**Background:** Health promotion and disease prevention programme registries (HPPRs), also called 'best practice portals,' serve as web-based repositories that give decision-makers easy access to evidence-based practices. While several national HPPRs have emerged across Europe, there is limited knowledge about differences in how they function, the contexts in which they were developed, and the mechanisms used for assessment, classification, and quality improvement. This study aimed to provide a comparative overview of national HPPRs in six European countries and the EU Best Practice Portal (EU BPP), identifying commonalities and differences in their core characteristics.
**Methods:** The authors conducted a descriptive comparison of HPPRs from Germany, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, and the EU BPP. A working group was established within EuroHealthNet in 2019, comprising public health experts from national institutes. Data collection occurred over 18 months through regular meetings. The group identified and reached consensus on four key characteristics for comparison: assessment process (including method, criteria, classification, and designation), incentives for submission/implementation, and dissemination. Two working group members independently summarized findings for each characteristic, with disagreements resolved through group discussion until >80% consensus was reached.
**Key Results:** All HPPRs share the common aim of collecting, assessing, and promoting recommendable practices for health promotion and disease prevention. Most are managed by national public health institutes and funded by their ministries of health. Almost all HPPRs have an assessment process in place or planned. The EU, Finland, Italy, and Slovenia use a point-grading scoring system, while the Netherlands uses qualitative assessment and Germany uses self-reflection with in-depth interviews. Assessment criteria across HPPRs typically include three to four main sections covering practice description, theoretical evidence, effectiveness evidence, and transferability. However, the EU and Finland are the only registries requiring demonstrated cost-effectiveness for 'best practice' designation. Classification systems vary considerably: the Netherlands uses three levels (well-described, theoretically sound, effective), Finland uses five levels (poor to excellent), while Germany, Italy, Slovenia, and the EU use single designations like 'good practice' or 'best practice.' Critically, the same term (e.g., 'good practice') carries different meanings across registries. For incentives, all HPPRs offer visibility, while Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy provide feedback and quality improvement support. The Netherlands and EU promote actual implementation through financial support—for example, Dutch schools can apply for funding to implement recognized interventions, and some municipalities require using practices from the Dutch register. Dissemination strategies include social media, newsletters, publications, capacity-building workshops (Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland), and integration into policy briefs and national prevention programmes (the Netherlands).
**Clinical Implications:** The diversity in classification systems and terminology across HPPRs poses a risk of confusion and misinterpretation when comparing practices across countries. The authors recommend that newer HPPRs (e.g., Poland, Finland) adapt EU assessment criteria to promote comparability, while longer-existing HPPRs should consider future alignment. The increasing interest in HPPRs—evidenced by three new registries (Finland, Poland, Slovenia) and the EU BPP—reflects a shift toward evidence-based decision-making in health promotion. Greater efforts and structural funding, as demonstrated by the Netherlands and EU models, are needed to move beyond simply sharing information toward actively supporting implementation and transfer of practices at the national level.