Text

Background: The increasing complexity of healthcare requires high-quality, evidence-based health information to support informed and shared decision-making. However, existing health information often shows gaps in quality, accessibility, and applicability.

Aim/scientific question: This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the information and support needs, as well as accompanying preferences of health information developers involved in producing evidence-based health information for patients and the public.

Material & Methods: The literature search was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, PSYNDEX and ProQuest, supplemented by backward citation tracking and network contact. Eligible literature comprised primary studies, evidence syntheses and grey literature, while comments were excluded. No restrictions were applied regarding work setting, geography, timeframe, or language. Publication screening was conducted independently by two reviewers and data charting was performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Data were analyzed using a basic qualitative content analysis.

Results: Twelve studies were included in this scoping review. The analysis resulted in a category system that mapped the concepts of information needs, support needs, and preferences, encompassing 14 generic categories and 25 subcategories. Information needs are related to acquire an understanding of medicine and related health sciences, as well as content preparation and presentation of health information. Aspects of support needs encompass e.g. the provision of education, opportunities for professional exchange, methodological assistance, strategies for visualization and presentation, and mechanisms for quality assurance. Preferences pertain to the organization of training opportunities, provision of guidance, kind of information resources, organization of professional exchange, and tools for quality assessment.

Discussion: Overall, a closer collaboration between health professionals, methodological experts, and health information developers is warranted. However, the body of evidence is limited. Most studies focus on health journalists, while developers in non-profit or clinical settings remain underrepresented. Furthermore, key contextual factors—such as the type, purpose, and target audience of the developed information—are insufficiently reported.

Take Home Message: Promoting professional exchange and guidance on understanding and presenting study results and communicating risks and uncertainties using practical tools are suggested.

Competing interests: None