PREreview of Effectiveness of Road Safety Education in Reducing Teenage Traffic Accidents: A Systematic Review

PREREVIEW OF “EFFECTIVENESS OF ROAD SAFETY EDUCATION IN REDUCING TEENAGE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.”

This prereview of the preprint was conducted virtually on March 9, 2025 by three reviewers. The authors of the preprint have explored existing evidence on the effectiveness of Road Safety Education in “reducing teenage traffic accidents.” We would like to commend them for their work.

 Below are the concerns and recommendations written per section.

1. Title

The title is missing some key components that are important. It does not describe the geographical setting, lacking precision. Furthermore, if applicable, we recommend including comparators and outcomes.

1. Abstract

The abstract follows the standard format. However, the results section needs more specificity and mentioning key statistics. Including the percentage or any other statistics of the studies that showed positive and/or negative effects could give a snapshot of some major findings. The conclusion section of the abstract could also include recommendations.

1. Introduction

The introduction follows the structure of a systematic review. However, there is a few things that can be improved. As a hook that captures the main concept, it can include the global and regional perspectives before coming to the local perspectives to give a broad picture of the subject matter under investigation. Consider shortening the geographical description of Southeast Asia and instead focus more on road safety policy differences in the region.

 There is need of clarity and consistency in using some concepts. For example, the term “mobility” is introduced as participation in social and economic life, but later, the focus shifts to road safety without explicitly linking the two concepts. Consider refining the definition or explaining how mobility specifically relates to road safety risks for young people.

Furthermore, we recommend you clearly highlight why previous reviews are insufficient or what specific gap this study fills. 

1. Methodology

The literature search, eligibility, and exclusion criteria need refinement. The age range for inclusion varies within the methodology (10-19 years in the impact assessment vs. 13-18 in the eligibility criteria). A consistent range should be specified. The “vote counting” method needs a brief explanation with regards to why it was chosen over other methods like effect size comparison.

The exclusion of “short-paper-based studies” is ambiguous. Does this refer to conference abstracts, short communications, or brief reports?

We also recommend adding a short explanation; “Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity in study designs, interventions, and outcome measures.”

1. Results

The major concern in this section is the lack of statistical summary in results: while thematic synthesis is used, quantitative summaries (e.g., percentage of studies showing positive vs. neutral vs. negative effects) would provide stronger insights.

Minor concerns on the tables and figures are that authors label the tables and figures clearly and should be referenced in the text. In addition, some text in Table. 1 appears fragmented and this affects readability. That needs to be adjusted.

1. Discussion

It has been noted that some sentences and ideas are repeated. For example, the first paragraph states twice that the study “demonstrates the importance of RSE in reducing risky behaviors among teenagers in Southeast Asia”, it goes ahead to also state that the study “highlights the significant impact of RSE programs in mitigating hazardous driving behaviors.” These two sentences are quite similar. Hazardous driving behaviors fall under risky behaviors, which is a repetition of concept. We recommend that the two sentences be revised to avoid repetition. 

Furthermore, we recommend that you consider adding a small section on how technology (e.g., VR simulations, mobile apps) could improve RSE.

1. Conclusion

The policy recommendations are good, but summarizing them in bullet points might make them clearer.

Highlight clear actions for policy makers: 

◇Governments should integrate RSE into school curricula.

◇More funding is needed for interactive and practical RSE training.

◇Standardized guidelines for RSE in Southeast Asia should be developed.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.