PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Abstract The Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020, officially proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in March 2010, sought to reduce morbidity and mortality due to road traffic injuries (RTI) significantly. While there is reasonable agreement internationally on safer designs of motor vehicles (except locally produced vehicles like three‐wheeled scooter taxis, tuk‐tuks, jeepneys, etc.), there is a lack of evidence based interventions in road and infrastructure design, police enforcement and post‐crash care. Researchers in the field of traffic safety have been aware of the existence of counterintuitive results in their area of work for more than four decades. The fact that many interventions do not result in reductions in RTI is mainly because a large number of studies only measure intermediate outcomes like change in behaviour or knowledge and not the actual results in the field. The scope of this evidence and gap map (EGM) is to cover relevant studies in road safety sector from all countries and present the effectiveness of interventions in terms of mainly traffic crash injuries as its outcome. The interventions adopted in this EGM are classified into five broad categories: Human factors, vehicle factors and protective devices, road design, infrastructure and traffic control, post‐crash pre‐hospital care and legal and institutional framework. In order to come closer to accomplishing targets for road safety, it is important to allocate resources to promote interventions that are effective in achieving outcomes in the context of road safety. A mapping will provide a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge in the area of road safety and its effectiveness across the world. The map will guide programme managers to high quality evidence and inform targeted commissioning of future research.

infrastructure and traffic control, post-crash pre-hospital care and legal and institutional framework. In order to come closer to accomplishing targets for road safety, it is important to allocate resources to promote interventions that are effective in achieving outcomes in the context of road safety. A mapping will provide a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge in the area of road safety and its effectiveness across the world. The map will guide programme managers to high quality evidence and inform targeted commissioning of future research.

| The problem
The World Health Organization (WHO) released its World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention in 2004 (Peden et al., 2004). This report focused on road traffic injuries (RTI) and fatalities as a worldwide health problem and included a summary of the known risk factors associated with road traffic crashes and possible countermeasures that should be put in place to control the problem. It also pointed out that without new or improved interventions, RTI will be the third leading cause of death by the year 2020. The publication of this report spurred some national and international agencies and civil society groups to give more attention to the problem of road safety General Assembly, World Health Assembly and the Executive Board of the WHO (WHO, 2004(WHO, , 2009(WHO, , 2011(WHO, , 2016.

As a follow up, two Global Ministerial Conferences on Road
Safety have been held in Moscow, Russia (19-20 November 2009), andBrasilia, Brazil (18-19 November 2015). And the third one is The data were obtained from national governments using a standardized survey form. The GSRRS18 shows that the overall global road traffic fatality rate is 17.4 per 100,000, but there is a great disparity by income and regions. Low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) are reported to have the highest annual road traffic fatality rates, at 24.1 per 100 000, while the rate in high-income countries (HIC) is lowest at 9.2 per 100,000, and that over half of those who die in road traffic crashes are pedestrians, bicyclists and users of motorized two-wheelers (MTW).
In LMIC traffic injuries have been steadily rising, and now rank in the top 10 causes of death (WHO, 2018). Over 50% of the victims are pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists and RTI has become the leading cause of death for young adults in most countries. While most HIC have well-established road safety policies, many LMICs are in the process of establishing national regulatory agencies and sustainable funding streams to support large scale interventions that systematically address risky behaviours and the safety characteristics of vehicle and road infrastructure.
LMIC are also growing their rural road and highway infrastructure. National governments and international development agencies consider the expansion of road infrastructure a key strategy for economic and social development. In the last two decades, China has built a highway system that rivals that of the United States, with plans of substantial expansion (Xu & Nakajima, 2017;Yan, 2011). In India, the rapid growth of the highway infrastructure is currently underway because insufficient road transport is viewed as a key impediment to industrial growth (Ghani, Goswami, & Kerr, 2013). Africa, where most people do not have access to all-weather roads, plans to expand its road network by 6-10 times by 2040 (Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa, 2013). This increase in road infrastructure and number of vehicles is likely to result in an increase in RTI rates unless accompanied by appropriate evidence-based road safety interventions.
The Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020, officially proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in March 2010, seeks to save millions of lives by building road safety management capacity; improving the safety of road infrastructure; further developing the safety of vehicles; enhancing the behaviour of road users; and improving post-crash response. Several national and international initiatives have been taken over the past decade to promote and fund road safety initiatives around the world. While there is reasonable agreement internationally on safer designs of motor vehicles (except locally produced vehicles like three-wheeled scooter taxis, tuk-tuks, jeepneys, etc.), there is a lack of evidence-based interventions in road and infrastructure design, police enforcement and post-crash care (Davey & Freeman, 2011;Hauer, 2019;Wilson & Gangathimmaiah, 2017 (Haegi, 1995).
• Physical and mental impairment through road traffic injury can have long-term effects which deny victims the ability to maintain their standard of living.
• A large proportion of the relatives of dead and disabled victims, as well as the disabled themselves, suffer psychological disorders. The worst situation is that of the relatives of the dead.
• The bereaved are the worst affected-70%-by relationship problems, communication difficulties and sexual problems. The figure for relatives of disabled victims is 40%, and for the disabled themselves 50%. After 3 years these problems do not decrease as one would expect, but worsen for each category by about 5 points.
• About 50% of the relatives of victims, and the victims themselves, state that for extended periods they consume more psychotropic products like tranquillizers, sleeping tablets, tobacco, alcohol and drugs than before the incident.
• It is sometimes believed that due to the tragedy, the relationship of the respondents with their normal social partners deteriorates.
• The capacity to enjoy life as before the crash tragically disappears for 91% of the relatives of dead victims for the first 3 years. After this period, the loss persists for long periods for 84% of them. For many, this loss will be permanent.
We have quoted from this report extensively because it is important to note that economic costing of human tragedies can only be used as an inefficient tool to understand the partial costs of the problem.
2 of 20 | 1.3 | Scope of the evidence and gap map (EGM) Road safety interventions are described as the interaction of three components in the light of Haddon's matrix (Haddon, 1968): human, vehicle and environment separated into pre-crash, crash and postcrash phases. This has been strengthened further over the past two decades by focussing on the Safe Systems Approach which also includes strengthening of institutions and other road safety policy measures (Bliss & Breen, 2009) Hobbs and McDonough, 1998) are also attempting to harmonize vehicle standards internationally. There is general consensus on technologies which work and don't work internationally and car designs around the world are converging to similar international standards. Safer car designs are also influenced by the market because of car safety ratings announced by agencies like NCAP. However, infrastructure design, safety policies and enforcement are not subject to market mechanisms in the same way. Hence, car design interventions have been excluded from EGM.
The scope of this EGM is to cover relevant studies in the road safety sector from all countries and present the effectiveness of interventions in terms of mainly traffic crash injuries as its outcome.
The interventions adopted in this EGM are classified into five broad categories: Human factors, vehicle factors and protective devices, road design, infrastructure and traffic control, post-crash pre-hospital care and legal and institutional framework. They are described as follows: • Human factors: These cover all interventions including any factor or road user behaviour that leads to occurrence or consequence of RTI.
• Vehicle factors and protective devices: These are mainly focused on design of different vehicle modes except cars and protective equipment which may lead to reduction in injuries.
• Road design, infrastructure and traffic control: These interventions cover various types of infrastructure (geometry, traffic control, etc.) present on different categories of roads (urban and rural roads) and are critical factors affecting road traffic injury.
• Post-crash pre-hospital care: These pre-hospital interventions (e.g., road side, in ambulance etc.) aims to reduce the severity of injury consequences once a road traffic crash has occurred.
• Legal and institutional framework: These mainly focus on insurance policies, vehicle taxes, fuel and road pricing, central government, research institutions and laws addressing road traffic injury.

| Conceptual framework of the EGM
The conceptual framework links road safety interventions with the outcomes and impacts along the causal chain ( Figure 1). The conceptual framework shows the causal chain through which the inputs are turned into final societal impacts, through activities, outputs and outcomes.
It is to be noted that the links in the causal chain are not automatic. For example, the use of police enforcement to reduce road user risk and behaviour would also need legal and institutional framework to reduce health and traffic crashes in order to reduce injuries and fatalities, thus improving health and resulting in less morbidity and mortality.
A scientific approach for controlling RTI evolved in HIC over the last 50 years or so. The main concept behind the evolving strategies rested on the understanding that we must move away from finding fault with victims and instituting retribution systems to a more reasoned approach that deals with systemic improvements and finding solutions which by and large do not put an extra burden on road users. It was understood that RTI result from a complex interaction of sociological, psychological, physical and technological phenomena and since injuries result from an exchange of energy between the environment and the human body, it is possible to develop safety policies and strategies in a scientific and comprehensive manner (Bliss & Breen, 2009;Haddon, 1980;Peden et al., 2004). This will require a shift to an approach with a result focus which aims to eliminate road deaths and serious injuries by adopting interventions that are more likely to succeed in aiming for Vision Zero (Svensson, 2018).
The intervention categories in this EGM are adapted from the Haddon's Matrix which presents the typology of road traffic crashes in time and space (Haddon, 1972). The time category is divided into three mutually exclusive categories comprising interventions that prevent the occurrence of a crash, prevent or reduce the severity of injuries during a crash, and reduce the possibility of a negative outcome after the crash. The space categories include those interventions that are associated with human beings, vehicles and rest of the environment. The last category includes the road infrastructure, legislation, policing and role of institutions. The systems approach as detailed by Bliss and Breen (2009)   legal and institutional framework, and associated sub-categories.
One of the reasons that road safety interventions were not particularly successful in the first 60 years of motorization  in any part of the world was because policy makers and researchers could not measure the effectiveness of various interventions in terms of fatalities, injuries or crashes prevented. Subsequent research indicated that some interventions may have been based on theoretical beliefs of their effectiveness but were not so in real use and others may produce behaviour change but not found to be effective in the real world of traffic. For example, recent systematic reviews indicate that the following interventions do not result in reducing the adverse effect of road traffic crashes: • Advanced training in trauma life support for ambulance crews (Jayaraman, Sethi, & Wong, 2014).
• Interventions in the alcohol server setting for preventing injuries (Ker & Chinnock, 2008).
• Post-licence driver education for the prevention of road traffic crashes .
• School-based driver education for the prevention of traffic crashes (Roberts & Kwan, 2003).  In this EGM importance has been given to primary outcomes as there is little agreement among researchers on the relationship between behavioural/knowledge changes and reductions in traffic crashes. Therefore, studies are included only if the outcome is measured in changes in RTI (fatal, injury only) or use of protective devices, changes in vehicle speeds or drinking and driving.

In a recent paper Hauer (2019) states:
Over the past two decades or so progress has been made towards evidence-based practice. Research and researchers provided valuable tools for practitioners to use. But much of practice is still opinion-based and the role of research remains ambiguous. The first step towards reform is to rethink and then to revamp the research-practice relationship. The reformed relationship should be endowed with a purposeful structure, one that cures what dysfunction there is and promotes the generation of trustworthy evidence.
Unfortunately, in the absence of local research on road-related safety interventions, roads and highways in LMIC are being designed to safety standards of HIC without an adequate understanding of the evidence base of existing standards. For example, it is generally accepted that traffic calming measures like chicanes, road narrowing and roundabouts are effective in reducing RTI .
However, effectiveness of some of these measures in LMICs is not known as vehicles like MTW may not be affected. Even in HIC, many standards for vehicles, roads and policing activities are being promoted without the availability of adequate scientific evidence regarding their effectiveness (Elvik, 2017;Hauer, 2019). Many systematic reviews also point out the fact that evidence for road safety interventions may be available for HICs, but the same is lacking from LMICs (Mulvaney et al., 2015;Roberts & Kwan, 2003). The SDG target 3.6 for road safety aims to halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents by 2020. However, considering the example of WHO European region, despite a decrease of 8.1% in road traffic deaths between 2010 and 2013, the region may not be able to fulfil this SDG 2020 target to halve the road traffic fatalities (Jackisch, Sethi, Mitis, Szymañski, & Arra, 2015;WHO, 2018) The SDG target 11.2 seeks to provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, people with disabilities and older people.
In order to come closer to accomplishing these targets, it is important to allocate resources to promote interventions that are effective in achieving outcomes in the context of road safety.
A mapping will provide a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge in the area of road safety and its effectiveness across the world. The map will guide programme managers to high quality evidence and inform targeted commissioning of future research.

| Existing EGMs and relevant systematic reviews
A map of evidence maps conducted in LMIC identified no EGM conducted around transportation and other adaptive measures (Phillips et al., 2017). This EGM being a global focus aims to include studies on the effectiveness of road safety interventions from countries in all continents. The EGM strives to capture relevant studies conducted and broaden the included interventions and outcomes to better reflect the state of evidence in road safety in 2019.
The following systematic reviews and synthesis studies will be incorporated in the EGM after being subjected to inclusion/exclusion criteria.  These are listed as per risk factor/measure, colour code (assigned to reflect the strength of evidence on the effect of the risk factor or measure), and the road safety area concerned (behaviour, infrastructure, vehicle). The aim of the EGM is to identify, map, and describe the existing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve road safety across all countries.

| OVERALL AIM AND OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this EGM are: (1) to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews (SRs) related to road safety interventions; and (2) to identify existing gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value.
The EGM aims to direct the future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels. gives the confidence rating for systematic reviews. New primary studies fill the absolute gaps, while the new meta-analyses and systematic reviews fill the synthesis gaps presented in the EGM.
They are used as a global tool which attempts to give access of research evidence to practitioners, policy makers, the public, and research commissioners.

| EGM framework
The framework for this EGM was constructed through a review of strategy and policy documents and discussion through external consultations: 1. An Advisory Group specially nominated for this project 2. Discussion with ICoRSI 3 Council Members.
3. Reference to reviews/meta-analysis in The Handbook of Road Safety Measures and Safety Cube Decision support system.
The identification of primary studies and systematic reviews to be included will be through a comprehensive search of previously published and unpublished literature irrespective of whether the study is completed or ongoing. This, in turn, will also help identify and hence fill the existing gaps in the evidence map.
The final EGM will have a structured framework of interventions and outcomes relevant to road safety with various filters in a userfriendly way.
Key features include: 1. The EGM will contain all the relevant evidence from SRs and primary studies and provide access to user-friendly summaries and appraisals of those studies.
2. The EGM will show where completed and, through the inclusion of trial registries, on-going primary studies have been conducted.
3. The EGM will highlight absolute gaps (lack of studies for particular interventions/outcomes) and synthesis gaps (where there is a density of primary studies but lack of high-quality SRs or an update of existing SRs)

| Intervention
The EGM will include any intervention aiming to reduce RTI and fatalities as an objective excluding the effectiveness of car design intervention in the vehicle factors and protective devise category. All the interventions possible in road safety have been categorized in groups and sub-groups as shown in Table 1.

| Outcomes
The outcomes are listed in outcome domains and each domain has a number of sub-domains (Table 2). These may be modified during the piloting stage.
We will be excluding any study that includes only vehicular (including bicycles) damage/crash but do not report any related fatalities and injuries.

| Types of study designs
The EGM will include impact evaluations and systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions. Impact evaluations are defined as intervention evaluations or field experiments that use quantitative approaches applied to experimental or observational data to measure the effect of an intervention relative to a counterfactual representing what would have happened to the same group in absence of that intervention. Impact evaluations may also test different intervention designs. We will include both completed and on-going impact evaluations and systematic reviews; to capture the latter, we will include prospective study records in trial registries or protocols when These are a means of enforcement for obedience of road safety laws and regulations (a) Fines: A fine imposed for disobedience with the driving law or with rules and regulations aimed to reduce RTI (b) Imprisonment: It is a stringent form of sanction for disobedience with the driving laws or with rules and regulations (c) License demerit points: The system in which a driver's licensing authority, police force, or other organization issues cumulative demerits, or points to drivers on conviction for road traffic offenses. Points may either be added or subtracted, depending on the particular system in use. (d) License suspension: Temporary withdrawal of the right to drive a motor vehicle (e) Re-education/Retraining programme: The programme in which drivers found committing any driving offence are required to take a retraining programme which may also be an alternative to prosecution 1.3 Driver training and licensing (a) Driver education and training: Training drivers for skill acquisition, decision making while driving or risk mitigation in context of reducing incidence of RTI. (b) Driver license age: The age at which a person may obtain a driver's license to lawfully drive a motor vehicle on public roads. (a) ABS (Anti-lock braking system) and combined brakes, Emergency braking, speed limiters: The systems designed to prevent the problems occurring when wheels lock (b) Daytime running lights: Automotive lighting and bicycle lighting device on the front of a motor vehicle or bicycle, automatically switched on when the vehicle is in drive. (c) Reflective material: clothing worn that has highly reflective properties or a colour that is easily discernible from any background (d) Protective clothing: Clothing designed to mitigate risk of injury when rider is exposed to injury through contact with other objects (e) Helmets: Devices that reduces injuries by providing additional impact and abrasion protection to the head of a wearer in the event of a crash (f) Under-run guards: The Under-run protection bar enables small and large vehicles to make bumper-to-bumper contact thus preventing the smaller and lower vehicles to "ride under" the large vehicles especially trucks (g)  The insurance schemes for motor vehicles serve dual purpose. First, it is designed to protect individual from major financial losses caused by traffic accidents. Second, these schemes should be designed so that they encourage crash-free driving, the purchase of safer vehicles and the use of safety equipment for vehicles 5.4 Laws Laws regulating road user behaviour such as use of helmets, seat belts, cell phone, etc.
Details of study designs: (a) Prospective studies allocating the participants to the intervention using randomized or quasi-randomized mechanisms at individual or cluster levels.
i. Randomized control trial (RCT) with assignment at individual or cluster level (e.g., clustering at market, round-about, etc.).
ii. Quasi-RCT using a quasi-random method of prospective assignment (e.g., alternation of clusters).
(b) Non-randomized designs with selection on unobservables: i. Natural experiments using methods such as regression discontinuity (RD).
ii. Panel data or pseudo-panels with analysis to account for time -invariant unobservables (e.g. difference-in-difference (DID), or fixed-or random-effects models).
iii. Cross-sectional studies using multi-stage or multivariate approaches to account for unobservables (e.g. instrumental variable, IV, or Heckman two-step estimation approaches).
(c) Nonrandomized designs with selection on observables: i. Controlled before and after studies with an intervention and comparison group using methods to match individuals and groups statistically (e.g., PSM) or control for observable confounding in adjusted regression.
(d) Studies explicitly described as systematic reviews and that describe methods used for search, data collection, and synthesis.
We will include impact evaluations where the comparison/control group receive no intervention (standard road safety intervention), a different intervention (e.g. police enforcement), a placebo or the study employs a pipeline (wait-list) approach.
All theoretical, modelling or laboratory studies would be excluded. Additionally, all studies using self-reporting and simulations will also be excluded.

| Treatment of qualitative research
We do not plan to include qualitative research.

| Types of settings
We will include all studies conducted of interventions aiming to have an impact on traffic crashes. We will exclude studies focusing on car design effectiveness in road safety the reasons for which are explained in scope of the EGM.

| Status of studies
We will search for and include completed primary studies and systematic reviews and on-going systematic reviews. We will not exclude any studies based on language or publication status or publication date.

| Search strategy and status of studies
The search strategy will be to cover all the electronic searches possible including thorough searches for both published and "grey" literature. The following strategies will be used to identify completed and ongoing studies: (1) English Language Database and trial registries: We will be searching SafetyLit ( (2) Non-English Databases: (3) Systematic review database: Epistemonikos (https://www. epistemonikos.org/), Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, 3IE, EPPI centre.
(4) Organization and conference searches: We will be searching for literature using online repositories of organizations who are known to produce or keep depositories of effectiveness evaluations of road safety interventions. These include SafetyCube to road safety in our scope. We will screen these systematic reviews to identify primary studies from them. We will conduct bibliographic back-referencing of reference lists of all included systematic reviews and primary studies, and citation searches, to identify additional primary studies and systematic reviews.
A sample search string is included as Appendix B.

| Screening and selection of studies
The screening tool (see Appendix D) is based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria described above. Screening will be conducted in two stages: (a) title and abstract, and (b) full text. The reason for exclusion (as per the screening tool) shall be coded at the full text stage.
We will use EPPI Reviewer to assess studies for inclusion at both the title/abstract and full-text screening stages. Due to time and resource constraints, at the title/abstract stage, we will use EPPI Reviewer's machine learning capabilities to prioritize studies in order of likelihood of inclusion. We will screen until we are no longer finding any studies to include (at least 50 studies with 0 includes).
Two researchers will screen each title/abstract and each full-text.
Any disagreements on inclusion will be resolved through discussion, and referred to a third party when agreement cannot be reached.

| Data extraction, coding and management
The coding form (Appendix D), based on the framework and PICOS, will be used for data extraction. Data extracted from each study will include bibliographic details, intervention types and descriptions, outcome types and descriptions, study design, context/geographical information, details on the comparison group, and on the quality of the implementation, where available.
The coding of systematic reviews will be based on the characteristics of the included studies in the review which meet the PICOS for this map.
This tool will be piloted to ensure consistency in coding and resolve any issues or ambiguities. A single researcher will conduct the data extraction for each study; however, all coders will be trained on the tool before starting and a sample will be double coded to check for consistency.
We will use EPPI Reviewer to extract descriptive data from all studies meeting our inclusion criteria.

| Quality appraisal
We will assess risk of bias, study quality or confidence for all included systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2 checklist (Shea et al., 2017). The tool appraises systematic review conduct, analysis and reporting, guiding appraisers towards an overall judgement of low, medium and high confidence in the review findings.
We will not be critically appraising the quality of the included primary studies (impact evaluations), but will collect data on study design. For the purpose of the present map it is not necessary to critically appraise the interventions effectiveness, beyond indicating whether the evidence is from randomized, nonrandomized studies or observational studies as the systematic reviews provide overviews of the body of evidence, including their quality, where they exist. A major purpose of the map is to provide access to the body of work on particular outcomes and interventions to encourage further syntheses of those studies by researchers in road safety sector.

| Unit of analyses
The unit of analysis is the paper. Where multiple papers exist on the same study (e.g. a working paper and a published version), the most recent open access version will be included in the evidence map. If the versions report on different outcomes, an older version will be included for the outcomes not covered in later versions.
We shall code where papers come from the same study (i.e. the same data set by the same research team). It is common in public health to publish multiple papers from the same study, reporting different outcomes or different sub-populations in separate papers.

| Planned analyses
The analysis shall present tabulations and graphs by the primary and secondary dimensions, as well as time trends. Evidence gaps shall be identified and discussed.

| Presentation
The EGM will have two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions will be: 4. Type of primary study: RCT, non-RCT, Observational study.

Status of study (completed, ongoing).
In the hard copy of the EGM, multiple 2 × 2 representations of the EGM will be reported. In the online version, selected additional dimensions will be possible to use as a filter (Appendix A). The online version will include references to included studies and brief summaries of each study (for impact evaluation studies) or plain language summary (for systematic reviews) provided for it.

| STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The framework presented here has been developed through the following process: Stage 1: Initial framework to be constructed through review of strategy and policy documents, and discussions through external consultations through (a) consultation with Advisory Group specially nominated for this project and (b) discussion with ICoRSI Council Members, (c) reference from The Handbook of Road Safety Measures (Elvik and Vaa, 2004).
Stage 2: Piloting framework with 30 included studies. The framework will be finalized once the first 30 studies are coded. The protocol will be revised at this point.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to acknowledge the role of Guneet Saini and Kauma Kurian C in the preparation of protocol.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
• Content: Dinesh Mohan, Geetam Tiwari, Kavi Bhalla, and Mathew Varghese are members of ICoRSI and have been working on transport research and road safety interventions for many years.
These authors will be providing the content expertise for the EGM.
• EGM methods: Howard White as CEO provides technical and strategic support for the development of EGM in Campbell library.
Previously, he has initiation and led the development of EGM during his association with 3ie. Denny John is currently co-author of 3 ongoing EGM registered with Campbell library. Ashrita Saran was lead author of a review of evidence maps, and is leading several on-going maps, as well as conducting many training workshops on constructing evidence maps.
• Information retrieval: Denny John, and Ashrita Saran, in consultation with Howard White, and other authors will provide information retrieval expertise for the EGM.

SOURCES OF SUPPORT
This EGM is supported by ICoRSI (Independent Council for Road Safety International).

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No conflicts of interest.

PRELIMINARY TIMEFRAME
Approximate date for submission of the EGM: November 2019

PLANS FOR UPDATING THE EGM
We plan to update the map (or support others in doing so) when sufficient further studies and resources become available.