ArticlePalliative care and social practice2025
Developing robust systems for Track 2 MAID in Canada: A qualitative study.
Article in Palliative care and social practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Developing robust care systems to support the evolving landscape of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada has proven difficult. The complexity of applicants applying under Track 2, in which a reasonably foreseeable natural death is not required for eligibility, has challenged the capacities of systems that were initially developed to care for Track 1 applicants. Objective: To identify structures and practices described by healthcare providers involved in Track 2 care as key to developing a robust system of high quality and safe care for persons applying under Track 2 MAID in Canada. Design: A qualitative study informed by the principles of Interpretive Description, a pragmatic research approach developed for health disciplines. Methods: Fifty-five healthcare providers, MAID program administrators, and key informants participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were conducted over Zoom™, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using strategies outlined in Interpretive Description. Results: The work of Track 2 care was described as complex, emotionally-laden, risky, and in some regions, inadequately remunerated. MAID coordination centres were effective for Track 2 care when they were team-based; had a structured intake that supported assessors and managed the expectations of applicants; and provided education and navigation support for applicants and family. The coordination centre role was particularly critical when applicants had no primary care provider. The availability of prospective interdisciplinary case consultation was considered essential for optimizing care in the context of Track 2 applicants. Conclusion: The assessment for, and provision of, MAID is unique in healthcare. It is the only federally legislated healthcare act, and it is irreversible. It is also morally contentious, particularly in the case with Track 2 where applicants' years of life lost may be significant. The safe and effective implementation of Track 2 requires a robust systems approach that to-date is available in only some regions of Canada.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.