Introduction: A Reproductive Life Plan (RLP) is a set of questions that encourage patients to reflect on their reproductive goals and the actions needed to achieve them. This scoping review of the published and grey literature aims to map the evidence on currently available RLPs. Methods: We searched four databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus) and used Google to search the grey literature, the search terms were; 'reproductive life plan$' OR 'reproductive plans$' OR 'pregnancy intention screening'. Data were extracted on target audience, format, content, behaviour change theory, features, effectiveness and acceptability. Results: 44 published papers and 18 grey literature sources were included. 21 RLPs were discussed in the published papers and 17 in the grey literature. Most RLPs came from the USA. Most RLPs in published papers were asked verbally, while all RLPs in the grey literature were self-completed; there were six digital RLPs. Most ask whether an individual wants children, some then ask about number and timing of children, and contraception. Grey literature RLPs also asked about lifestyle and health. Discussion: The concept of developing an RLP is acceptable to people of reproductive age and healthcare professionals. There was a lot of consistency in the questions asked, however, there is limited data on effectiveness and only three tools, all digital, incorporated behaviour change theory. Conclusion A digital RLP that builds on the evidence for existing tools and integrates appropriate theory could result in the realisation of the potential that RLPs are theorised to deliver.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

https://osf.io/s26cv/

CS and JH are part-funded by an MRC Gap Funder Grant ref: MR/Y503320/1. The funders played no role in the review or decision to submit.

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

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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

As a scoping review all data relate to the original publications referenced.