Conducting evidence synthesis and developing evidence-based advice in public health and beyond: A scoping review and map of methods guidance

TL;DR

This paper reviews existing methods for evidence synthesis in public health and identifies gaps in guidance, especially for emergency contexts.

Contribution

The study systematically maps guidance on evidence synthesis, highlighting a lack of public health-specific methods and the need for rapid synthesis approaches.

Findings

Most guidance originates from clinical medicine, with only 41 documents explicitly addressing public health.

Key gaps include rapid evidence synthesis and methods for synthesizing laboratory research and prevalence studies.

The review supports the development of more inclusive and adaptable approaches for public health decision-making.

Abstract

Effective public health decision-making relies on rigorous evidence synthesis and transparent processes to facilitate its use. However, existing methods guidance has primarily been developed within clinical medicine and may not sufficiently address the complexities of public health, such as population-level considerations, multiple evidence streams, and time-sensitive decision-making. This work contributes to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control initiative on methods guidance development for evidence synthesis and evidence-based public health advice by systematically identifying and mapping guidance from health and health-related disciplines.

Structured searches were conducted across multiple scientific databases and websites of key institutions, followed by screening and data coding. Of the 17,386 records identified, 247 documents were classified as ‘guidance products’ providing a set of principles or recommendations on the overall process of developing evidence synthesis and evidence-based advice. While many were classified as ‘generic’ in scope, a majority originated from clinical medicine and focused on systematic reviews of intervention effects. Only 41 documents explicitly addressed public health. Key gaps included approaches for rapid evidence synthesis and decision-making and methods for synthesising evidence from laboratory research, disease burden, and prevalence studies.

The findings highlight a need for methodological development that aligns with the realities of public health practice, particularly in emergency contexts. This review provides a key repository for methodologists, researchers, and decision-makers in public health, as well as clinical medicine and health care in Europe and worldwide, supporting the evolution of more inclusive and adaptable approaches to public health evidence synthesis and decision-making.

Figures