Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42715169›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Social work and preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE): A scoping review protocol.

Andrew McKenzie, David Yuzva Clement

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Andrew McKenzieDoctoral Student, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8648-6180
David Yuzva ClementAdjunct Research Professor, School of Social Work, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0835-3711

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In today's hybrid and digitally connected world, hate and violent extremism persist across social and digital environments worldwide, driven by complex radicalization pathways that emerge among individuals and groups often driven by grievance and complex vulnerability. In addition to their most violent expressions, including hate crimes, extremist and terrorist violence, these phenomena wield severe negative, detrimental, traumatic, and intergenerational impacts. As governments increasingly adopt social care and public health approaches to prevent and counter violent extremism and associated harms, a gap has emerged in understanding how social workers describe their roles, theoretical frameworks, and practice experiences in what has become known as the field of preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE). Problematically so, social work research and scholarship regarding P/CVE seems to remain limited conceptually and geographically dispersed, leading to uncertainty and practical challenges for professionals in the field. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to systematically assess, synthesize, and discuss social work research related to P/CVE. Against this backdrop, the objective of this scoping review is to identify the current research landscape, gaps, and future directions regarding social work and P/CVE. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of elements, findings, and practice-relevant limitations and opportunities on social work and P/CVE and contributes to both the development of a nuanced understanding of an emerging social work practice field while also furthering the knowledge base and theory of P/CVE.

Indexed as

Social WorkTerrorismViolenceHateHumansScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID42715169
PMCPMC13557355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.