Mandatory Reporting: What's the Empirical Evidence Base? A Systematic Scoping Review.

Area of Science:

• Public Health
• Health Policy
• Social Science Research Methodology

Background:

• Mandatory reporting (MR) policies are widespread, yet their impact on reporting outcomes remains unclear.
• Causal evidence regarding the effectiveness of MR policies is limited.
• Understanding the strength of research methodology is crucial for evaluating policy impact.

Purpose of the Study:

• To map and organize five decades of research on mandatory reporting (MR) policies.
• To assess the strength of causal evidence generated by MR research using the NIH Stage Model.
• To identify research gaps in understanding the impact of MR policies.

Main Methods:

• Systematic scoping review guided by PRISMA-ScR standards.
• Categorization of 104 selected studies according to the NIH Stage Model (Stage 0, I, III, IV).
• Analysis focused on research methodology and the strength of causal evidence.

Main Results:

• Stage 0 research (n=32) used vignettes for theoretical evidence on reporter decision-making.
• Stage I research (n=70) employed diverse methods for preliminary evidence on MR experiences and outcomes.
• Limited research exists in Stage III (n=1) and Stage IV (n=1), using causal inference on policy change effects.

Conclusions:

• Insufficient empirical evidence exists to support credible causal inferences on the effects of MR policies.
• Significant research gaps hinder the understanding of whether MR policies are functioning as intended.
• Future research should focus on generating stronger causal evidence to inform policy.