There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
<p xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" class="first" dir="auto"
id="d1109509e89">Objective: No evidence-based intervention effectively reduces cannabis
use in young
adults with psychosis (YAP). To generate hypotheses about why, a scoping review was
conducted to synthesize evidence about motivations for cannabis use and reduction/cessation
for YAP and the psychosocial interventions trialed to identify possible gaps between
motivations and interventive strategies. Methods: A systematic literature search was
conducted in December, 2022. Reviews of titles and abstracts (N = 3,216) and full-texts
(n = 136) resulted in 46 articles. Results: YAP use cannabis for pleasure, to reduce
dysphoria, and for social and recreational reasons; motivations for cessation include
insight about cannabis-psychosis interactions, incompatibility with goals and social
roles, and support from social networks. Interventions with at least minimal evidence
of efficacy include motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioral strategies, and
family skills training. Conclusions: Authors recommend additional research on mechanisms
of change and motivational enhancement therapy, behavioral activation, and family-based
skills interventions matched to YAP motivations for use/cessation.
</p>
Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.