Psychedelic Use in Pediatric Populations Across Contexts: A Scoping Review Protocol

Abstract

Background/Rationale Mental health disorders among youth are rising globally, yet existing treatments often fail to provide adequate response. Psychedelic-assisted therapy is showing promising results in adults, prompting interest in expanding to younger populations. Additionally, the use of psychedelics among youth in naturalistic settings is increasing. However, no comprehensive synthesis of the available literature on pediatric psychedelic use exists, creating an urgent evidence gap. Purpose The purpose of this scoping review is to summarize and evaluate the existing evidence on the use of psychedelics in pediatric populations across all contexts, identifying defining gaps and densities of the literature. Objectives To map and evaluate the extent, characteristics, and contexts of psychedelic use in pediatric populations (0–17 years) as well as gaps in knowledge. Specifically, we will describe: • Populations studied • Psychedelics used • Contexts of use • Study designs and outcomes • Family involvement • Safety concerns • Ethical considerations Eligibility Criteria Inclusion: Studies, reviews, and grey literature reporting psychedelic use in humans aged 0–17 years, across any context, in English and available in full text. Psychedelics include classical (psilocybin, LSD, mescaline, DMT, ayahuasca), dissociative (ketamine, PCP), and atypical (MDMA, 2C-B, iboga/ibogaine, 5-MeO-DMT, Salvia divinorum) compounds and preparations. Exclusion: Prenatal exposure studies; ketamine for anesthesia, pain, or sedation; commentaries and editorials. Information Sources Databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science. Grey literature: Google Scholar, government/NGO reports, theses, conference proceedings. Hand-searching of references. Search Strategy Keyword, controlled vocabulary terms, and refined results for population and concept are adapted for each database. Context is not limited. Full PubMed search strategy is provided in the supplementary material. Methods • Two independent reviewers at each stage of screening (title/abstract, full-text). • Data extraction via standardized Excel form with independent review and conflict resolution by third reviewer. • Data grouped by population, psychedelic, and context. • Narrative synthesis and tabular/graphical summaries following PRISMA-ScR. Critical Appraisal: Not conducted (consistent with JBI scoping review methodology). Dissemination Plans: Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared via open access. Institutional Affiliation: The Ohio State University Funding: No external funding. Conflicts of Interest: Authors disclose roles in psychedelic research networks as noted in protocol; no financial conflicts.

Topics & conditions

Detected automatically by Psychedelic Commons from the title and abstract, not labels from the source. They may be incomplete.

Keywords