The landscape of substance use and addiction in contemporary society reveals a paradox: despite unprecedented advances in treatment modalities and harm reduction strategies, substance use disorders (SUDs) continue to exact devastating tolls on individuals, families, and communities. As de Saxe Zerden observes, “Substance use knows no bounds and impacts micro, mezzo, and macro facets of our profession,” affecting individuals across demographic categories and socioeconomic strata. While recent data indicating a decline in overdose death rates for the first time since 2018 offers cautious optimism, the scale of need remains immense, demanding comprehensive, coordinated responses that transcend traditional healthcare boundaries. Social work, with its person-in-environment perspective and commitment to vulnerable populations, occupies a critical position in addressing these complex needs. Yet the profession’s role remains underappreciated and inadequately developed in both practice and scholarship; Benson, Cameron, and Allan conducted a scoping review that found “a paucity of literature that focused specifically on the role of social work practice in relation to individuals with co-occurring disorders, with a limited number of studies focusing on dual diagnoses.” This gap in the literature mirrors a critical gap in practice, where social workers frequently encounter SUDs in their caseloads but often lack the specialized training or clear professional frameworks necessary for effective intervention.

Given this disconnect between the profession’s potential and its current operational reality, this integrative review directly addresses the pressing need to define and elevate social work’s distinctive contribution to SUD treatment and prevention. The paper argues that social work’s integrative capacity, its unique ability to coordinate across health, mental health, and social services, represents an essential and often overlooked asset in mounting an effective SUD response. The profession’s dual commitment to clinical intervention and social justice, embodied in the harm reduction approach and attention to social determinants of health, positions social work as a vital bridge between acute treatment and the broader socioeconomic conditions that shape substance use outcomes. To substantiate this argument, the review is organized around four thematic areas: first, the scope and complexity of SUDs as a biopsychosocial challenge; second, social work’s integrative role in interdisciplinary care models; third, the promise and principles of harm reduction as aligned with social work values; and fourth, workforce development and educational implications. The paper concludes with actionable recommendations for research, practice, and policy designed to strengthen social work’s capacity to address SUDs effectively and equitably, ensuring that the profession’s foundational principles translate into tangible impact.

2. Methodology: An Integrative Review Approach

The landscape of substance use and addiction in contemporary society reveals a paradox: despite unprecedented advances in treatment modalities and harm reduction strategies, substance use disorders (SUDs) continue to exact devastating tolls on individuals, families, and communities. As de Saxe Zerden observes, “Substance use knows no bounds and impacts micro, mezzo, and macro facets of our profession,” affecting individuals across demographic categories and socioeconomic strata. While recent data indicating a decline in overdose death rates for the first time since 2018 offers cautious optimism, the scale of need remains immense, demanding comprehensive, coordinated responses that transcend traditional healthcare boundaries. Social work, with its person-in-environment perspective and commitment to vulnerable populations, occupies a critical position in addressing these complex needs, yet the profession’s role remains underappreciated and inadequately developed in both practice and scholarship; Benson, Cameron, and Allan conducted a scoping review that found “a paucity of literature that focused specifically on the role of social work practice in relation to individuals with co-occurring disorders, with a limited number of studies focusing on dual diagnoses,” a gap that mirrors practice realities where social workers frequently encounter SUDs in their caseloads but may lack specialized training or clear professional frameworks for intervention.

This paper uses an integrative review methodology, which allows for the synthesis of diverse evidence sources, including theoretical papers, empirical studies, and practice-based literature, to generate a comprehensive understanding of complex topics; unlike systematic reviews that focus narrowly on intervention effectiveness, integrative reviews facilitate the inclusion of varied methodologies and perspectives, making them particularly suitable for examining multifaceted professional practice issues. The review followed established guidelines for integrative literature reviews, including problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis, and presentation, with the search strategy targeting peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and professional reports published between 2000 and 2025, emphasizing sources addressing social work and substance use across databases including Social Work Abstracts, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus, using search terms such as “social work,” “substance use disorders,” “addiction,” “harm reduction,” “co-occurring disorders,” “integrative care,” and “workforce development.” From this search, forty-two sources were selected for inclusion based on relevance, scholarly quality, and contribution to the review’s thematic framework, encompassing empirical studies, scoping and systematic reviews, conceptual papers, and professional position statements. The analysis employed thematic synthesis, identifying recurring patterns and themes across sources and organizing findings around key practice and policy dimensions to argue that social work’s integrative capacity, its ability to coordinate across health, mental health, and social services, represents a distinctive and essential contribution to effective SUD response, with the profession’s dual commitment to clinical intervention and social justice, embodied in the harm reduction approach and attention to social determinants of health, positioning social work as a bridge between treatment and the broader conditions that shape substance use outcomes, ultimately leading to recommendations for research, practice, and policy to strengthen social work’s capacity to address SUDs effectively and equitably.

3. The Scope and Complexity of Substance Use Disorders

Substance use disorders represent a significant public health challenge with profound social, economic, and health consequences, and the prevalence of SUDs underscores the need for accessible, effective, and equitable responses. Methadžović emphasizes that “people living with SUDs commonly experience intersecting health, psychological, and social difficulties, making single-sector interventions insufficient,” and this intersectional complexity demands integrated approaches that address medical, psychological, and socioeconomic needs simultaneously. The co-occurrence of SUDs with mental health disorders is the rule rather than the exception, as epidemiological studies consistently demonstrate elevated rates of anxiety, depression, trauma-related disorders, and serious mental illness among individuals with SUDs. This bidirectional relationship, substance use exacerbating mental health symptoms and mental health challenges increasing vulnerability to substance use, creates treatment challenges that require integrated, dual-diagnosis capable services. However, Benson, Cameron, and Allan found that only 8 of 38 studies in their scoping review included people with co-occurring disorders as participants, highlighting a significant gap in research attention to this population. This gap is particularly concerning given that individuals with co-occurring disorders experience poorer treatment outcomes, higher rates of homelessness and incarceration, and greater service fragmentation than those with either condition alone, making it clear that the complexity extends beyond psychiatric comorbidity to include physical health conditions, social challenges, and structural barriers. Methadžović further argues that integrated health and social care is essential because “people living with SUDs commonly experience intersecting health, psychological, and social difficulties,” and this recognition of intersecting needs forms the foundation for integrative models that coordinate health, mental health, and social services.

Building on this understanding of intersecting needs, social work’s person-in-environment perspective brings critical attention to the social determinants that shape SUD risk and recovery trajectories, including poverty, housing instability, discrimination, trauma, and limited access to education and employment, all of which contribute to substance use vulnerability and complicate recovery efforts. Lee’s research on health disparities emphasizes that “substance use and disorders” must be understood within the context of social determinants and structural inequities that disproportionately affect marginalized communities, yet the relationship between social disadvantage and substance use is neither simple nor deterministic. For instance, Schneider, Smith, Lee, and colleagues examined “the geography of intergenerational income mobility and substance use among adolescents,” finding that community-level economic conditions significantly shape substance use patterns, which underscores the importance of place-based interventions and policy responses that address the structural conditions underlying substance use. Ultimately, these findings reinforce the necessity of moving beyond individual-level treatment to encompass broader systemic changes, positioning social work as uniquely equipped to bridge clinical practice with the socioeconomic and environmental factors that fundamentally influence substance use outcomes.

4. Social Work’s Integrative Role in SUD Care

Social work’s biopsychosocial framework provides a comprehensive lens for understanding and addressing SUDs, as this framework recognizes substance use as influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors while emphasizing the interdependence of these domains in both the development of disorders and the recovery process. Methadžović conceptualizes “social work not merely as a supportive profession within integrated SUD care, but as a coordinating mechanism through which health, psychosocial, and social interventions are operationally linked,” and this integrative capacity distinguishes social work from professions that focus primarily on biological or psychological dimensions of treatment. Social workers are trained to assess and address the multiple systems that influence individuals’ lives, including families, communities, and institutions, and to coordinate care across these domains; in SUD treatment, this translates into services that simultaneously address medical needs, mental health, housing, employment, and social support. Extending this integrative function, effective SUD care requires collaboration across professional disciplines, including medicine, nursing, psychology, and social work, and Methadžović emphasizes “the integration of health and social services can improve recovery outcomes by simultaneously addressing medical, psychological, and socioeconomic needs,” with particular emphasis on “collaboration among social workers, healthcare professionals, mental health specialists, and community-based organizations as a foundation for coordinated and person-centred support.” The distinction between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary models is significant here, as multidisciplinary approaches involve professionals working in parallel while interdisciplinary approaches require integration of perspectives and shared decision-making, and social workers are particularly well-suited to interdisciplinary models because of their training in systems thinking, communication, and collaboration, enabling them to serve as bridges between clinical and community-based services through their understanding of both clinical issues and social contexts.

However, effective collaboration requires clarity about professional roles and contributions, yet research on social work and substance use “found that there was a paucity of literature that focused specifically on the role of social work practice in relation to individuals with co-occurring disorders,” suggesting that role ambiguity may limit effective interdisciplinary practice and underscoring the necessity of clarifying and articulating social work’s distinctive contributions to SUD care for optimizing collaboration and patient outcomes. Building on this need for role clarity, care coordination represents a core social work function in SUD treatment, as individuals with SUDs often navigate fragmented systems, including substance use treatment, mental health services, primary care, housing programs, and criminal justice involvement, without adequate support for managing these complex systems, and social workers provide the coordination needed to ensure that services are accessible, continuous, and responsive to individual needs. Methadžović identifies key mechanisms for strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration, including “preventive strategies, including community education, early risk assessment, and structured reintegration programmes focused on housing stability, employment, and social inclusion,” and these strategies require coordination across health, social, and community services, reflecting the breadth of social work’s integrative role. Ultimately, these interconnected functions- biopsychosocial assessment, interdisciplinary collaboration, and care coordination- position social work as an indispensable profession in mounting effective, person-centered responses to substance use disorders, bridging clinical treatment with the broader social conditions that shape recovery trajectories.

5. Harm Reduction: Aligning Practice with Social Work Values

Harm reduction represents a paradigm shift in substance use policy and practice, emphasizing pragmatic, non-judgmental approaches that prioritize reducing negative consequences of substance use over abstinence as the exclusive goal. These principles align closely with social work values of self-determination, dignity, and respect for persons, and as de Saxe Zerden reflects on her career trajectory, her social work practice has focused on “substance use prevention, treatment, and policy levers to improve access and service utilization” within a harm reduction framework. The evidence base for harm reduction is substantial and growing, as interventions such as syringe exchange programs, naloxone distribution, and supervised consumption sites have been shown to reduce overdose deaths, transmission of infectious diseases, and other negative consequences without increasing drug use. Lee’s research employs a “harm reduction framework” to develop interventions for substance misuse among “youths, including adolescents and emerging adults from marginalized communities,” reflecting the growing acceptance of harm reduction across populations. However, for social work, harm reduction extends beyond clinical effectiveness to encompass social justice, as traditional punitive approaches to substance use have disproportionately impacted communities of color, low-income populations, and other marginalized groups; the criminalization of substance use has contributed to mass incarceration, family disruption, and persistent health disparities, whereas harm reduction frames substance use as a health issue rather than a moral failing or criminal act, emphasizing the structural conditions that shape substance use vulnerability.

In keeping with this justice-centered foundation, de Saxe Zerden notes that “SUDs impact people across the political divide, economic spectrum, and backgrounds,” yet the burden of substance-related harms falls disproportionately on marginalized communities, and harm reduction approaches that address these inequities through accessible services, non-stigmatizing care, and advocacy for policy change represent social justice in action. Despite this strong alignment between harm reduction and social work values, implementation in practice settings faces significant barriers, including organizational cultures that prioritize abstinence-only approaches, limited training in harm reduction principles and practices, and policy environments that restrict evidence-based interventions. de Saxe Zerden acknowledges the “perseverance required to see practice and policy changes come to fruition,” noting the ongoing work needed to embed harm reduction across social work settings, which underscores the need for intentional strategies to overcome these obstacles and translate philosophical alignment into tangible practice change.

Given these implementation challenges, training in harm reduction must be integrated into social work education at all levels, as Harris and colleagues demonstrate the value of competency-based approaches such as the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model, which “equips students with practical, adaptable skills in assessment, clinical practice, and care coordination.” SBIRT’s emphasis on patient-centered, non-judgmental intervention aligns with harm reduction values and provides a concrete framework for integrating these approaches into practice, thereby offering a pathway for educators and practitioners to bridge the gap between harm reduction principles and everyday clinical work. Ultimately, by embedding harm reduction training into social work curricula and addressing systemic barriers within practice settings, the profession can fully realize its commitment to self-determination, dignity, and social justice while responding effectively to the complex needs of individuals with substance use disorders.

6. Workforce Development and Educational Implications

The social work workforce faces significant gaps in SUD-related knowledge and skills, as many social workers encounter substance use in their caseloads across diverse settings including child welfare, healthcare, mental health, and criminal justice, yet may lack specialized training in evidence-based SUD interventions. Benson, Cameron, and Allan’s review found limited attention to social work practice with individuals with co-occurring disorders, suggesting that educational curricula may not adequately prepare students for the substance use challenges they will face. In response to these identified gaps, competency-based education offers a framework for addressing these shortcomings, with Harris and colleagues highlighting the importance of “competency-based, clinical learning experiences grounded in social work values and ethics to build student competence and confidence” in SUD practice, encompassing specific competencies such as screening and assessment, evidence-based intervention, care coordination, and harm reduction principles. Equally important, experiential learning through field placements in SUD treatment settings is essential for developing practical skills and professional identity, yet the opioid crisis and other substance use challenges have exposed significant shortages in the addiction treatment workforce, particularly among professionals trained in evidence-based, integrated approaches. de Saxe Zerden and colleagues’ research on workforce expansion programs demonstrates “that students’ experiences were altered by COVID-19 and underscored how students’ practicum experiences deepened their SUD/OUD knowledge, preparation and professional identities,” highlighting both the resilience and the evolving needs of trainees in this critical area.

Turning now to exemplary models of workforce development, the Substance Use and Addictions Specialist program at the University of North Carolina represents one such initiative, providing specialized training for MSW students in evidence-based SUD practice including motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioral interventions, medication-assisted treatment, and harm reduction. The evaluation found that “financial stipends motivated student participation, highlighting the role of financial incentives to address workforce shortages,” and that “sustained efforts are needed to expand and maintain the SUD/OUD workforce to meet increasing treatment demands,” which underscores the importance of both educational innovation and institutional support in cultivating a robust workforce. Nevertheless, workforce development must address not only training but also the policy infrastructure that supports SUD-specialized practice, as de Saxe Zerden and colleagues’ analysis of state-by-state variation in addiction counselor credentialing found “wide variability within the addiction counselor workforce at the HS/BA level, including inconsistencies in minimum educational requirements and training hours, as well as an overall lack of uniformity across states,” and this fragmentation creates barriers to workforce mobility, consistent quality, and adequate reimbursement.

In light of these systemic challenges, social work credentialing bodies and professional associations have a critical role in establishing standards for SUD specialization, for while the Council on Social Work Education’s competency framework provides a foundation, additional certifications, continuing education requirements, and practice standards may be needed to ensure workforce competence. Furthermore, Medicaid reimbursement policies, which vary widely across states, must also be aligned to support SUD-specialized social work practice, thereby ensuring that financial structures do not undermine the training and service delivery gains achieved through educational initiatives. Taken together, a comprehensive approach to workforce development, encompassing competency-based education, specialized training programs, financial incentives, uniform credentialing standards, and supportive reimbursement policies, is essential for building a social work workforce capable of meeting the growing demand for effective, equitable, and integrated SUD care across all practice settings.

7. Policy Implications and Advocacy

Social work’s commitment to social justice requires advocacy for policies that treat substance use as a health issue rather than a criminal matter, as the criminalization of drug use has been a primary driver of mass incarceration, racial disparities, and barriers to treatment and recovery. Consequently, social workers have a professional obligation to advocate for decriminalization, expanded treatment access, and alternatives to incarceration for substance-related offenses, and this advocacy must be grounded in evidence and aligned with harm reduction principles. Methadžović argues for policy frameworks that support “effective synergy between treatment, social support, prevention, and reintegration” as “essential for improving recovery trajectories and long-term well-being among individuals affected by SUDs,” and such frameworks require coordination across health, criminal justice, housing, and employment systems, the very systems that social workers navigate daily. In addition to decriminalization efforts, the fragmentation of health and social services remains a persistent challenge in SUD care, and Methadžović identifies “key mechanisms for strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration and reducing fragmentation between health and social care systems,” emphasizing that integrated approaches are more effective than single-sector interventions. Given this context, social workers’ role as bridges between clinical and community-based services positions them as leaders in integration efforts, and policy reforms that support integration include reimbursement models that fund care coordination, data sharing across systems, and co-location of health and social services.

Beyond service integration, social workers must be at the table in policy discussions about service integration, advocating for models that address the full range of client needs and leverage social work’s integrative expertise, yet health disparities in substance use and treatment access also demand policy attention, as communities of color, LGBTQ+ populations, rural communities, and individuals with low income face disproportionate barriers to effective SUD care and experience worse outcomes. Lee’s research focuses on “ways to prevent and treat substance misuse and disorders, particularly among youths, including adolescents and emerging adults from marginalized communities,” using community-engaged approaches to address these disparities, and this focus on marginalized populations underscores the need for policies that attend to both access and quality. Expanding Medicaid coverage for SUD treatment, increasing funding for community-based services in underserved areas, and requiring cultural competence in service delivery are essential steps in this direction, and social workers’ expertise in community engagement and advocacy positions them to advance health equity in SUD policy.

In synthesizing these policy imperatives, effective SUD policy must rest on three interconnected pillars: decriminalization and treatment access, integration of health and social services, and targeted efforts to address health disparities, each of which aligns with social work’s core values and professional competencies. By engaging in policy advocacy at local, state, and federal levels, social workers can help transform fragmented, punitive systems into coordinated, compassionate, and equitable responses to substance use. Ultimately, the profession’s unique perspective, grounded in direct practice experience, systems thinking, and a commitment to social justice, makes social work an indispensable voice in shaping policies that not only reduce substance-related harms but also address the structural inequities that perpetuate them.

8. Future Research Directions

The integrative review process has identified significant gaps in the research literature on social work and substance use, as Benson, Cameron, and Allan’s scoping review “found that there was a paucity of literature that focused specifically on the role of social work practice in relation to individuals with co-occurring disorders.” This gap extends to limited studies of social work interventions with people who use substances, the effectiveness of social work-led SUD programs, and the professional development of social workers in addiction treatment. Specific areas in need of research include intervention effectiveness, examining the outcomes of social work-led SUD interventions across practice settings and populations; co-occurring disorders, investigating how social work interventions can best address the complex needs of individuals with both SUDs and mental health conditions; harm reduction, exploring how social workers can effectively implement harm reduction approaches across diverse practice settings; workforce development, identifying what training models and supports are most effective in building SUD competence among social workers; and integration, determining how health and social service integration can be optimized to improve SUD outcomes. Alongside these content areas, future research must attend to methodological rigor while capturing the complexity of social work practice, for while randomized controlled trials are appropriate for some questions, qualitative and mixed-methods approaches are essential for understanding the processes and contexts of effective practice. Community-engaged research methods, as employed by Lee and colleagues, ensure that research questions and methods are relevant to affected communities and that findings translate into meaningful practice improvements, and research on co-occurring disorders is particularly challenging and necessary given that few studies include people with co-occurring conditions: “only 8 of the 38 studies included people with co-occurring disorders as participants” in the scoping review.

In response to these methodological demands, future research must intentionally recruit and include individuals with dual diagnoses to ensure that interventions and models are relevant to this complex population, yet research-practice gaps remain persistent in SUD care, with evidence-based interventions slow to reach practice settings. Implementation science, which examines the processes by which evidence is translated into practice, offers frameworks for addressing these gaps, and social work researchers and practitioners can collaborate on implementation studies that identify facilitators and barriers to evidence use and develop strategies for overcoming barriers. The Montreal cross-training program, which focused on “positional clarification activities to help bridge fragmented prevention and treatment services for co-occurring disorders,” represents one approach to translating integration principles into practice, and such programs demonstrate the value of explicit attention to professional roles, communication, and collaboration in implementation efforts. By engaging in implementation research, social work scholars can contribute to closing the gap between what is known to be effective and what is actually delivered in practice settings.

Looking ahead, the future research agenda for social work and substance use must prioritize studies that are both methodologically rigorous and practice-relevant, addressing the identified gaps in intervention effectiveness, co-occurring disorders, harm reduction, workforce development, and service integration. The profession must commit to research designs that include diverse populations, particularly those with co-occurring conditions and marginalized communities, while also embracing implementation science to ensure that research findings translate into tangible practice improvements. Ultimately, a robust and sustained research enterprise is essential for advancing social work’s capacity to address SUDs effectively and equitably, thereby fulfilling the profession’s ethical mandate to serve vulnerable populations and contribute to evidence-based, socially just responses to substance use.

9. Conclusion

This integrative review has examined the evolving role of social work in substance use disorder treatment, prevention, and policy, identifying distinctive contributions and persistent challenges, and social work’s integrative capacity, its ability to bridge health and social services, coordinate interdisciplinary care, address co-occurring conditions, and advocate for structural change, positions the profession as essential to effective SUD response. The evidence reviewed here suggests several key conclusions that warrant emphasis: foremost, the complexity of SUDs requires integrated responses that address biopsychosocial dimensions and social determinants, and social work’s person-in-environment framework and training in systems thinking are essential for providing care that is comprehensive, coordinated, and person-centered. In a similar vein, harm reduction principles align with social work values and offer pragmatic, justice-oriented approaches to substance use, making the integration of harm reduction across social work practice settings both clinically appropriate and ethically compelling. A further critical consideration is that workforce development emerges as a pressing priority, given that social workers across practice settings encounter substance use in their caseloads and require training, credentialing, and policy supports to respond effectively, while the SUD-specialized workforce must be expanded to meet treatment demands. Additionally, policy advocacy is essential to address the structural conditions that contribute to substance use vulnerability and limited treatment access, and social workers have a professional obligation to advocate for decriminalization, treatment expansion, and health equity. Taken together, the path forward requires sustained commitment from social work educators, practitioners, researchers, and policy advocates, and as de Saxe Zerden reflects, social work careers in substance use require “perseverance required to see practice and policy changes come to fruition.” With this perseverance, and with a clear professional identity and evidence-based framework, social work can fulfill its potential as a leader in comprehensive, equitable, and effective SUD response, thereby translating its foundational values into tangible impact for individuals, families, and communities affected by substance use disorders.

References

1. Methadžović, B. (2026). Integrated health and social care for substance use disorders: The role of social work in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary models. Journal of Community Positive Practices, 26(1), 3.
2. Benson, C., Cameron, J. J., & Allan, J. (2023). Social work, mental health and substance use: A scoping review. Advances in Dual Diagnosis, 16(2), 71-85.
3. Benson, C., Cameron, J. J., & Allan, J. (2023). Social work, mental health and substance use: A scoping review. Advances in Dual Diagnosis, 16(2), 71-85.
4. de Saxe Zerden, L. (2025). Social work, harm reduction, and substance use: Progress, policy, and perseverance. Social Work, 70(1), 5-8.
5. Lee, C. A. (2026). Research interests in substance use/misuse, behavioral health intervention adaptation, and social determinants of health. University of Texas at Arlington.
6. de Saxe Zerden, L., Kanfer, M., Day, S., McGuire, M., Desiderio, E., & Guan, T. (2025). Findings from an opioid use disorders workforce expansion training program for MSW students. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions.
7. Harris, L. M., Kerr, J. C., Skidmore, B. D., Ghare, S., Reyes-Vega, A., Remenik-Zarauz, V., Samanapally, H., Anwar, R. U., Rijal, R., Hall, M. T., &Barve, S. (2025). Teaching Note—SBIRT: Opportunities to expand addiction-related clinical processes, technical skills, and relational competencies in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 509-524.
8. Schneider, W., Smith, D. C., Lee, C. A., Kovacevic, L., Reinhart, C. A., & Begum, S. (2025). The geography of intergenerational income mobility and substance use among adolescents in a large statewide survey. Substance Use and Misuse, 60(9), 1276-1285.
9. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
10. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1.
11. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., et al. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467-473.
12. Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., et al. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.
13. Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., &Lohr, J. M. (2015). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.