Background: While the adoption of psilocybin-assisted therapy for existential distress offers promising support for patients with life-threatening illnesses, implementing this intervention into palliative care settings presents significant real-world challenges. Aim: To examine palliative care stakeholders’ knowledge and attitudes regarding psilocybin-assisted therapy, and identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation. Design: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between April 15 and December 18, 2024. The survey assessed perceived knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers and facilitators to the effective integration of psilocybin-assisted therapy into palliative care settings. Setting/participants: One hundred and twenty-one adults involved in palliative care (physicians, other healthcare professionals, caregivers, and managers) were recruited from Canada’s four most populous provinces: Québec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. Results: Forty-three percent of stakeholders reported having good knowledge of psilocybin’s potential benefits and risks. Attitudes towards psilocybin-assisted therapy were predominantly non-favourable (61%), yet varied across occupational groups ( p < 0.0001), with 95% of physicians reporting favourable attitudes. The lack of trained healthcare providers was viewed as the primary barrier to implementation. Key facilitators included further research and developing standardised intervention protocols. Sixty-eight percent of stakeholders endorsed the introduction of psilocybin-assisted therapy during the early stages of the illness trajectory. Conclusions: Translating the potential of psilocybin-assisted therapy for existential distress from clinical trials into palliative care settings requires careful consideration and collaboration with stakeholders. Given the significant divergence in perspectives between clinical and non-clinical groups, tailored interprofessional education could help build shared understanding and support effective implementation. Being conducted in Canada, transferability to different regulatory frameworks may be limited.
Plourde et al. (Tue,) studied this question.