<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>23(1)</volume><submitter>Correia LR</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>With the increasing use of the term "impact evaluation" in healthcare and the absence of an exhaustive review on this general theme, this research aims to map available evidence and methods associated with impact evaluations in healthcare by conducting a scoping review.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>This exhaustive review included peer-reviewed studies of healthcare interventions with no restrictions on language or time of publication.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>In total, 324 studies met the inclusion criteria from 4372 single registries retrieved from Medline, Embase, Scopus, WoS and Econlit in August 2024, with no time restriction. Only ex-post studies were identified; as expected from guidelines, most studies used counterfactuals (58%) and only 7% did not use any comparison. Furthermore, natura</pubmed_abstract><journal>Health research policy and systems</journal><pagination>113</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12424203</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Measuring impacts: a scoping review of healthcare impact evaluations.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12424203</pmcid><pubmed_authors>de Soarez PC</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Correia LR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Martins JC</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rother ET</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Measuring impacts: a scoping review of healthcare impact evaluations.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>With the increasing use of the term "impact evaluation" in healthcare and the absence of an exhaustive review on this general theme, this research aims to map available evidence and methods associated with impact evaluations in healthcare by conducting a scoping review.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>This exhaustive review included peer-reviewed studies of healthcare interventions with no restrictions on language or time of publication.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>In total, 324 studies met the inclusion criteria from 4372 single registries retrieved from Medline, Embase, Scopus, WoS and Econlit in August 2024, with no time restriction. Only ex-post studies were identified; as expected from guidelines, most studies used counterfactuals (58%) and only 7% did not use any comparison. Furthermore, natura</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Sep</publication><modification>2026-05-27T12:15:47.115Z</modification><creation>2026-05-24T03:06:51.786Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12424203</accession><cross_references><pubmed>40936074</pubmed><doi>10.1186/s12961-025-01324-w</doi></cross_references></HashMap>