48.4%] reported having 1 or more patients pursue MAID). Higher knowledge and comfort scores were both significantly associated with increased odds of being willing to participate (odds ratio, 1.14 per 1-point score increase [95% CI, 1.03-1.27]; P = .01) vs unsure (1.18 [95% CI, 1.07-1.30; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey study suggest that oncology APPs may require preparation for the addition of MAID to their scope of practice. This study also raises questions for future research regarding support for APPs who may be considering participation in MAID but question their role or want physician involvement.

Indexed as

Nurse PractitionersPhysician AssistantsSuicide, AssistedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMedical Oncology

Identifiers

PMID36287559
PMCPMC9606841
OpenAlexW4307303427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.