Cited by 4Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMental Health Treatment and AccessOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

Comprehensive care processes for substance use disorders in adult mental health services: A systematic review

Reilly, John, Meurk, Carla, Sara, Grant E, Heffernan, Ed·2025·Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Assessment and care of substance use disorder within mental health services are essential due to the high prevalence and harms associated with comorbidity. Substance use disorder assessment and care are routinely recommended in clinical guidelines; however, processes are not agreed. This systematic review of routine clinical practice in relation to substance use disorders in adult mental health service aims to identify routine assessment and diagnosis processes, the proportion of patients and service episodes in which they occur and their outputs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and relevant Cochrane databases for articles until July 2024 reporting on substance use assessment, diagnosis or treatment in adults receiving routine mental health service and locating additional articles by snowballing. Variables including setting, study method, period, cohort, substances, clinical assessment type, diagnosis and care pathways were compared. RESULTS: In 137 heterogeneous studies reporting routine practice within a wide variety of adult mental health service from 29 nations, 44 (32%) expected or reported on substance use assessment in domains of pattern or impact. However, 23 studies (17%) reported structured approaches to substance use disorder assessment, while 67 (49%) reported a diagnostic structure, including classification system. Diagnostic prevalence varied markedly. Treatment was reported in 16 studies (12%) and no substance use disorder outcomes were reported. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows marked variation in routine practice in mental health service across a range of substance use disorder assessment and diagnosis processes. To better identify substance use disorder, enhance its care and reduce associated morbidity, adult mental health service may benefit from standardising expectations and systematically monitoring the performance of substance use assessment and diagnosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00048674241312790

Cites

135 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reilly, J., Meurk, C., Sara, G. E., & Heffernan, E.
Affiliations
  • Queensland Health (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Reilly, John
Venue
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2025-01-16
Volume
59
Issue
3
Pages
209-223
ISSN
  • 0004-8674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1614
OpenAlex
W4406429012
Cited by
4
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
substance use disorders, mental health services, substance use assessment, diagnosis, comorbidities, routine clinical practice, care pathways, diagnostic prevalence, standardization of care, adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Comprehensive Health Care, Humans, Mental Health Services, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review