ArticleBMC palliative care2026
End-of-life communication in the context of MAID: a qualitative study on the perspectives and preferences of individuals living with MS.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSaskatchewan, Canada, has one of the highest prevalence rates for multiple sclerosis (MS) in the world, and as treatment options evolve, individuals living with MS (ILMS) are living longer. Medical assistance in dying (MAID) has been a legal end-of-life (EOL) care option in Canada since 2016, and some individuals living with MS are choosing this option as they age and/or their disease progresses. Given the complexity of MS, including the risk of fluctuating capacity in end-of-life decision-making, ongoing communication about EOL options is essential. However, sparse information is available regarding individuals’ perspectives on communication when discussing end-of-life care, particularly when MAID is a legally available option. This project addressed this gap.
methodsA qualitative research project using the Interpretive Description methodology was completed. The data set included twenty-seven interviews with individuals living with MS and healthcare professionals, participant contextual and demographic data (including the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 and the Patient-Determined Disease Steps), interviewer field notes, and reflective content. Descriptive statistical analysis and inductive reflexive thematic analysis were completed.
resultsParticipants identified the importance of (1) Forging trust, (2) Framing information, (3) Facilitating conversation, (4) Balancing timing, and (5) Navigating misinformation when discussing end-of-life care when MAID is a legally available option. Participants emphasized the need for a trusted relationship with their healthcare professionals to discuss EOL options without hesitation and fear. They also highlighted that end-of-life care information should be inclusive of all options and made available in various formats. They acknowledged that these conversations are complex and sometimes avoided, and how, after overcoming their fear and hesitancy, they felt gratitude or relief in being able to talk about end-of-life issues. Participants also shared that the most effective decision-making time occurs during periods of illness stability. Participants identified a need for reliable resources to address misinformation and facilitate informed decision-making.
conclusionsThe findings support end-of-life care planning throughout the MS care trajectory. Through relationships, access to accurate and inclusive information on EOL and conversations during periods of relative illness stability, an informed and person-centred decision-making process can be facilitated.
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.