Abstract Background: Internationally accepted standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in values and preferences. Considering values and preferences respects the rights of citizens to participate in health decision–making and ensures that guidelines align with the needs and priorities of the communities they are intended to serve. Early anecdotal reports suggest that COVID–19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. Objective: To capture and characterize whether and how COVID–19 public health guidelines considered values and preferences. Methods: We performed a systematic review of COVID–19 public health guidelines. We searched the eCOVID19 RecMap platform–a comprehensive international catalog of COVID–19 guidelines–up to July 2023. We included guidelines that made recommendations addressing vaccination, masking, isolation, lockdowns, travel restrictions, contact tracing, infection surveillance, and school closures. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to review guidelines for consideration of values and preferences. Results: Our search yielded 129 eligible guidelines, of which 43 (33.3%) were published by national organizations, 73 (56.6%) by international organizations, and 14 (10.9%) by professional societies and associations. Twenty–six (20.2%) guidelines considered values and preferences. Among guidelines that considered values and preferences, most did so to assess the acceptability of recommendations (23; 88.5%) and by referencing published research (24; 92.3%). Guidelines only occasionally engaged laypersons as part of the guideline development group (6; 23.1%). None of the guidelines performed systematic reviews of the literature addressing values and preferences. Conclusion: Most COVID–19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. When values and preferences were considered, it was suboptimal. Disregard for values and preferences in guidelines might have partly contributed to divisive and unpopular COVID–19 policies. Given the possibility of future health emergencies, we recommend guideline developers identify efficient methods for considering values and preferences in crisis situations.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study used (or will use) ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at: eCOVID19 RecMap platform https://covid19.recmap.org/

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

We will make all data publicly accessible upon the publication of this manuscript on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/aup36/).

https://osf.io/aup36/