ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Understanding Incorrectness: Structural and Ideologic Predictors of Public Knowledge About MAID Legality in the U.S.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedical aid in dying (MAID) is legal in an increasing number of U.S. jurisdictions, yet public understanding of its legal status remains limited. Prior studies often collapse incorrect and "don't know" responses, obscuring potentially distinct ideological and structural correlates.
objectiveTo examine predictors of uncertainty and misinformation about MAID legality among U.S. adults.
designCross-sectional survey.
participantsWe used a convenience sample of U.S. adults recruited through Cloud Research's Prime Panels (N = 3,222), oversampling racial and ethnic minoritized groups, older adults (≥ 60 years), and residents of MAID-legal states. Analyses focused on two subsamples restricted to respondents who were uncertain or incorrect about MAID legality: national-level knowledge (n = 2,278) and state level knowledge among residents of MAID-legal states (n = 1,711). MAIN MEASURES: Respondents indicated whether MAID was legal (a) anywhere in the US and (b) in their state. Knowledge was categorized as "correct," "incorrect" (misinformation), or "don't know." Logistic regressions identified predictors of misinformation versus not knowing at state and national levels. KEY
resultsIn the national sample, misinformed respondents (vs those who answered "don't know") were more likely to believe MAID should not be legal compared to respondents who were unsure about legality (average marginal effects (AME) = 0.22; CI: 0.14, 0.29; p < 0.001). They were also more likely to say that MAID is morally acceptable compared to respondents unsure about its morality (AME = 0.11; CI: 0.06, 0.17; p < 0.001). In both subsamples, structural factors (lower educational attainment and greater financial insecurity) were associated with higher likelihood of uncertainty rather than misinformation.
conclusionsPublic knowledge about MAID legality reflects two distinct patterns: misinformation appears ideologically motivated, while uncertainty is linked to structural factors. Efforts to improve health literacy may reduce uncertainty, but misinformation may require value-aligned communication and trusted messengers to support informed decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41578105What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.