SynthesisDrug and alcohol review2025
General dental practitioners' knowledge, attitudes and practice towards psychoactive substance use screening: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Drug and alcohol review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- General dental practitioners' knowledge, attitudes and practice towards psychoactive substance use screening: A systematic review.Drug and alcohol review · 2025Pooled it
- Oral health and mental health: lived experiences of stigma and discrimination for Australians with mental health conditions.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Alcohol use-related problems in general hospitals and primary care settings: Screening, intervention, and referral to treatment.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
issuesDentists can play a key role in screening for psychoactive substances use. This systematic review aimed to identify the knowledge, attitudes and practices of dentists related to screening for use of psychoactive substances and the facilitating factors and barriers. APPROACH: According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, four databases were searched until July 2024 to identify reports relating to screening for substance use by dentists. Search terms used key words relating to knowledge, attitudes or practices concerning the screening of tobacco, alcohol or any other substance use. KEY
findingsTwenty reports met the inclusion criteria for this review. In practice, dentists were more likely to identify tobacco use than alcohol or other substance use. Although the screening for tobacco was widely performed by dentists, the proposal of interventions was less frequent. Despite the opinion of many dentists that screening is part of their professional role, particularly tobacco, their knowledge of how to identify and intervene seemed low. Lack of knowledge or training were identified as barriers. IMPLICATIONS: Identification of these factors should encourage greater diffusion of recommended tools for screening and development of initial and continuing training for dentists. These factors should convince decision-makers to help dentists to identify referral solutions, in particular coordinated care pathways, and to consider the acceptability and feasibility of the screening tools available to dentists.
conclusionTobacco use was more frequently identified than was other substances, screening was always more frequent than interventions, and lack of training proved to be the main barriers to screening. Education and training in the screening of psychoactive substance use is a key factor in encouraging improved practices, particularly on intervention following detection and on substances other than tobacco.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.