Over the past two decades, progress in evidence-based medicine has led to the development of evidence-based and practice-based approaches in public health. The evaluation of public health interventions (practices) is a valuable source of evidence (1, 2). In Europe, there are several portals that collect information on interventions with documented effectiveness in the field of public health, health promotion, and disease prevention. Appropriate evaluation and assessment criteria are used in selecting interventions (3). Best practice portals, also referred to as repositories or intervention registries, are a promising tool for broad strategies (local, regional, national or international) that are aimed at improving population health and its determinants through access to recommended programmes, monitoring, and improvement of the quality of public health interventions (4).

The goal of creating best practice portals is to aggregate extensive knowledge obtained from science and practice, which is currently growing significantly, and to ensure access to selected and up-to-date information on “what works” for policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and citizens. Online practice portals have been created to simplify the task of searching for evidence-based and effective interventions, which can serve as ready-to-use models or their modalities (5). Validation of an intervention that results in its inclusion on a professional and reliable portal with designation as best, good, or promising allows to make the given intervention credible and often it is helpful or required for intervention implementation and for obtaining funding from public regional or central institutions. Research shows that users of best practice portals most often use them for two reasons: selecting a new intervention to implement and validating an existing intervention (6).

The abovementioned conditions have led to an increase in the popularity of portals that collect information on practices with documented effectiveness. These portals serve important functions. However, experiences gathered in countries with a long history of using the portals show that there are many needs and challenges associated with keeping and updating the repositories (6, 7). Countries that do not yet have a national database of best practices in health promotion and disease prevention but they are planning such initiatives (e.g., Poland through the development of the ProfiBaza portal) may be interested in learning about existing solutions for designing best practice portals, as well as the benefits and challenges associated with their operation. In the scientific literature, there are few studies on detailed characteristics of best practice portals or comparative analyses of the adopted definitions of practices and the evaluation criteria (3, 8).

The objectives of the study were: (1) to identify publicly available portals/databases that collect information on health promotion and disease prevention interventions, including best, good, and promising practices; (2) to characterise selected portals/databases; and (3) to analyse the approaches, definitions, and criteria for evaluating interventions that have been used in the identified portals/databases.

To identify portals that collect information on recommended practices in health promotion and disease prevention, the following sources were searched: websites of public health institutions and organisations from European countries (public health institutes, government agencies, international organisations and other institutions) and the bibliographic database PubMed. Additionally, scientific publications and grey literature were searched using the Google Scholar search engine. Many combinations of search terms were piloted in order to find the most appropriate search algorithm. Initially, the following combinations of terms were used:

Given the aim of the study, the articles had to fulfil the criteria listed below in order to be eligible for thematic synthesis:

The articles were not eligible if:

The study was limited to European portals (with one exception described below) due to the common cultural context, as well as limitations on the elaboration of analysed materials (see Limitations and strengths of the study section for explanation).

The search in the PubMed database included publications in English, with access to abstracts and free full text from 2000 to 2024. The selection of search terms sought to optimise comprehensiveness with precision. In addition, all references of the publications included in the thematic synthesis were screened and grey literature was searched, which is recommended to identify articles that would otherwise be missed through a process of snowballing. De-duplication of the search results was performed. The screening of titles and abstracts according to the eligibility criteria was performed. Full texts of all potentially relevant publications were read and rated for the final inclusion of articles. The screening process was conducted by two authors. The flowchart of publication selection is presented in Figure 1.

Detailed characteristics of the finally qualified publications are described in Appendix 1.

Finally, according to the inclusion criteria, the analysis covered four portals/databases:

The selection of portals was influenced by the availability of detailed information in English about the portals, particularly the availability of criteria catalogues and their definitions. The review provided such detailed information regarding three portals from Europe. The literature review also provided numerous publications that described the Canadian portal and its pioneering role in developing best practice tools. The availability of publications providing information in English about this portal (defined in the aim of the study), the long history and recognition of this database were the reasons for inclusion of the Canadian portal in the analysis.

The review also identified portals that were not included in the analyses due to the limited availability of information on these portals sought in accordance with the objectives of the study. These included Pro.Sa database (Italy), Platforma za izmenjavo dobrih praks (Slovenia) and Hyvinvointia ja terveyttä edistävien toimintamallien arviointi (Finland).

The analysed material consisted of elements of the design of each portal, information available on their websites, and collected publications, including catalogues of practice evaluation criteria (Appendix 1) developed by the entities responsible for the operation of each portal.

The study applied a qualitative analysis with a descriptive approach, which was conducted in three stages. In the first stage, a description of the portals was made, including a comparison of features such as the territorial scope of the database, launch date, number of interventions collected in the database (as of January 2024), subject area, and definitions of practices. In the next stage, the process of intervention evaluation in each database was described, including submission/screening of practices, evaluation methods, and evaluation results. The final stage of the analysis covered the catalogues of intervention evaluation criteria/sub-criteria in each database, including:

Due to the significant variety of terms used in the analysed materials, in the following parts of the study, the terms portal/database and intervention/practice are used interchangeably.

Although similar solutions are used in creating various best practice portals, they show diversity in terms of detailed portal design, intervention assessment procedures, and criteria definitions. The characteristics of the portals showed that these portals are examples of well-designed, developed tools tailored to the needs of different user groups, e.g., through standardised templates for presenting practices, availability of numerous filters, and simple and advanced search functions (Table 1). These types of functionalities increase the actual usability of the databases (6).

The websites of individual portals contained information such as the subject area of submitted interventions or definitions related to the designation of practices. However, this information was often dispersed, presented across several sections on the website, or available as downloadable instructions/guides in separate files. The preparation of materials for this work required using various sources, including information from numerous publications (Appendix 1). This could be a very demanding task for users seeking examples of good practices. Access to such information is crucial for users to understand what set of interventions has been collected in the database. Especially since, as shown in the Results of the work, the definition of practices collected on the portals is based on the adopted assessment criteria for evaluating interventions. This is related to the issue of transparency (5), which is discussed further in the paper.

Following the adopted assumptions and criteria, the results regarding the process of assessing interventions in the analysed databases show that evaluation is always carried out by a team or teams of experts in the relevant fields. The process is cyclical, quantitative and qualitative, and it is not designed for the rapid assessment of numerous practices, as it cannot be simply automated. It is typically accompanied by a dialogue and information exchange between submitters and reviewers/experts. Ultimately, the decisions that are made are the result of multi-stage agreements. Regardless of the specifics of the organisational and procedural solutions, assessment always requires consensus on assumptions and definitions, as well as human, time, and financial resources.

The analyses show that each portal has developed its own catalogue structures and definitions of criteria/sub-criteria for the assessment of practices. Typically, these are not closed catalogues, and assessed interventions do not have to meet all defined requirements perfectly. This is related to the need to evaluate very different types of interventions, ranging from relatively simple practices (e.g., school education) to extremely complex practices (e.g., national health policies) (5, 7).

Both similarities and differences in terms of the adopted names of criteria and their definitions were characterised in the analysed catalogues. It was shown that sometimes the same criterion had different names depending on the catalogue. There were also identical or similar names of criteria in the analysed catalogues. However, criteria with identical or similar names could be defined differently within the detailed thematic scope. An example is the ‘Evaluation/Effectiveness’ issue presented in Figure 2 and described in the Results section. The detailed definition of this criterion in one catalogue did not fully correspond to its ‘equivalent’ in others catalogues.

Generally, although the catalogues described similar issues (Figure 2), the abovementioned differences are worth noticing. A study from the US (6, 26) that compared evidence-based programme registers in behavioural health demonstrated that even subtle differences in assumptions, approaches, and definitions determined whether a programme was included for evaluation in specific registers and what rating/designation it received.

Portals that collect evidence-based practices, even within the same field, differ from one another due to their objectives and roles, adopted standards and criteria for assessing practices, and other operational factors. Therefore, transparency and access to the aforementioned information about the portal are particularly important from the perspective of the portal’s utility and user needs. Furthermore, defined and clear standards allow comparability and reliability of best practice repositories, which can foster easier and more rigorous exchange of best practices at national and international levels in the continent.

In the light of the analyses, it should be emphasised that the differences between the described portals from various countries/regions are influenced by the socio-cultural context, available resources, and specific needs in the area of intervention assessment that are unique to each database. In order to draw best practices, diversity is advantageous as it provides a range of example solutions for building a best practice portal.

The multiplicity of national databases (even if they are not strictly dedicated to best practices) and various requirements/guidelines from different public institutions that are aimed at health promotion practitioners can be problematic (7). In many European countries, practitioners and intervention owners must navigate through all often differing requirements, demonstrate the effectiveness of their interventions (often meeting research standards), while typically facing low priority and limited budgets for health promotion and disease prevention (27).

In addition to the numerous benefits associated with the functioning of portals, there are also limitations. Awareness of these limitations, further research, and dialogue between portal creators and users are recommended to develop more reflexive and responsive solutions. A study from the Netherlands (7) highlighted the need to monitor the functioning of the portal in the context of its intended role. Challenges were observed in stimulating the improvement of interventions. For example, the lack of consensus among various stakeholders on how the effects of certain interventions should be measured results in difficulties in assessing their effectiveness, as well as in improving them in this respect. Limitations were also related to the improvement of health promotion in practice, including issues related to the transfer of interventions and neglection of local adaptation, which can invalidate the effectiveness of evidence.

The difficulties raised in the literature concern the requirements for evaluative research supporting interventions. These requirements are often challenging to meet; for example, in the ERS, two studies that confirm effectiveness are required, while the intervention budget often covers only one study. More broadly speaking, portals are criticised for their scientific regime or fundamentally academic approach in defining assessment criteria and evaluation procedures (7, 16).

Similar challenges have been highlighted by the aforementioned American studies (6, 26), which suggest that the areas that require particular attention include the lack of research on the needs of different user groups and the actual usability of the portals. In this context, it is recommended to improve the transparency of registries, in terms of the clear definition of the purpose, scope, and assessment criteria for inclusion and evaluation processes. This is crucial because all these factors determine the content of the database. Ensuring transparency in this area can help users understand the strengths and limitations of the general approach of a particular database. The main challenges include funding and resource limitations, which primarily hinder the provision of up-to-date reviews and their timely presentation on the portal. It has been emphasised that the entire process is often labour-intensive, complex, and requires a large group of different experts.

In conclusion, the described portals have both their strengths and weaknesses (Table 2). Although the challenges outlined above are due to accumulated experience, they should not discourage, as monitoring the quality of practices and minimising the risk of implementing ineffective and sometimes even harmful interventions is crucial for development in the field of health promotion and disease prevention. The main benefit of having a national database is to advance theory and practice by consolidating experts in the field, reaching consensus and standardising basic assumptions and definitions at the national level.

The study involved qualitative analyses of only four best practice portals in the field of health promotion and disease prevention. Although various European countries have similar databases, the selection of portals was influenced by the availability of detailed information in English about the portals (particularly the availability of criteria catalogues and their definitions), the history and recognition of the database. Portals with a long history were primarily selected. For these reasons, the Canadian portal was included in the study. The extensive scope of qualitative analyses justifies the smaller number of portals. A larger number of portals would have required a more focused scope of research. Another limitation is related to the fact that the study presents data on portals as of January 2024, however portal maintenance and development is a dynamic process over time. The strength of this work is that, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first study comparing various criteria catalogues for assessing best practices and their definitions. The results of this study can serve as a starting point or a matrix for further research on the collection, evaluation methods, and dissemination of interventions through portals.

Design, development, and launch of a portal that collects effective and recommended practices is an extremely complex undertaking, which can take several years and requires the involvement of experts from various fields, including policymakers, researchers, practitioners, managers, administrators, and IT specialists. It is essential to prepare substantive assumptions and definitions and to reach a consensus by all stakeholders.

The similarities and differences presented in this work with regard to the characteristics of best practice portals, and the process and criteria of intervention evaluation can serve as a valuable starting point for designing such tools to support evidence-based decision-making in health promotion and disease prevention. A well-conducted planning stage, which includes an understanding of the previously applied solutions in various countries, acquisition of appropriate human and financial resources, and gaining awareness of the strengths and limitations of existing portals, should precede the implementation and monitoring of a portal, considering a national setting and needs.