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

It is unclear whether research has generated causal evidence about the impact of mandatory reporting (MR) policies on reporting outcomes. This scoping review applied concepts from the NIH Stage Model to map and organize five decades of research on MR, focusing on research methodology, to highlight the strength of causal evidence at each stage of research. Guided by PRISMA-ScR standards, we conducted a systematic scoping review, resulting in 104 selected studies. Stage 0: Basic Science ( n = 32) research used vignettes to generate theoretical evidence about factors associated with reporter decision making. Studies in Stage I: Intervention Development, Refinement, and Testing ( n = 70), used qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, or systematic review techniques to generate preliminary evidence about experiences and/or outcomes related to MR. Studies classified as Stage III: Real World Efficacy Testing ( n = 1) and Stage IV: Effectiveness Research ( n = 1) used state, county, or national datasets with causal inference techniques to explore the effects of policy change on outcomes within states or across states in the U.S. Findings suggest there is insufficient empirical evidence to make credible causal inferences about the effects of MR on policy-relevant outcomes, highlighting significant research gaps that impede our understanding of whether this policy is functioning as intended.