Research methodologies for creating competency frameworks for the public health workforce: a scoping review

Competency frameworks are vital for the Public Health Workforce (PHW) capabilities, education, and standards. In the past years, several competency frameworks have been published for the PHW. However, methodologies to define the competencies and domains vary significantly. This scoping review maps methodologies for multi-professional PHW frameworks (2018-24), identifying practices, patterns, and reporting gaps. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and PRISMA-ScR checklist, Medline, Embase, Global Health, and WorldCat were searched (2018-24) for multi-professional PHW frameworks. Dual screening and extraction captured characteristics and sequential methods. Methods were categorized and analyzed descriptively for frequency, sequence, and reporting completeness. Fifty-eight frameworks met inclusion (from 813 records), mostly North America/Europe. Methods reported for 44 (75.9%) frameworks. Most frequent: literature/document reviews (45.4%), survey/questionnaire (29.5%), expert consultation/panels (22.7%), interviews (22.7%), Delphi (20.4%). Literature/document reviews was the most common first step (34.1%). Frameworks used 1-9 steps (avg 2.96); 82.6% multi-step (evidence synthesis + stakeholder engagement ± validation). Significant reporting gaps: 14 (24.1%) lacked details; quality varied. PHW framework development shows diversity and multi-step processes but suffers from reporting gaps and inconsistencies. Standardization and transparency (e.g. following the CONFERD-HP) are crucial. Multi-method approaches integrating evidence synthesis, stakeholder engagement, and validation are recommended to enhance rigor, comparability, and utility for strengthening the global PHW.