Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38896003›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Patients' and Caregivers' Suggestions for Improving Assisted Dying Regulation: A Qualitative Study in Australia and Canada.

Ruthie Jeanneret, Eliana Close, Lindy Willmott, Jocelyn Downie, Ben P White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Ruthie JeanneretAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7873-1573
Eliana CloseAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7359-3375
Lindy WillmottAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9750-287X
Jocelyn DownieAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Ben P WhiteAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3365-939X

Funding

This research was funded by the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship project (FT190100410: Enhancing End-of-Life Decision-Making: Optimal Regulation of Voluntary Assisted Dying), which was funded by the Australian government
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAssisted dying (AD) has been legalised in a small but growing number of jurisdictions globally, including Canada and Australia. Early research in both countries demonstrates that, in response to access barriers, patients and caregivers take action to influence their individual experience of AD, as well as AD systems more widely. This study analyses how patients and caregivers suggest other decision-makers in AD systems should address identified issues.

methodsWe conducted semistructured, qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers seeking AD in Victoria (Australia) and three Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia). Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and codebook template analysis.

resultsSixty interviews were conducted with 67 participants (65 caregivers, 2 patients). In Victoria, this involved 28 interviews with 33 participants (32 caregivers, 1 patient) about 28 patient experiences. In Canada, this involved 32 interviews with 34 participants (33 caregivers, 1 patient) about 33 patient experiences. We generated six themes, corresponding to six overarching suggestions by patients and caregivers to address identified system issues: (1) improved content and dissemination of information about AD; (2) proactively develop policies and procedures about AD provision; (3) address institutional objection via top-down action; (4) proactively develop grief resources and peer support mechanisms; (5) amend laws to address legal barriers; and (6) engage with and act on patient and caregiver feedback about experiences.

conclusionAD systems should monitor and respond to suggestions from patients and caregivers with firsthand experience of AD systems, who are uniquely placed to identify issues and suggestions for improvement. To date, Canada has responded comparatively well to address identified issues, whereas the Victorian government has signalled there are no plans to amend laws to address identified access barriers. This may result in patients and caregivers continuing to take on the burdens of acting to address identified issues. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers are central to this research. We interviewed patients and caregivers about their experiences of AD, and the article focuses on their suggestions for addressing identified barriers within AD systems. Patient interest groups in Australia and Canada also supported our recruitment process.

Indexed as

CaregiversInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchSuicide, AssistedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCanadaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatientsassisted dyingcaregiversmedical assistance in dyingpatient experienceregulationsuggestions to improve systemsvoluntary assisted dying

Identifiers

PMID38896003
PMCPMC11187863

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.