Reporting quality in psychological interventions. Implications for cumulative science and evidence-based practice: A scoping review

Abstract Background Poor quality in research reporting is a persistent issue that has hindered the advancement of scientific knowledge across all health science disciplines. Similarly, the progress of evidence-based practice has been hampered, as the replication of interventions is often impeded by the incomplete reporting of implementation details. Objective To map how reports of psychological interventions describe implementation at both the whole intervention level and the level of recipients’ behaviours or actions (BeA), and to examine whether reporting quality varies by field, guideline use, or indicators of intervention complexity. Methods This scoping review followed PRISMA-ScR. Searches were conducted on PsycINFO (ProQuest) and Web of Science (Clarivate) for publications (2014-2024) describing the development and/or implementation of psychological interventions in clinical, public health, social/organizational or educational fields. A random sample of 200 publications per field was screened for inclusion. Following a two-stage selection process involving double screening and consensus resolution, 80 studies were included. Data were extracted using a Delphi-based instrument and analysed using descriptive statistics and χ² tests to compare different aspects of reporting across fields, guideline use, and complexity features. Results Only 11.3% reported development-only objectives, while most combined development with effectiveness (40%) and feasibility (48.8%). Reporting quality tools were seldom used (13.8%). Interventions typically targeted a single recipient category (87.5%); multilevel targeting was rare (6.3%). Implementation sequence was often replicable (73.8%), but structured aids were underused (tables/lists 38.8%; diagrams 16.3%). Costs were rarely reported (3.8%). At the BeA level, structural features were usually replicable (e.g., type/form of administration, periodicity, place, timing), whereas content/materials (36.3% and 47.5%), adaptation/customization (35%), and fidelity/adherence (27.5%) were frequently incomplete. Few significant between field differences emerged. Reporting tended to improve as the number of BeA increased. Conclusions Psychological intervention reports commonly omit critical replicability details, especially provider/evaluator prerequisites, content/materials, adaptation rules, fidelity, and costs, despite available guidance. Routine use of structured representations (e.g., flow diagrams, BeA tables) and established reporting tools (e.g., TIDieR, CONSORT-SPI) could close the most consequential gaps and facilitate replication and implementation at scale. Registration INPLASY 2025.7.0098.