How do mapping reviews meet needs of public health decision-makers? A Scoping Review.

Objectives

To identify the reporting characteristics and recommended design features of mapping reviews for public health decision-makers. STUDY

Design

AND

Setting

We conducted a scoping review of mapping reviews and related methodological studies for public health decision-makers, following JBI scoping review methodology and PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched nine English- and Chinese-language databases, six relevant websites, and supplementary Google searches for studies published from January 2003 to December 2025. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently by paired reviewers, and any disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Results were synthesized using descriptive statistics and basic qualitative content analysis.

Results

A total of 77 studies were included: 71 mapping reviews and 6 methodological studies. Most studies were from the UK (44.16%), used interactive maps (50, 64.94%), focused on communicable and infectious diseases (21, 27.27%), and were funded primarily by government or public funders (24, 31.17%); "evidence and gap map" was the most commonly used term. Among journal-identified mapping reviews, reporting was limited for registration information (20.51%), deviations from protocol (25.64%), excluded studies (30.77%), stakeholder engagement (33.33%), and plans for map updates (41.03%). Among website-identified evidence maps, 12 (37.5%) reported evidence quality or recommendation strength, and descriptive reporting was fragmented. Methodological studies suggested that mapping reviews for public health decision-makers should be standardized, transparent, traceable, and updateable to support decision-making.

Conclusion

Reporting quality of mapping reviews for public health decision-makers varies across dissemination routes, and tailored reporting guidance is needed to improve transparency, updatability, and decision utility.