ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Systematic Review

Health policy at your fingertips? Mapping and evaluation of existing digital health policy repositories.

[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
PUBLISHED 12 May 2025
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW

This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.

Abstract

Background

Digital repositories and databases facilitate faster dissemination, transparency, and stakeholder collaboration. This review aimed to map and evaluate such digital infrastructures, focusing on their scope, content, functionality, adherence to FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse) principles, and user interface and experiences (UI/UX).

Methods

A review of global digital health policy repositories was conducted across multiple search engines and databases. The review targeted digital repositories that systematically collate health policy documents at a global level. Two country-specific repositories with a bearing on global health policies were also included.

Results

The study identified 59 global health policy repositories, with 15 matching our inclusion criteria evaluated in detail. These repositories contain vast amounts of data and are generally freely accessible, rendering them immensely rich sources for health policy documents, though with significant variability in content and coverage. The majority have a health focus, including HIV/AIDS, non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH); about a third are more broad and emerging health threats are often neglected. Accessibility and usability are limited, with basic user interface features such as search and filtering tools are present for almost all repositories and a notable lack of advanced analytics or artificial intelligence capabilities. Furthermore, many repositories struggle to adhere to FAIR principles, reducing their utility and potential for integration. Sustainability is also a concern, as funding often relies on short-term projects or philanthropic support, undermining long-term viability.

Conclusion

These issues collectively hinder the ability of digital health policy repositories to support comprehensive and timely global health policy development. To unlock the full potential of existing or new repositories for health policy, identified challenges should be tackled systematically. We provide specific recommendations aimed at driving the development of equitable, inclusive, high-functioning repositories and strengthening evidence-driven global health policy systems.

Keywords

Health policy documents, Repository, Databases, Global Health, User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX)

Introduction

The proliferation of technological advances has made data digitisation and digital infrastructures such as repositories, databases and other online platforms more accessible at local, national and international levels. This shift has enhanced efficiency in the availability of health policy information while diversifying sources of relevant information. Health policy information may include a policy, law, national health strategy, national control plan, action plan or guideline. Here, we refer to these collectively as “health policy documents”. Digitised health policy documents collated in such platforms can facilitate faster dissemination of information, ensuring that decision-makers and other stakeholders, including patients, researchers, advocates and anyone else interested in health policymaking, have timely access to relevant content regarding health. In addition, the widespread availability of these digital tools promotes greater transparency in the policy-making process, as stakeholders are better equipped to review, critique, and engage with health policy documents. At the same time, stakeholders can track the evolution of policies over time, ultimately supporting effective governance and policy implementation. This increased openness also fosters collaboration, transparency and trust among the various stakeholders involved in shaping public health policies.

Our review identifies and maps these resources and evaluate their scope, content, and functionality in terms of user interface (UI) and user experience (UX), with the ultimate goal of evaluating how effectively they may be able to support health policy and systems development. We focused on digital infrastructures designed to systematically collate health policy documents. Our assessment aimed to determine how well such digital repositories for health policy may meet the needs of diverse health stakeholders, including decision-makers such as parliamentarians. Further, our evaluation identified strengths and limitations of these digital infrastructures in facilitating access to health policy documents in a manner that is up-to-date and comprehensive. This analysis seeks to increase our understanding of how such existing and future infrastructures can be optimised better to support evidence-based policymaking and decision-making in the health sector. Additionally, the findings provide a foundation for advocating for the development of a centralised repository for health policy documents.

Methods

We conducted an in-depth desk review of online databases, repositories, and other such platforms to explore resources that systematically collate what we refer to here as “health policy documents”. Surprisingly, most organisations and publications do not explicitly state their understanding of the policy terminology; we hence include definitions for the terms policy, law, national health strategy, national control plan, (health) action plan and (health) guideline, summarised in Table 1 of the glossary of key policy terms in health.

Table 1. Glossary of key policy termsa applied in health.

Term
alternative terms
Definition
PolicybA policy is a formal statement that defines goals, priorities and parameters for action by government in response to a societal need. It defines a vision for the future which in turn helps to establish targets and points of reference for the short and medium term. It outlines priorities and the expected roles of different stakeholders, builds consensus, and informs people.1
LawcLaws are rules that govern behaviour. Laws can be made by a legislature, resulting in primary legislation (often called statutes or acts), by executive or local government through the issue of secondary legislation (including decrees, regulations and by laws), or by judges through the making of binding legal precedent (normally in common law jurisdictions).2
National Health Strategy, National Health Plan or National Health Strategic PlanA national health strategy provides a model of an intended future situation, and a programme of action predetermined to achieve the intended situation. It contains the broad, long-term lines of action to achieve the policy vision and goals for the health sector, incorporating the identification of suitable points for intervention, the ways of ensuring the involvement of other sectors, the range of political, social, cultural, economic, legal and technical factors, as well as constraints and ways of dealing with them.3
National [Disease] Control Plan, National [Disease] Strategy / Strategic Plan / ProgrammeA national control plan is a strategic plan to guide the control of a particular disease or health problem at national level, with the intended actions to achieve the goals of a given programme, ideally aligned to the national health strategy.3
Action Plan An action plan is a strategic document that outlines specific steps taken by government agencies to implement a policy or address a societal issue at the local, regional or national level, typically identifying key stakeholders, tasks, timelines, resource allocation, and measures of success.
Guideline, Protocol, Best Practice, Consensus Statement, Expert Committee Recommendation or Integrated Care PathwayGuidelines are systematically developed evidence-based formal advisory statements which assist providers, recipients and other stakeholders to make informed decisions about appropriate health interventions. Health interventions are defined broadly to include not only clinical procedures but also public health actions.4

a Note that by our definition to be included, a policy, national health strategy, national control plan, action plan or guideline must be adopted or otherwise officially and publicly endorsed by the government (legislature or a government agency). Mere alignment with international guidance or best practice standards does not suffice. The glossary should be read with this understanding in mind.

b Many policies are developed and adopted to expressly protect, promote or strengthen health, healthcare, or public health (referred to as health, healthcare, or public health policy). However, policies outside of health-related sectors impact health. Therefore, the GHLP uses a definition which does not restrict policy to health-specific policies but may include any policy impacting health, healthcare or public health (positively or negatively).

c Many laws are adopted to expressly protect and promote health, commonly referred to as public health law. However, many non-health related laws influence health, for example by shaping and preserving social conditions, known in public health as “social determinants of health”. Consequently, the GHLP uses a definition which does not restrict law to public health law but may include any legal instrument impacting health (positively or negatively).

Search strategy

a) Identification of digital repositories and other infrastructures for health policy

The study employed a comprehensive search strategy to identify digital repositories and other relevant infrastructure. This approach included generalised search engines such as Google, specialised search engines and targeted databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and JSTOR to ensure broader and more nuanced coverage of relevant resources. Additionally, artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT,5 were utilised to uncover resources not readily accessible through conventional search methods. We further identified digital repositories and infrastructure by visiting directly the websites of relevant global and regional health organisations, academic repositories from leading public health universities, commercial databases, proprietary platforms, and resources from international health non-governmental organisations. This multifaceted approach ensured a thorough and diverse identification of resources necessary to support our landscape analysis and evaluation objectives.

Electronic searches were conducted using keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) across the abovementioned platforms. The primary search terms included “health policies,” “health laws,” “health strategies,” “health guidelines,” “health action plans,” “digital repositories,” “digital infrastructure,” and “global health.” To ensure comprehensiveness, synonyms for each term were identified and integrated into a robust search strategy, detailed in Search terms .

In addition to database searches, reference lists and associated links from identified repositories and infrastructures were screened to discover other potentially relevant sources. This iterative process ensured the inclusion of a diverse and comprehensive selection of repositories and infrastructures pertinent to health policy documents.

b) Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We included digital repositories that systematically collate health policy documents, as defined in Table 1. The review encompassed only platforms where the content was either available in English or offered an English translation as one of their languages.

Platforms functioning primarily as search engines, analytical databases, hubs for academic literature, or think pieces—rather than dedicated repositories for health policy documents—were excluded.

Furthermore, repositories were dropped from the review if they lacked an accessible link, had broken or missing links, or required access through login or subscription to access any information, rendering them inaccessible to the public or our research team. However, repositories with partial or limited access requiring a subscription to access more information or information after a set period were reviewed. This carefully defined inclusion and exclusion process ensured a focused and targeted analysis of publicly accessible digital infrastructures systematically collating health policy documentation. It is important to note that a few repositories were identified after the data collection window had closed and were thus not included for that reason (listed in List of excluded repositories ).

Data collection

a) Screening of identified repositories

We employed a two-step screening process to ensure rigorous verification of the repositories and digital infrastructure to be evaluated in detail ( PRISMA flow chart ). In the first step, two reviewers (TM and BM) independently screened all repositories identified through the electronic database searches. During this stage, the reviewers conducted a first assessment of all inclusion/exclusion criteria (see below) while eliminating duplicate records. This initial screening ensured a more focused and relevant set of repositories for further review.

In the second step, two reviewers conducted an additional review of the above criteria to finalise the list of repositories to be taken forward for detailed evaluation. Any disagreements between the two reviewers were carefully examined and discussed. When consensus could not be reached, a third-party expert (MGC, MK, TN, or CSM) was consulted to resolve the discrepancies. This collaborative approach ensured a thorough process for including relevant repositories in the evaluation and a consistent and more objective assessment across the repositories.

b) Data extraction and evaluation of the scope, content, and functionality of the repositories

We developed a set of assessment and review criteria based on which data was extracted from the repositories for evaluation. These criteria were piloted on three repositories before the actual data extraction took place to enhance the consistency of the results. The set of evaluation criteria guided specific data extraction. We briefly employed a structured approach by extracting the following data, where possible.

  • 1. Repository name – The official legal name of the repository.

  • 2. Web link – The website URL for accessing the repository.

  • 3. Type of organisation maintaining the repository – The key institutions or organisations responsible for maintaining the repository.

  • 4. Access type – The level of access required, such as open access and free, partial or limited access requiring an account (free) or access for a limited period.

  • 5. Geographical coverage – The scope of the repository’s coverage, such as global, regional, or country-specific.

  • 6. Area of focus – The specific health area covered by the repository, such as NCDs, HIV, MNCH, etc.

  • 7. Adherence to FAIR principles – Information on whether the repository follows the FAIR principles: findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability.

  • 8. Data content – The data types captured in the repository, such as health policies, laws, strategies, and guidelines (i.e., health policy documents).

  • 9. Data collection methodology – Information on the methods the repository uses to collect the data contained within.

  • 10. Tools and site usability – Details about analytical and interactive tools provided on the platform to enhance user interfaces and experience, including functionalities like search, filters, and user guides.

  • 11. Data visualisation – The data visualisation options that are available in the repository.

  • 12. Funding – Information on the funding sources for the repository, as well as its sustainability model.

The information extracted from each of the included repositories and digital infrastructures was collated in a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States) database (for a condensed extract, see Summary of Digital Repositories of Health Policy included in our evaluation ). A list of repositories considered for evaluation but not included in the final list is also provided ( List of excluded repositories ).

Data analysis and evaluation

Eligible repositories were evaluated based on four key dimensions: the health policy focus area, data content, adherence to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles, and UI/UX features supporting content discovery. Where available, information on sustainability and funding models of the health policy document repositories was also assessed.

  • 1. Health policy focus area

    We examined the scope and comprehensiveness of health policy documentation curated within these repositories. We analysed the range and specificity of health or disease areas covered in each repository and evaluated the format of health policy documents, focusing on their relevance to specific policy domains.

  • 2. Data content

    The types of health policy documents housed in each repository were evaluated, as outlined in Table 1. This assessment focused on the diversity and granularity of the data provided.

  • 3. FAIR principles

    Repositories were assessed for compliance with FAIR principles, ensuring that data contained, i.e., health policy documents or meta-data, are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. This evaluation highlighted how well each repository enables effective data discovery, integration, and reuse.

  • 4. User interface (UI) and User experience (UX)

    We were further interested in the design and functionality of each repository to assess its usability. UI refers to the visual components and layout of the platform, such as buttons, menus, and icons, designed to facilitate user interaction. Conversely, UX encompasses the overall user journey, including intuitiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Specifically, we reviewed the availability of navigation tools, interactive elements, data access and download options, customisable views, and data presentation features, emphasising how these aspects enhance content discovery and user engagement. Naturally, user bias affects UX to some extent; therefore, our findings in this respect should be taken with this in mind.

    We adopted this comprehensive evaluation framework to identify both the strengths and opportunities concerning the design and functionality of such repositories. Many of them are set up to enhance the accessibility and practical utility of health policy documentation by diverse users, including parliamentarians, people with lived experiences, researchers, and others.

Results

Health policy repositories play a critical role in providing access to health policy documents, yet surprisingly, few repositories comprehensively collate such documents systematically at national or global levels. Through our investigation, we identified 59 repositories globally, of which 15 were selected for detailed evaluation, see PRISMA flow chart . Of the 15 selected, 13 repositories had global coverage, while two repositories provided national health policy-related information, see Supplementary. These repositories are established and maintained by various public and private organisations, including government agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and academic institutions (see Summary of Digital Repositories of Health Policy included in our evaluation ; a list of all excluded repositories is provided in List of excluded repositories ). These repositories’ content (i.e., focus areas) and functionalities vary widely, reflecting differing organisational priorities and capacities. Similarly, adherence to FAIR principles and UI/UX was diverse across the 15 repositories we investigated in detail. Despite this heterogeneity, our landscape analysis uncovered several noteworthy patterns and insights, shedding light on health policy repositories’ current state and potential to support evidence-based decision-making and policy alignment across sectors.

The identified and reviewed digital repositories and infrastructure came from diverse sources. These included global and regional health organisations, such as the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Global Health Observatory (GHO),6 the Lancet Global Health Hub,7 and the Cochrane Library.4 Academic repositories from leading public health universities, including Harvard DASH,8 Georgetown University,9 and the Health Systems Evidence platform maintained by McMaster University,10 were also explored. Furthermore, we examined commercial databases like Policy Commons11 and Overton,12 proprietary platforms, and resources identified through international health non-governmental organisations, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),13 the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS),10 and the UN Digital Library.

A key finding revealed that the majority (9 out of the 15) of repositories are funded through short-term projects or philanthropic contributions, raising concerns about their long-term sustainability and continued visibility. The reliance on external funding makes these repositories vulnerable to shifting donor priorities, often influenced by emerging global challenges such as pandemics like COVID-19 and other crises like conflicts. This lack of stable, predictable funding threatens the ability of these platforms to maintain regular updates, adapt to evolving needs, and ensure their relevance over time.

  • 1. Health policy document focus areas and scope

    The reviewed repositories represent both focusing on key health areas and others more health area agnostic (see Table 2). Among the fifteen15 repositories, HIV/AIDS is the most frequently addressed, with five5 repositories covering topics such as travel restrictions and general laws and policies. NCDs follow, with four repositories on issues like NCD management, physical activity, nutrition and tobacco control. One repository was dedicated to maternal, neonatal and child health (MNCH). The remaining five5 repositories adopt a more general approach, offering broader insights into public health and various health areas. The repositories grouped under NCDs and MNCH also encompass a wide range of health conditions.

    Of the 15 repositories evaluated, 13 are fully open-access or require creating a free account, making them accessible to users worldwide. However, two2 repositories have restricted access, requiring either vetted registration or payment, thereby resulting in partial user access to information or limited duration access.

    Most repositories provide global coverage of health policy documents, yet notable regional disparities exist. Data from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are particularly scarce, highlighting a significant gap in equitable representation.

  • 2. Data content

    The data content across repositories was diverse and inconsistently defined, if at all. It includes various types of health policy documents such as laws, policies, national health strategies, national health plans, national control plans, national disease/programme strategies, action plans, guidelines, protocols, best practices, consensus statements, expert committee recommendations, or integrated care pathways. For this reason, we provide definitions for each of the key policy terms, as shown in Table 1. Definitions of these key policy terms were collated, adopted and, in some instances, slightly adapted from various WHO sources. Most repositories contained information on existing health policies and guidelines (see Summary of digital Repositories of Health Policy included in our evaluation for details on data content). Importantly, however, source data—i.e. health policy documents in PDF or other formats—is accessible in only 6 out of the 15 repositories. This limited accessibility reduces their utility for researchers, citizens, and policymakers while hindering data comparability across repositories.

Table 2. Summary of Digital Repositories of Health Policy and their Adherence to FAIR Principlesa (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability).

PrincipleIndicatorNumber of repositories
Findability
F1. meta (data) are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier3/15
F2. data are described with rich metadata11/15
F3. metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data it describes4/15
F4. meta (data) are registered or indexed in a searchable resource14/15
Accessibility
A1. meta (data) are retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol8/15
A1.1 The protocol is open, free, and universally implementable9/15
A1.2 the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary4/15
A2. Metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available4/15
Interoperability
I1. Meta (data) use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation13/15
I2. Meta (data) use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles11/15
I3. Meta (data) include qualified references to other metadata11/15
Reusability
R1. Meta (data) are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes13/15
R1.1 meta (data) are released with a clear and accessible data usage license6/15
R1.2 meta (data) are associated with detailed provenance14/15
R1.3 meta (data) meet domain-relevant community standards10/15

Adherence to FAIR Principles

Adherence to FAIR principles varied widely among the repositories. Many appeared to have been established without explicitly considering these principles, leading to significant gaps in the data’s findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (see Table 2). This inconsistency poses challenges for the broader health community, particularly for policymakers, researchers or others interested in health policy who may employ these repositories, generally set up to make health policy data widely available, as a basis for comparative analyses, to promote accountability and ultimately to inform national responses in each health area.

The Findability guideline in the FAIR principles ensures that data (here, health policy documents) and/or metadata stored as digital assets can be easily located by both humans and machines. Metadata, also known as (meta) data, refers to data about data—in our case, data that provides information about health policy documents. This requires unique identifiers and well-structured, searchable metadata. Our assessment examined four indicators of findability (F1–F4, Table 2). Results show a range of performance: while only three repositories utilised unique identifiers, 14 repositories were indexed in searchable resources, significantly enhancing discoverability.

The Accessibility guideline emphasises using standardised protocols for data retrieval and clear access conditions to guarantee data availability. This includes ensuring that metadata remains accessible even when the associated health policies are unavailable. Our evaluation found that four4 repositories provided accessible metadata, while nine9 implemented open, free, and universally applicable protocols, reflecting strong adherence to accessibility standards ( Table 2).

The Interoperability guideline ensures that data can integrate seamlessly with other datasets and systems using standardised vocabularies and frameworks. We evaluated three indicators of interoperability (I1–I3, Table 2). The findings revealed that 13 out of 15 platforms used formal, accessible, and widely applicable metadata languages. Furthermore, 11 platforms adhered to FAIR vocabulary standards and included qualified references to other metadata, demonstrating high compatibility and integration ( Table 2).

The Reusability guideline evaluates whether data is provided with clear usage licenses and comprehensive documentation, enabling users to effectively understand, reuse, and build upon it. As shown in Summary of Digital Repositories of Health Policy included in our evaluation , thirteen13 repositories offered richly described metadata with relevant attributes, and fourteen14 included metadata with detailed provenance information. However, only six repositories provided a clear and accessible data usage license, and ten10 adhered to domain-relevant community standards. These findings underscore the need for improvements in licensing clarity to enhance data reusability.

  • 3. User interface (UI) and User experience (UX)

To evaluate the UI/UX features of the health policy repositories, we focused on the availability and functionality of navigation tools, such as search bars and filter options, which help users locate specific information and navigate large databases/datasets. Additionally, we assessed the presence of analytical and interactive features, including data visualisation tools such as maps, tables, and graphs (all of these being either interactive or static), which enhance the usability and interpretability of the data provided by these repositories. These elements collectively determine how accessible, functional, and user-friendly a repository is for its intended audience.

Almost all 15 evaluated repositories include basic search and filter functions. These tools generally fall into two categories: search boxes and filtering options. The search box feature allows users to perform keyword-based searches within the repository. This function enables users to input specific terms or phrases—such as the name of a country, a health condition, or a policy title—to quickly retrieve relevant results. This free-text search capability is particularly useful for targeted queries where users know what they are looking for. On the other hand, the filter functions allow users to narrow down data based on predefined criteria.

In the 15 repositories we evaluated, common filtering options allow users to isolate health policy documents specific to a particular country or region, making it easier to explore country-specific data. Similarly, narrowing down by health focus area is common, where data (health policy documents in this case) are subsequently organised by thematic disease categories or broader public health topics. These filter options help users refine their search according to specific health priorities or geographical interests. While the implementation of these features was generally consistent across repositories, their effectiveness often depends on the quality of data and tagging (metadata) within the repository, which can influence the precision and relevance of search results.

The availability of functionality and visualisation features varies across repositories. Figure 1 highlights the functionality (such as search and filtering) and visualisation (static or interactive maps, graphs, and tables) features based on the focus areas of the repositories. Repositories focused on HIV/AIDS and broader health scopes offer a wide range of functionality and visualisation options. In contrast, repositories dedicated to public health and MNCH provide fewer features, with MNCH-focused repositories having the least. Notably, advanced analytical features were rare across all repositories, and none included AI-enabled tools.

404f86fa-d54f-40f6-89ce-faa144c1e4f7_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Spider diagram indicating repository functionality and visualisations based on health focus area.

While our assessment of UI/UX may be subject to observer bias, it is clear that a certain level of computational competence is required to navigate and explore these repositories, let alone extract data. In many cases, expert knowledge in the field may be necessary to effectively interact with a given repository to access, use and interpret the data contained. As a result, many repositories may unintentionally or intentionally make it difficult for non-experts—such as citizens, patients, or even non-health researchers—to maximise the use of the information. Indeed, given the often relatively basic search functions to interrogate vast amounts of data, it is difficult, even for experts (policymakers, health professionals, etc) to succeed in finding what they might be looking for. Some repositories (7/15), however, do provide guides on how to access and use the data (e.g., via how-to pages or videos).

Discussion

This landscape analysis underscores digital repositories’ critical role in facilitating access to health policy documents, offering valuable insights into their potential to support evidence-based policymaking and health systems development. The study mapped and evaluated the scope, content, functionality, and UI/UX of digital platforms that systematically collate health policy documents. The study initially identified 59 repositories and included 15 of these in the final analysis, identifying both strengths and limitations of these infrastructures. The repositories examined contained diverse types of health policy documents, including policies, laws, national health strategies, national control plans, action plans, guidelines, and other essential resources. Defining these categories ensures standardization, promotes consistency in classification and enhances usability. To further support this effort, we compiled a list of key policy terms and definitions, detailed in Table 1, building and expanding on various WHO sources for these terms.

Despite their importance in supporting informed decision-making and knowledge sharing, the development and maintenance of health policy repositories vary significantly across health sectors and regions. While some repositories are well-established, benefiting from consistent updates and robust maintenance systems, others face substantial challenges that hinder their effectiveness and sustainability. If left unaddressed, these challenges limit the ability of repositories to serve as comprehensive, reliable, and accessible sources of policy information. Below, we discuss some of the key findings from the landscape analysis and highlight some key challenges identified in the repositories.

Data content: Scope and content of digital repositories

More than half of the 15 repositories we evaluated dedicate their content to specific health focus areas, including HIV/AIDS, NCDs, or MNCH, while the rest cover a wide range of public health topics more generally. This pattern appears to be influenced by several factors. Many of the included repositories were established by NGOs and United Nations (UN) agencies, suggesting that the focus areas are shaped by the interests and mandates of the organisations setting them up, the specific needs they aim to address, and the funding available to support their work. For example, HIV/AIDS has historically benefited from significant funding, which likely contributed to the establishment of specialised repositories. Additionally, the methodology and processes used to collate data play a critical role. For instance, the WHO bases its repositories on information provided by member states, which, in turn, depends on the type of questionnaires and data requests sent by the organisation. If certain topics are not prioritised in these requests, there is little chance of developing repositories in those areas. This combination of organisational focus, resource availability, and data collection processes shapes the current landscape of health policy repositories.

Several critical health issues remain underrepresented and topics such as neglected tropical diseases, vaccine-preventable diseases, mental health, and cross-cutting themes like Universal Health Coverage (UHC) or health equity are notably absent. Emerging health challenges, such as pandemics and outbreaks of diseases like SARS, Marburg, and Ebola viruses, are particularly underrepresented. Only one repository (the COVID-19 Law Lab) was dedicated to collating health policy documents on rapidly evolving issues such as (re) emerging infectious diseases that pose a risk of developing into an epidemic or pandemic, including Ebola, Mpox, or other potential zoonotic outbreaks. It is important to note that the review did not evaluate this repository, since it was identified after our data collection period had closed. This gap in available policy resources for emerging and re-emerging health threats underscores the urgent need for dedicated repositories that can address rapidly evolving health crises and provide timely, actionable policy resources.

Arguably, repositories that are disease-agnostic and inclusive of all health areas should generally be more useful to a wider user base globally - provided that the content navigation functions are excellent. As outlined above, search functions tend to be too basic to successfully mine large data content. Repositories with a focus on a given health area may thus be more amenable to being accessed if users are interested in a specific health area or disease, risk factor or cross-cutting health area (e.g., health financing).

While many of the health policy repositories evaluated claim to offer comprehensive coverage of global health policy documents, a closer inspection reveals significant regional disparities, particularly in the representation of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These disparities stem from several interrelated factors, including limited institutional capacity for documentation and digitization, inadequate funding for repository maintenance, and a lack of technical expertise in these regions. Further, language plays a critical role and a limitation in our review. The mapping exercise focused on repositories where the content was either available in English or offered an English translation as one of their languages, limiting the breadth of data within repositories and the number of repositories we included in our analysis. As a result, health policies from LMICs are often either underrepresented or absent from global platforms, perpetuating a cycle of marginalisation where these regions cannot share their successful innovations and policies on a global stage.

The absence of LMIC health policy documentation and digital repositories presents critical challenges to achieving equity in global health governance. Without access to comprehensive repositories that include LMIC policy documents, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners risk making decisions that overlook region-specific health challenges, socioeconomic conditions, and cultural contexts. Policy documents addressing key issues, including infectious disease outbreaks, climate change impacts, or health system strengthening in resource-constrained settings, often provide valuable lessons for other countries facing similar challenges. However, the absence of such policies in accessible repositories prevents these lessons from being adapted or scaled in other contexts and limits opportunities for international learning and collaboration. Bridging this digital divide and gap in accessibility of health policy data between HIC and LMICs requires targeted efforts, such as fostering new and existing partnerships between South-South and North-South institutions and initiatives, investing in capacity-strengthening activities, and ensuring sustainable funding for the inclusion and maintenance of LMIC data in global health repositories. Addressing these disparities is essential for creating truly global and equitable health policy platforms that foster inclusivity, knowledge sharing, and collaboration across diverse contexts.

Guiding principles: Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability of data content

Adherence to the FAIR principles—Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability—is crucial for enhancing the usability and impact of data within health policy repositories. These principles emphasize “machine-actionability,” meaning that computational systems should be able to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with minimal human intervention. This is particularly important as the volume, complexity, and speed of data creation increase, requiring more computational support.14 Adherence to the FAIR principles varied widely across the repositories analysed, with many failing to explicitly incorporate these guidelines into their design and functionality. While some repositories excelled in findability and accessibility, others faced significant challenges with interoperability and reusability.15 For example, few repositories employed unique identifiers for health policy documents or provided clear data usage licenses, which are essential for ensuring data can be easily located, accessed, integrated, and reused effectively.

In addition to these challenges, inadequate metadata standards14 and poor data interoperability further undermine the effectiveness of many repositories. These shortcomings reduce their ability to function as comprehensive, reliable sources of health policy information and limit their potential to support evidence-based decision-making, knowledge sharing, and collaboration.16 Restricted access, including requirements for subscriptions, organisational affiliations, or specific credentials, also creates barriers, particularly for stakeholders in low-resource settings. This exclusivity undermines the inclusivity of these platforms and leaves critical users—such as community leaders, advocates, and smaller health organisations—unable to benefit from the resources available. Notably, we excluded seven repositories from our evaluation due to such restrictions, though we included repositories with limited or partial access.

The absence of primary data source linkage is a substantial limitation in numerous repositories we evaluated, a void that is closely associated with deficiencies in the FAIR principles. This problem considerably impedes users’ capacity to verify the content of policies, trace their origins, or access supporting evidence. Researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders who depend on a comprehensive comprehension of the policy landscape to inform decision-making are impeded by the absence of such linkages. It is difficult to contextualise or compare policies or evaluate their alignment with evidence-based practices in the absence of direct connections to underlying data sources, such as national health databases, program reports, or epidemiological studies. For instance, users who are endeavouring to analyse a national health strategy or assess its efficacy may encounter challenges in identifying the data that influenced its development. This can result in the inability to validate assumptions or make meaningful comparisons between regions or time periods. Similarly, identifying existing health policy documents as exemplars for potential adaptation to other settings is hampered by the inaccessibility of much of these data nationally and globally. Furthermore, repositories’ effectiveness as instruments for promoting transparency and accountability are restricted by their absence of linked data sources. It becomes more difficult to evaluate the development, implementation, and reliability of policies in the absence of accessible primary source documents. This may erode the trust of stakeholders in the repository as a dependable source of information. The absence of linked data sources also diminishes interoperability with other digital health platforms from a technological standpoint. Richer analyses, such as modelling the impact of policy decisions or identifying voids in resource allocation, could be facilitated by the integration of datasets from health systems, demographic surveys, or financial resources. Repositories that lack these linkages are unable to accommodate such sophisticated use cases, which restricts their capacity to inform the comprehensive strengthening of health systems. As such, addressing these challenges through more robust adherence to the FAIR principles will be essential for optimizing the role of digital repositories in advancing health systems and policy development, ensuring they can be used as comprehensive and reliable resources for all stakeholders.

Platform and technological aspects: User interface and experience (UI/UX)

The user interface and experience (UI/UX) of health policy document repositories play a crucial role in determining how effectively users can access, navigate, and utilize the information. While many repositories offer basic search and filtering options, the functionality and quality of these tools are often constrained by the underlying data and metadata. This may be due to a lack of funding or technical expertise to develop advanced UI/UX features, such as data visualization tools or AI-enabled analytics, which are rare in most of repositories we assessed. These advanced features could significantly enhance user engagement and analytical capabilities, but they often require specialized knowledge to interpret, potentially limiting accessibility for non-experts, such as community advocates or policymakers without technical backgrounds. As a result, these platforms may fall short in supporting inclusive, evidence-based decision-making.

Furthermore, outdated technological infrastructure and limited capacity for adaptation can significantly hinder the effectiveness of digital health repositories. Many platforms lack regular updates to incorporate modern functionalities, such as AI-enabled analytics or mobile-responsive designs, increasing the risk of obsolescence. The absence of these functionalities complicates the process of analysing and understanding policy information, limiting their utility. Although AI holds great potential to enhance these repositories, its application is not without challenges. AI tools may perpetuate biases present in their underpinning algorithms or training data, leading to skewed insights that can misguide the interpretation of outputs and if applicable decision-making. Additionally, the high costs and technical expertise required to implement and maintain AI-driven solutions create significant barriers, particularly in resource-limited settings. Unless these technological and practical challenges are addressed, repositories may struggle to meet the evolving needs of diverse users.

Assessing UI/UX is inherently subjective, influenced by users’ familiarity with digital platforms, professional expertise, and personal preferences. Therefore, perceptions of ease of use, navigation efficiency, and aesthetic appeal can vary widely. Our evaluation acknowledges this limitation and suggests that a more comprehensive assessment would involve engaging a diverse group of end-users in testing and providing feedback. This approach would offer a broader perspective on how repositories meet user needs and identify areas for improvement, ensuring these platforms are accessible and functional for all stakeholders.

Lastly, sustainability is another pressing concern for many repositories, especially those dependent on short-term or project-based funding. Funder-driven platforms often face uncertainty once the funding cycle ends, leading to stagnation, reduced updates, or even closure. This reliance on external support undermines the long-term viability of these platforms, compromising their capacity to remain relevant and effective in providing up-to-date policy information and responding to evolving health policy needs.

Concluding recommendations

This landscape analysis highlights the immense value of digital repositories for health policy and the potential of such infrastructures to positively shape evidence-based health policy decision-making, going forward. To realise this potential, we propose for existing and new repositories for health policy the following:

Data content:

  • Systematically collate globally relevant, multi-lingual, and health-area-agnostic information: This will enable shared learning, reduce redundancy, improve transparency, and support equity in health policy development.

  • Expand and enhance repositories to include underserved geographies and health topics: Addressing disparities, particularly in LMICs, ensures inclusivity and responsiveness to emerging global challenges.

Platform and technological aspects:

  • Invest in inclusive, sustainable, and adaptive digital platforms: Resources should focus on platforms that evolve with global health priorities and technological advancements to meet dynamic policy needs.

  • Enhance functionality and user-friendliness of repositories across all health areas: Learn from advancements in HIV/AIDS repositories and apply best practices to other health topics to ensure usability and efficiency.

Guiding principles:

  • Adhere to FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable): This framework optimises usability and maximises the impact of health policy repositories for stakeholders.

  • Foster cross-sector collaboration to address gaps: Engaging diverse stakeholders will drive the development of equitable, high-functioning repositories and strengthen evidence-driven global health policy systems.

To unlock the full potential of health policy repositories, the identified challenges must be systematically addressed. Lastly, addressing these gaps will require fostering cross-sector collaboration to address gaps - engaging diverse stakeholders will drive the development of equitable, inclusive, high-functioning repositories and strengthen evidence-driven global health policy systems.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 12 May 2025
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Somanje Mankhwala C, Chipeta MG, Ngwira TN et al. Health policy at your fingertips? Mapping and evaluation of existing digital health policy repositories. [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2025, 14:487 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162163.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 12 May 2025
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.