Abstract
Background:
Voter initiatives in Oregon and Colorado authorize legal frameworks for supervised psilocybin services, but no measures monitor safety or outcomes.
Aims:
To develop core measures of best practices.
Methods:
A three-phase e-Delphi process recruited 36 experts with 5 or more years’ experience facilitating psilocybin experiences in various contexts (e.g., ceremonial settings, indigenous practices, clinical trials), or other pertinent psilocybin expertise. Phase I, an on-line survey with qualitative, open-ended text responses, generated potential measures to assess processes, outcomes, and structure reflecting high quality psilocybin services. In Phase II, experts used seven-point Likert scales to rate the importance and feasibility of the Phase I measures. Measures were priority ranked. Qualitative interviews and analysis in Phase III refined top-rated measures.
Results:
Experts (n = 36; 53% female; 71% white; 56% heterosexual) reported currently providing psilocybin services (64%) for a mean of 15.2 [SD 13.1] years, experience with indigenous psychedelic practices (67%), and/or conducting clinical trials (36%). Thematic analysis of Phase I responses yielded 55 candidate process measures (e.g., preparatory hours with client, total dose of psilocybin administered, documentation of touch/sexual boundaries), outcome measures (e.g., adverse events, well-being, anxiety/depression symptoms), and structure measures (e.g., facilitator training in trauma informed care, referral capacity for medical/psychiatric issues). In Phase II and III, experts prioritized a core set of 11 process, 11 outcome, and 17 structure measures that balanced importance and feasibility.
Conclusion:
Service providers and policy makers should consider standardizing core measures developed in this study to monitor the safety, quality, and outcomes of community-based psilocybin services.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
