Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40790584›Full record

ReviewDrug and alcohol review2025

Rapid Review of Addiction Practice Supervision.

Alexander El Amanni, Allen Bartley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alexander El AmanniSchool of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-1476-5157
Allen BartleySchool of Counselling, Human Services and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

issuesClinical supervision is important in addiction practice to uphold ethics, maintain best practice and provide support for practitioners facing work-related stress or risk of burnout. However, addiction practice supervision research is limited and the theoretical foundations have not been critically reviewed. The lack of evidence on available models for supervisors and practitioners drove the need for a targeted review. APPROACH: This rapid review, informed by Cochrane guidelines, employed a systematic protocol using a broad keyword search on Google Scholar, Scopus, CINAHL and Embase to identify theories and models in supervision for addiction treatment settings. The search returned 274 results, with 11 resources meeting the eligibility criteria following the PRISMA selection process. KEY

findingsTen models and theories were identified which fell into one of four categories: Integrative (three), Blended (two), Competency-based (two) and Other (three). All three integrative models were developmental clinical supervision models. IMPLICATIONS: This review shows that developmental supervision models are prominent in the literature, with addiction practice supervision generally favouring clinical supervision. The lack of empirical studies, however, suggests a gap that future research should address.

conclusionDespite the limited scope of this rapid review, a strong theoretical foundation for addiction practice supervision was identified. Most models are developmental, with many combining various approaches; some also feature specific adaptations for relevance, while a few are ethical evaluation. This diversity shows promise and the need for further research to assess these models.

Indexed as

Substance-Related DisordersClinical CompetenceHumansallied healthcompetencydevelopmentalsupervision addiction practice

Identifiers

PMID40790584
PMCPMC12405809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.