4. Discussion
For the purpose of this special issue, we performed an exploratory review of the concept mapping studies of our own or co-produced work, based on three research questions. However, we did not perform a systematic review of the published literature on concept mapping. Not all of the 12 concept mapping studies were published in scientific journals, and some lacked precise documentation of the process and results, for example on the composition of the participants in the different phases of the concept mapping procedure. We did not define strict criteria to determine and asses the answers to the research questions. For example “enhanced dialogue” and “collaboration” were not defined in an exact and replicable manner. Our review should be seen as a qualitative and exploratory examination of the 12 studies involved, to stimulate thought and discussion on the suitability of the method of concept mapping to enhance evidencebased public health. In our earlier study we found that in four out of five studies concept mapping was judged to be of value for evidence-based public health, according to the answers to our research questions (Van Bon-Martens et al., 2014). In addition, the seven newly added studies in the current paper all appear worthwhile for building more evidence-based public health, even though the extent to which they underpinned actual decision-making varied.
