Abstract
Background
Inclusive governance ensures that institutions, policies, and practices allow marginalized and underserved groups to participate meaningfully in decision-making at all levels. It is defined by equitable participation, transparency, accountability, responsiveness, and effectiveness. Historically, women, youth, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and low-income rural and urban populations have faced exclusion due to structural inequalities and weak institutions, resulting in poverty, disempowerment, and social unrest. However, inclusive governance fosters peace, empowerment, and economic growth. In sub-Saharan Africa, it is a key priority in Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 16 and Agenda 2063, although interventions have yielded mixed results. Therefore, it is essential to enhance the discoverability of research on these interventions.
Objectives
To map evidence on inclusive governance interventions for underserved populations in sub-Saharan Africa.
Search Methods
In 2024, the following databases were searched, limited to English language results: CAB Abstract, Web of Science, Dimensions, and Scopus. Additionally, gray literature sources, including organizational databases, Google Scholar, and registries, were utilized.
Selection Criteria
Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion based on the outlined eligibility criteria.
Data Collection and Analysis
We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction tool in EPPI-Reviewer, where data was extracted and coded individually. We did not assess the quality of the reviews, as there were none available, nor did we evaluate the quality of the primary studies.
Main Results
A total of 88 articles (all primary studies) were included in this Evidence and Gap Map which assessed the interventions for underserved populations aimed at inclusive governance. Most studies looked at CSO’s advocacy, and public policy and government agencies interventions. Civic participation, and movement and coalitions, & CSO’s activities and achievement were the most studies outcomes leading to inclusive governance. Most research was conducted in Eastern Africa, particularly in Kenya and Uganda. Major gaps were identified in access to information and capacity building initiatives interventions, in addition to use of key government information as an outcome that address inclusive governance. Most of the evidence relies on non-experimental studies, and we could not identify any experimental or systematic review studies, highlighting a significant gap for future research.
Authors’ Conclusions
The Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) consolidates and enhances the visibility of research on inclusive governance interventions, providing a single, accessible resource for policymakers, researchers, and funders. It primarily draws from impact and summative evaluations, encompassing over two decades of studies across 48 sub-Saharan African countries, particularly in Kenya, South Africa, Uganda, and Ghana. The findings indicate evidence concerning civic participation, movements, coalitions, and civil society organization (CSO) activities, while areas such as the use of government information remain under-researched. Furthermore, regional imbalances persist, with Eastern Africa dominating the research landscape. Overall, the EGM identifies evidence clusters, highlights significant gaps, and offers guidance for future evaluations and policy planning.
Plain Language Summary
This Evidence and Gap Map on interventions aimed at promoting inclusive governance for underserved populations found the evidence is distributed disproportionately and lacks comprehensive systematic reviews.
This EGM reviews and discusses the available evidence on interventions aimed at underserved populations to promote inclusive governance in SSA. Sub-Saharan Africa has a significant number of underserved populations, with notable challenges in service delivery and in government accountability to its citizens. By concentrating on this region, the EGM identifies context-specific interventions and evidence in areas where enhancing inclusive governance is essential for promoting equity, participation, and sustainable development.
It highlights that much of the evidence focuses on the advocacy efforts of civil society organizations (CSOs) and their initiatives to achieve inclusive governance outcomes, particularly in civic participation. Most of this evidence originates from countries in Eastern Africa.
What is this EGM about?
Due to structural inequalities, weak institutional capacity, and a lack of transparency, many underserved populations are often excluded from political, economic, and social decision-making processes. Inclusive governance interventions can help these marginalized groups have their voices heard and empower them. Policymakers increasingly seek to identify effective interventions that promote equitable and non-discriminatory participation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and overall effectiveness in inclusive governance. This EGM addresses that need by systematically identifying and organizing research on inclusive governance interventions for underserved populations in sub-Saharan Africa.
What is the aim of this EGM?
To present evidence from studies on interventions that promote inclusive governance for underserved populations in sub-Saharan Africa.
What studies are included?
The EGM comprised 88 articles, all of which were primary studies evaluating interventions aimed at achieving inclusive governance. These studies specifically focused on interventions designed for underserved populations in sub-Saharan Africa.
What are the main findings of this gap map?
The evidence presented in this EGM highlights the role of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in advocacy, particularly in public policy, government agency engagement, and grassroots movements that promote inclusive governance. Specifically, there are clusters of evidence focusing on alliance building, advocacy and lobbying efforts, and the active participation of women and youth in CSO advocacy. Additionally, multiple studies have examined the development and strengthening of grassroots movements through collective actions and campaigns.
Most of the evidence originates from Eastern African countries, including Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, with no systematic reviews included in the mapping.
Over 35% of the studies reported outcomes related to civic participation. Furthermore, there were 7 and 8 studies assessing interventions aimed at enhancing the use of key government information and influencing policy and policymakers, respectively.
While all regions of sub-Saharan Africa were represented, the majority of studies came from Eastern Africa (44.9%), with only a small proportion from Central Africa (4.1%). Most interventions in Eastern and Western Africa focused on CSO advocacy, with fewer studies addressing access to information and capacity-building initiatives.
What do the findings of the map mean?
This EGM aims to identify effective interventions for achieving inclusive governance among underserved populations. While there is limited evidence available, much of the research is concentrated in Eastern Africa, although Western and Southern Africa also have a significant number of studies, albeit without comprehensive reviews. This map helps build an evidence base in the field, enabling funders and researchers to identify existing gaps and prioritize future research efforts.
How up-to-date is this EGM?
We conducted a search for relevant studies up to September 17, 2024.
Keywords
Background
The Problem, Condition or Issue
Inclusive governance refers to systems, institutions, practices, policies allow all individuals and groups especially those typically marginalized or underserved to participate meaningfully in decision making at all levels including local, national and international levels. Its key features include equitable and non-discriminatory participation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness. For instance, persons with disabilities can participate actively and directly in politics ensuring that institutions are responsive to their needs, legal framework protect their right and accountability mechanisms function effectively (OECD, 2016).
Historically, women, youth, and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, rural dwellers, and urban slum dwellers have been excluded from political, economic and social decision-making. Such exclusions are often exacerbated by structural inequalities, weak institutional capacity, and lack of transparency. Persistent exclusion reinforces poverty amongst them, disempowerment and inequality. It can also fuel grievances that escalate into social unrest and violence. Moreover, underutilization of human resources such as women or youth can constrain economic growth. In contrast, inclusive governance ensures that conflicts are reduced, and peace prevails, and marginalized groups are empowered leading to growth in the economy.
In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), inclusive governance has been central to national and regional development agendas. The Sustainable Development Goal 16 emphasizes peace, justice, and strong institutions. The Africa Union’s Agenda 2063 also emphasizes the region’s goal of prioritizing inclusive governance. Despite these commitments, interventions aimed at inclusive governance have however produced mixed results. Some initiatives have successfully enhanced citizens’ engagement, whereas others have not been sustainable or have rather had a negative effect on the population it sought to include. This inconsistency highlights the need to synthesize existing evidence to identify effective approaches, gap in the literature and guidance for policy and research decisions.
This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) shows a visual overview of the evidence on inclusive governance interventions. Using a systematic approach, both published and unpublished literature sources are used to find studies on inclusive governance, mapping interventions against outcomes, and an EGM supports policymakers, practitioners, and researchers in policymaking and research showing where future investments are need and areas for further research.
The Intervention
This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) presents a structured overview of interventions aimed at promoting inclusive governance for underserved populations in sub-Saharan Africa. Underserved population is defined as groups that experience systematic barriers to accessing essential services such as healthcare, education, economic and political opportunities The classification and framing of the interventions were based on the conceptual framework outlined in the published protocol (Nyan et al., 2025) and informed by guidance on evidence and gap map methodology (Snilstveit et al., 2016; White et al., 2020). These interventions are theorized to contribute to four intermediate outcomes: movement and coalition activities and achievements; independent and pluralistic media; access to and use of key government information; and changes in policy and policymakers’ attitudes and behaviors which ultimately support more inclusive, effective, and accountable governance.
The first intervention category focuses on grassroots movements. These involve efforts to develop and strengthen grassroots organizations and coalitions, mobilize resources, and coordinate collective actions and campaigns. Such movements have historically played a vital role in challenging inequities and elevating the voices of marginalized populations (Chetkovich & Kunreuther, 2006). When supported effectively, they can influence public discourse and policy agendas, especially when linked to broader civil society platforms.
The second category involves civil society organization (CSO) advocacy. This includes interventions that develop local philanthropic networks, build alliances, conduct lobbying, and increase the participation of women and youth in civic movements. CSOs often act as intermediaries between communities and the state, working to ensure that underserved populations can engage meaningfully in governance (Ghaus-Pasha, 2005; McGee & Gaventa, 2011). Strengthening CSO advocacy capacities has been shown to improve accountability and responsiveness in policymaking.
A third intervention area targets public policy and government agencies. Interventions in this domain aim to create inclusive and responsive governance frameworks, raise awareness of governance mechanisms, and support domestic policy efforts that reflect the needs of marginalized and underserved communities. These strategies are intended to institutionalize inclusivity and improve service delivery in often fragmented or exclusionary governance systems (Charbit, 2011).
Media interventions constitute the fourth category. These are essential for democratizing access to information and creating inclusive public spheres. Key strategies include liberalizing media spaces, producing diverse and representative programming, elevating underserved voices, and fostering gender- and inclusion-sensitive cultures within media institutions. Media reforms of this kind can promote civic engagement, challenge elite capture, and support pluralistic debate (Freedom House, 2021; Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2020).
The fifth intervention category concerns access to information. These interventions promote transparency by making government-held information more accessible to underserved populations. Activities include translating official documents into local languages, publishing key information at national and local levels, and implementing or strengthening right-to-information policies (Mapadimeng, 2013; Snilstveit et al., 2016). Access to information is foundational for holding public institutions accountable and enabling informed participation in governance processes.
Finally, capacity-building initiatives span all sectors. These interventions strengthen the ability of civil society actors, government agencies, and media personnel to advance inclusive governance. Examples include training for grassroots organizers, support for public officials at national and local levels, and technical assistance for journalists and media houses (Lane et al., 2023; Malhotra et al., 2021). Effective capacity-building is essential for institutionalizing inclusive practices and ensuring sustainability of governance reforms.
Together, these intervention categories reflect the multidimensional strategies used to promote inclusive governance in complex and often unequal political environments. They provided the framework for the inclusion and coding of studies in this EGM, aligning with our objective to support evidence-informed policy and research prioritization (Saran & White, 2018; White et al., 2020).
Why it is Important to Develop the EGM
Since 2000, the concept of governance and inclusivity has become a major issue in the global development system (Annahar et al., 2023), hence, it is imperative to know the breadth of evidence on inclusive governance, particularly for the underserved in sub-Saharan Africa. This will help to know the trends of evidence, gaps, and the effects of the interventions and the outcome to ensure inclusive participation.
This evidence and gap map that tackles inclusive governance will help all users to identify the size and quality of the evidence base of interventions in sub-Saharan African countries, identify the gaps to be filled with high-quality evidence to provide a strategic-policy-oriented approach in research for development.
Existing EGMs and Relevant Systematic Reviews
Although several Evidence and Gap Maps (EGM) and Systematic Reviews (SRs) exist on inclusive governance and social inclusion, they differ in terms of interventions and or outcomes examined in the present study. For instance, Gross et al. (2020) in their systematic review assessed multifaceted interventions to support community participation among adults with disabilities. A review also by Saran et al. (2023) examines the effectiveness of interventions to improve social inclusion for people living with disabilities (PWDs) in low- and middle-income countries.
Other studies include interventions on social and financial inclusion, however, their interventions and outcomes of interest do not align directly with those considered in this EGM. In addition, much of the existing literature focuses predominantly on persons with disabilities (PWDs), with comparatively limited attention to other underserved populations.
This study adopts a broader perspective by including a wider range of underserved groups. These include: (i) socio-economic groups such as smallholder or peasant farmers and women (particularly those in disadvantaged contexts); (ii) geographically disadvantaged populations, including individuals in rural areas and urban informal settlements; and (iii) socially marginalized or minority groups, such as ethnic and sexual minorities, the Fulbe community, young people, and politically underrepresented populations.
This EGM to our knowledge is the first to examine and map evidence on interventions to promote inclusive governance for underserved populations (including women, ethnic and sexual minorities, politicians (we define this group as elected and appointed public decision-makers who may be underrepresented in certain governance contexts (e.g., local-level actors, women politicians, or those operating in resource-constrained settings), smallholder farmers, the Fulbe community, and young people from certain geographic areas).
Objectives
The aim of this EGM is to map the available evidence on inclusive governance interventions for underserved populations in sub-Saharan Africa.
The specific objectives are to: • Identify and highlight evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews regarding inclusive governance. • Determine the evidence gaps that necessitate new high-quality studies, including systematic reviews.
Methods
We developed the evidence and gap map following the Campbell Collaboration guidelines (White et al., 2020), as outlined in our published protocol (Nyan et al., 2025).
Evidence and Gap Map: Definition and Purpose
An Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) is a type of synthesis product which provides thematic synthesis of evidence which are ideally structured around a framework known as PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Studies). They are products obtained from a systematic synthesis of evidence, providing relevant available evidence to the specific issue worked on (White et al., 2020). EGMs are made of rows and columns, which comprise of filters to enable the exploration of the map to a particular focus (study design, population, countries, interventions, outcomes, etc) (Campbell et al., 2023).
EGMs serve to provide an overview of lack of evidence on a particular issue and complement existing synthesis including mapping approaches (Snilstveit et al., 2016; Campbell et al., 2023). EGMs also support evidence-informed policymaking and serve as accessible resources for decision-makers, researchers, etc. (Campbell et al., 2023). Snilstveit et al. (2016) assert that EGMs provide thematic collections of evidence, which is essential for a particular sector.
This EGM presents a map of studies of interventions to promote inclusive governance for underserved populations in sub-Saharan African countries.
Framework Development and Scope
The scope of this EGM followed several structured steps, from training on EGM to mapping the evidence. At the outset, all researchers who were part of the development of this EGM were trained on the steps to EGM production and the use of the software in EGM production: the EPPI-Reviewer and EPPI-Mapper. The PICOS framework was defined to guide the development of the EGM, after which the Title and Registration Form (TRF) was completed and submitted to the Campbell Collaboration Review.
The team then drafted and submitted a standard protocol for an EGM to the Campbell Collaboration Review Journal for publication, as prescribed by the Campbell Collaboration, after the TRF was accepted. Next, the team of researchers developed a screening and coding tool to guide the identification of relevant studies to be included in the EGM production. We identified relevant academic databases and organizational websites to help with the search for salient materials. Additional training for the team was provided by Howard White in 2024. Throughout the EGM production, the Campbell Collaboration was engaged through the PICOS, TRF, protocol and, EGM development. Howard White, Ashrita Saran, and Takyiwa Manuh provided weekly advice to the team. Rodney Malesi served as the information specialist with support from the team on the searches on academic databases and Google Scholar.
The EGM’s preliminary results were presented at the Evidence to Action conference (E2A) in 2025. It was then uploaded on the International Centre for Evaluation and Development (ICED’s) website for public access and feedback.
Stakeholder Engagement
We consulted with development practitioners, academics, and policymakers from various organizations, including AfroBarometer, the Center for Democratic Development (CDD) Ghana, the African Population Health Research Council, the University of Ghana, the STAR Ghana Foundation, Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO), the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Gender, Children, and Social Protection. These experts, familiar with the subject matter, provided insights on the scope, design, and production of the Evidence Gap Map (EGM). With support from Campbell Collaboration, we conceptualized, designed, and produced the map, incorporating feedback from stakeholders at every stage to ensure it is fit for purpose and useful for informing future research, policy, programs, and funding decisions related to inclusive governance. These stages were from framework development and validation to the dissemination of results. These stakeholders also guided us on dissemination pathways, pinpointing key ministries and civil society networks for targeted engagement. The final map has been widely disseminated among relevant organizations, institutions, and networks for practical use and application.
Conceptual Framework
The framework presents how the various interventions lead to the development of the outcomes, with the underlying assumptions. There are six (6) main interventions that this study looked at: grassroots movements; CSOs advocacy; public policy and government agencies; media, access to information; and capacity building initiatives. The EGM’s framework shows how interventions for inclusive governance for underserved populations lead to either short or intermediate-term outcomes, and consequently, long-term outcomes. The assumption is that interventions could lead to short- or long-term outcomes.
Another intervention of interest to promote inclusive governance is capacity building initiatives, whether for grassroots and CSOs, national, public, and local-level agencies, or media personnel and media, Training programs, and leadership development. These interventions lead to improved skills, knowledge, and organizational capacity of the stakeholders (policymakers and other key actors), which also influence their understanding, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (Akambadi et al., 2023; Grossman et al., 2014; Jin, 2020).
According to Grossman et al. (2014), interventions aimed at structuring and supporting the development of grassroots movements lead to short-term outcomes such as increased awareness among people in a given district, community or region and community engagement. This also strengthens coalitions and enhances social inclusion which eventually leads to enhanced movements and coalition’s activities and achievements. Securing the needed assets (both financial and non-financial resources) also empowers underserved populations which lead to strengthened coalitions and movements (Abdi & Madut, 2019).
Public policy and government agencies’ interventions also promote the long-term effect of inclusive governance. Hern (2017) reveals that creating awareness of public policies to influence laws, policies and government procedures lead to policy reforms and adoption. These adopted policy reforms become inclusive policy frameworks because these interventions were designed through the active participation of all stakeholders to hold governments accountable. This leads to the long-term outcome of meaningful active participation and influence, and public awareness and education.
Advocacy efforts and initiatives of CSOs relates to philanthropic networks either at the community, regional or national level; advocacy and lobbying; active participation of women and children in coalitions and movements also foster inclusive governance outcomes including policy changes; leadership roles and advocacy efforts in movement and coalitions. Lobby efforts and advocacy campaigns also influence policy changes that benefit underserved populations (Fioramonti & Fiori, 2010).
Interventions aimed at making media spaces available to all at all levels lead to inclusive governance. These interventions include liberalization of media spaces, strategies that seek to diversify media programs and content in many formats and platforms, elevating the voices of populations considered underserved and supporting the development of gender sensitive culture in the media space. According to Mauyakufa and Pradhan (2018), making media spaces available to a growing number of users by setting up several local radio stations leads to an intermediate outcome of diverse media landscape and improved debate, dialogue and tolerance. This has a long-term effect on the realization and existence of independent and pluralistic media. Diverse media providers where there exists the operation of varied media contents, respect for freedom of expression in policy, legislation and practice and media coverage of underserved groups becomes the reality (Akambadi et al., 2023; Beyene, 2011; Fombad & Jiyane, 2019).
Access to information approach to ensuring inclusive governance is not limited to actions which ensure that all people who are not fluent in the official languages have access to information on government policies, programs, laws or services in local languages. These interventions lead to immediate outcomes of government transparency, state accountability and responsiveness and the long-term outcome of use of key information by underserved populations to support their activities and aspirations (Adu, 2021; Kock & Gaskins, 2014).
The Figure 1 shows the causal relationship between the interventions and outcomes. Conceptual Framework
Dimensions
The key dimensions of this EGM are interventions, outcomes, evaluation types, and study designs. Interventions and outcomes are organized in a matrix format, with interventions listed in rows and outcomes in columns. Each cell of the matrix displays the number of studies corresponding to each combination of intervention and outcome categories. The evaluation types and study designs are represented as segments within the study counts in each cell.
The outcome dimension encompasses several areas, including outcomes that affect the formation of Movement and Coalitions, CSO activities and achievements, Civic Participation, Capacity, Independent and Pluralistic Media, Use of Key Government Information, and Policy and Policymakers, along with sub-domains for each outcome (See Table 2 for Outcome domain, sub-categories, and examples).
Intervention Categories, Sub-Categories, and Definitions
Multiple coding of studies was allowed to report evidence across different dimensions of the EGM. This EGM includes studies from various types of evaluations, including formative and process evaluations.
Types of Study Design
This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) includes a range of study designs that provide evidence on inclusive governance interventions and outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa. The EGM covers primary studies, review studies, and modelling studies, including both completed and ongoing research, all of which were coded accordingly.
For primary studies, all designs were eligible provided they used empirical (primary) data. Review studies were limited to scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, while other review types were excluded due to lack of methodological rigor. Modelling studies were included if they used real-world data from relevant geographic contexts within the study scope to simulate or estimate intervention outcomes.
The included study designs were grouped into five main categories: • • • • •
Types of Intervention/Problem
The EGM covers a broad range of initiatives implemented by grassroots movements, civil society organizations (CSOs), media actors, and policymakers. These interventions aim to empower underserved populations to effectively engage in governance processes, advocate for policies that reflect their needs, and participate meaningfully in decision-making. In addition, the map includes interventions designed to strengthen the capacity of grassroots movements, CSOs, policymakers, and media to deliver inclusive governance services and support improved civic engagement. Table 1 provides a concise summary of all intervention categories included in this EGM.
Types of Population (As Applicable)
The Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) centres on underserved and historically marginalized populations in sub-Saharan Africa, in line with the concept of inclusive governance as the meaningful participation of groups often excluded from decision-making (OECD, 2016). Accordingly, the populations included underserved women, youth, ethnic and sexual minorities, persons with disabilities, rural communities, residents of urban informal settlements, smallholder and peasant farmers, political actors in disadvantaged contexts, and culturally distinct groups such as the Fulbe community, as outlined in the EGM framework. These populations were included because they face structural barriers linked to inequality, discrimination, and limited access to civic space, which align with broader concerns that exclusion reinforces poverty, disempowerment, and conflict. In line with recommended EGM practice, the population eligibility criteria remained broad enough to capture intersectional vulnerabilities such as gender, age, ethnicity, and disability status where these influenced the relevance or design of inclusive governance interventions (Snilstveit et al., 2016; White et al., 2020).
Studies were considered eligible when they targeted any of the underserved population groups identified in the EGM protocol and conceptual framework (Nyan et al., 2025). Evidence was excluded when the study population did not align with these groups, a criterion that resulted in substantial exclusions at the full-text screening stage (n = 117) due to ineligible target groups. In assessing population relevance, particular attention was given to equity considerations, ensuring that interventions addressed the needs of those whose exclusion arises from systemic or context-specific marginalization consistent with accountability and inclusiveness principles emphasized in governance literature (McGee & Gaventa, 2011; OECD, 2016). The population criteria thus ensured that the EGM captured interventions aimed at expanding voice, participation, and access to information for groups whose experiences are central to understanding inclusive governance dynamics in sub-Saharan Africa.
Types of Outcome Measures (As Applicable)
Outcome Domain, Sub-Categories, and Examples
Across the included studies, outcomes were coded when they directly reflected changes in participation, accountability, information use, or governance responsiveness affecting underserved populations. The EGM also considered unintended or adverse outcomes where reported, such as reduced civic space, backlash against civil society, or exclusionary effects emerging from poorly implemented governance reforms; however, few studies explicitly documented such harms, and none were used as standalone eligibility criteria. Studies were excluded when outcomes fell outside the predefined domains, contributing to 60 exclusions at full-text screening for ineligible outcomes. The outcome framework ensured that the EGM captured evidence relevant to strengthening inclusive governance processes while maintaining consistency with existing governance and accountability literature (McGee & Gaventa, 2011; OECD, 2016).
Other Eligibility Criteria
The EGM applied additional eligibility criteria focused primarily on geographical setting, location, and context of implementation, restricting inclusion to studies conducted exclusively within sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries, in alignment with the scope outlined in the protocol and methods sections. Studies were excluded when conducted outside SSA, contributing to 104 exclusions at full-text screening due to ineligible geographical locations. Eligible settings included any governance, civic, policy, media, or community environments in which interventions sought to promote inclusive governance for underserved populations, for example grassroots spaces, CSO environments, public-sector agencies, media institutions, and community-level civic initiatives, all consistent with the intervention categories defined in the EGM (e.g., grassroots movements, CSO advocacy, access-to-information reforms, and media pluralism initiatives). No restrictions were placed on urban versus rural settings, allowing inclusion of diverse contexts such as rural communities, urban informal settlements, and mixed administrative jurisdictions, provided the interventions targeted marginalized and underserved groups. Conversely, studies conducted in settings unrelated to governance processes, such as purely educational, private-sector, or non-civic service delivery contexts, were excluded when they did not contribute to the EGM outcomes or target populations. This approach ensured that the EGM remained tightly focused on evidence relevant to inclusive governance systems in SSA, consistent with methodological guidance emphasizing clearly defined spatial and contextual eligibility boundaries (Snilstveit et al., 2016; White et al., 2020).
Search Methods and Sources
The protocol that guided the development of this EGM was published in the Campbell Systematic review database (Nyan et al., 2025). It included the list of databases intended to be searched, along with other sources that were used for retrieving papers for this EGM. The protocol also included a list of journals that were hand searched to see if there were any studies that are eligible for inclusion in the EGM.
Search Strategy
The studies included in this EGM were identified through a systematic and comprehensive search across multiple sources. Four major academic databases were systematically searched: CAB Abstracts, Scopus, Web of Science (Core collection citation database) and Dimensions as detailed in the Appendices (Appendix B, C, D and E) with the dates searched. In addition a total of 26 institutional databases and academic journals, including google scholar and registries were searched to ensure a broad coverage of relevant literature. These include:-
Institutional databases: • Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) • World bank economic Review • World bank - Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) • World Bank Documents and Reports • Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) • Social Science Research Network (SSRN) • Governance Journal • National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) • Cochrane Library • Freedom house • International Journal of Electronic Governance • USAID- Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) • Google Scholar • EPPI knowledge library • The Campbell library • Center for Strategic and International Studies • International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) • Journal of Governance and Management • African Development Bank- Evaluation reports • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development • Asian Development Bank - Evaluation resources • The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) • Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP)
Academic journals: • Journal of Good Governance and Sustainable Development in Africa • International Journal of Disclosure and Governance • Pan African Journal of Governance and Development
The search terms for the various databases were carefully designed using synonyms and related terms for the population, interventions, and outcomes (See Appendix B, C, D and E). The search did not restrict studies based on study design. Boolean operators AND, and OR were applied to connect search terms appropriately, while truncations and wildcards were used to refine results and capture variations in terminology. Limiters were also applied to filter out studies that fell outside the scope of the EGM. A language limiter was applied, restricting the search to studies published in English. The restriction to English-language studies was due to time and capacity constraints, as the team did not have the resources to support translation. Additionally, the majority of relevant publications are available in English. The publication years were restricted to 1990 to 2024, as these years are deemed relevant to the emergence and growth of literature on governance, civic engagement, and development interventions.
Furthermore, machine learning techniques implemented through Open Alex within the EPPI Reviewer software were employed to enhance the search process. Open Alex was used to support supplementary searching helping to identify additional potentially relevant studies that may not have been captured through database searches alone.
This integration of machine learning made the evidence gathering process more efficient and effective, ensuring that the EGM reflects a comprehensive collection of relevant literature. Also key authors were contacted for eligible papers through included studies and citation tracking.
Analysis and Presentation
Report Structure
Structure of Report
Filters for Presentation
Filter Dimensions and Descriptions
Dependency
For this Evidence and Gap Map (EGM), the unit of analysis was a study. Each entry that appears in the EGM matrix represents a single study. Following White et al. (2018), a study was defined as an analysis conducted on a unique sample, even if the sample was over multiple time points. If a single study generated several publications, we included only the most recent openly accessible publication in line with previous EGM practices (Malhotra et al., 2021).
A study was coded multiple times under the relevant categories when it reported on more than one intervention, outcome, population, or study design. This means that although one study could contribute multiple codes, it was still counted as one unique study in the EGM. In situations where a study included several interventions or outcomes but only some met the EGM eligibility criteria, only the eligible components were coded. Primary studies that were eligible were counted only once, even if they appeared in multiple systematic reviews.
As in earlier EGMs, coding multiple aspects of a single study means that the total number of codes may exceed the total number of included studies. To help users navigate the strength of the evidence, we classified the density of evidence across the coding categories. Drawing on approaches used in similar EGMs (such as Apunyo et al., 2022), areas with 75 or more studies were considered highly dense or well-researched. Those with between 25 and 75 studies were considered moderately researched, and those with fewer than 25 studies were classified as having limited evidence. This categorization provides a simple indication of where evidence is strong and where significant gaps remain in the inclusive governance domain.
Data Collection and Analysis
Screening and Study Selection
All references from the identified papers were uploaded into EPPI Reviewer software and de-duplicated. The screening of eligible papers was conducted in two phases.
First, we screened the titles and abstracts to assess eligibility for the EGM. To expedite this process, we utilized a machine learning model to prioritize the identified papers based on the established eligibility criteria (see Figure 2). The title and abstract screening involved double screening by reviewers, applying both inclusion and exclusion criteria. Screening Tool for Assessing Eligible Studies
Second, we performed a full-text screening of all papers that passed the title and abstract phase. This phase was conducted independently by two reviewers (double screening). Discrepancies between reviewers were identified through comparison reports generated within EPPI-Reviewer. These discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus within the review team. Where disagreements persisted or eligibility was unclear, a third reviewer was adjudicated to reach a final decision. Finally, the eligible papers identified during the full-text screening were coded using a predefined data extraction form in EPPI-Reviewer, completed by two independent reviewers (see Appendix G for the coding form). This predefined data extraction included detailed definitions of codes and examples to guide consistent coding. It captured information on interventions, outcomes, types of evaluations, study designs, and sub-Saharan African countries based on the World Bank classification.
The coded data reports were then compared and reconciled by the reviewers in EPPI-Reviewer.
Data Extraction and Management
All eligible reports from the included studies, encompassing various populations, interventions, study designs, and outcomes, were coded using the EPPI-Reviewer software. A data extraction form was utilized to gather information on language, region, country, population, intervention, outcome, study design, and evaluation type for all eligible studies.
Two coders were assigned to each study during screening and data extraction to ensure consistency and check for interrater reliability, following the Campbell Collaboration guidelines.
Prior to data analysis, the dataset was cleaned to eliminate errors, duplicates, and missing studies. Duplicates were identified and coded according to a predetermined form (see Appendix G).
This Evidence Gap Map (EGM) includes both working papers and published studies that meet the eligibility criteria and report on interventions and outcomes relevant to the EGM.
Tools for Assessing Risk of Bias/Study Quality of Included Reviews
Although we planned to assess the quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR 2 tool (Shea et al., 2017) with independent assessments by pairs of reviewers and resolution of disagreements through discussion, no systematic reviews were identified in our evidence and gap map. In line with guidance for evidence maps (Snilstveit et al., 2016; White et al., 2020), we did not assess the risk of bias or methodological quality of primary studies.
Methods for Mapping
We utilized the EPPI mapping tool to create our evidence gap map (EGM). EPPI-Mapper is a tool from the EPPI-Centre designed specifically for visualizing coded data from EPPI-Reviewer. The two tools are often used together: once studies are coded in EPPI-Reviewer, the data is exported and uploaded into EPPI-Mapper to generate an interactive, web-based EGM. These maps allow stakeholders to identify where high-quality evidence exists, where evidence is limited or missing, and how findings vary across different populations or contexts (EPPI-Centre, 2023).
Results
Results of the Search
A total of 37,559 studies were identified from academic databases, gray literature, and machine learning sources, including OpenAlex in EPPI-Reviewer. The machine learning source, thus the OpenAlex feature in EPPI-Reviewer, was employed to ensure that all relevant records or studies have not been missed but included from every possible database or source. The OpenAlex really contributed unique records totaling 11,023. OpenAlex is a machine learning system that pulls data from vast open-access sources, including Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG), PubMed, arXiv, DataCite, and institutional repositories. It was launched in January 2022 and is similar to Google Scholar. After removing 16,940 duplicates, 20,619 studies were screened based on their titles and abstracts, leading to the retention of 1,508 studies for full-text review. Of these, 88 studies met the eligibility criteria and were coded for inclusion in the evidence map (see Figure 3). Figure 3 also shows the screening stages as part of the EGM process. At the title and abstract stage, 20,619 papers were screened out of the total 37,559 records, after duplicates were removed. This stage was done by team members. Reconciliation to address differences was done, after which the included studies were pushed into the next stage, which is the full text stage. At this stage, 1,508 papers were included. PRISMA Flowchart
However, 1,420 papers were excluded and could not be pushed into the data extraction stage. This is because most of the studies were not according to our PICOS, including language other than English and French, unavailability of PDFs, and other reasons as outlined in the PRISMA chat.
Excluded Studies
Reason for Excluding Studies
Reasons for Exclusion of Studies at Full Text Screening
Potentially Eligible Studies (Characteristics of Some Excluded Studies)
Examples of Excluded Studies
Synthesis of Included Studies
Characteristics of the EGM
The current interactive Evidence Gap Map (EGM) includes 88 studies, consisting of 87 completed studies and 1 ongoing study across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (see Table 7). This map offers an overview of existing evidence while identifying gaps related to interventions that promote inclusive governance for underserved populations from 1990 to 2024. The results show a significant increase in publications on these interventions starting in 2013 (see Figure 5). Additionally, there is a gradual rise in publications regarding Civic Participation and Movements and Coalitions from 2013, peaking in 2022 (see Figure 6). The rise in publication trend after 2013 is a result of governance approach (Annahar et al., 2023). Globally, the policy agenda shifted from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which started around 2013. Again, in Africa, 2013 marked a period of renewed commitment to increase the participation of women, youth, and the poor in decision-making. Figures 5 and 6 display completed and published studies from 1990 onward, excluding ongoing studies without publication dates. Most studies in the evidence and gap map are peer-reviewed articles (86.4%), followed by academic dissertations at 8% and reports at 3.4% (see Table 7). A Snapshot of EGM. The EGM Can be Found on https://products.iced-eval.org/egm-inclusive-governance.html Trends of Publications by Interventions From 1990 to 2024 Trends of Publications by Outcomes From 1990 to 2024 Frequency of Publications Type of Included Studies in the EGM (n = 88)
Type of Evidence
Most of the studies included in the EGM were summative evaluations (n = 80; 90.9%). Only a small number were impact evaluations (n = 4) and formative evaluations (n = 4) (Table 8). Regarding study designs, studies were coded under multiple methodological categories. The majority combined qualitative studies (n = 67), followed by non-experimental studies (n = 27) (Figure 7). The EGM did not include any modeling or systematic review studies. Frequency of Types of Study Designs of Included Studies (n = 96) Frequency of Evaluation Types of Included Studies
Evidence by Geographic Regions
The Eastern Africa region (n = 44) had the highest concentration of evidence on the relationship between inclusive governance interventions for underserved populations, compared with other geographic regions (Figure 8). The Western Africa region (n = 24) had slightly less evidence than Southern Africa (n = 24) regions. The Central Africa region had the least representation (n = 4) among the studies included in the EGM (Figure 8). Frequency of Geographic Regions of Included Studies (n = 98)
Of the 48 countries involved in the EGM, 33 had at least one recorded study. Kenya had the highest number of studies, with 16, followed by Ghana with 14, South Africa with 13, and Uganda with 11. In contrast, Burundi, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Benin each had only one study recorded, making them the least studied populations in this EGM (Figure 8; Supporting Information S1: Result 1). Figure 9 features a heat map illustrating the geographical distribution of the included studies. Geographic Heat Map of Included Studies Frequency of Categories and Sub-Categories of Interventions of Included Studies
Intervention Categories
The EGM involved six intervention categories (Figure 10). Among the included studies, advocacy by civil society organizations (CSOs) was the most extensively researched category, with 38 studies. The concentration of studies on CSO advocacy implies that the current evidence landscape and research priorities to ascertain the contributions of CSOs towards development (WACSI, 2023). In contrast, access to information received minimal attention (Figure 10). Within the CSO advocacy category, the active participation of women and youth was the most researched sub-category, comprising 22 studies (Table 9). The category of public policy and government agencies showed that inclusive and responsive governance frameworks were studied most frequently, with 15 studies. The liberalization of media spaces was the most examined topic within the Media category, with 11 studies (Table 9). Access to information was the least researched intervention (Figure 10 and Table 9). Notable evidence gaps included a limited number of studies on mobilizing resources for movements and coalitions (n = 1) in the Grassroots movement category, gender sensitivity culture in media (n = 2) within the Media category, and no studies on capacity-building and direct support for media personnel and journalists in the capacity-building initiatives category (Table 9). This information gap calls for further research into the less studied thematic areas, especially on access to information. This is because the UN highlights a critical role that access to information plays in sustainable development (Aguiler Delgado & Perez-Aleman, 2021). Frequency of Types of Intervention of Included Studies (n = 112) Frequency of Categories and Sub-Categories of Outcomes of Included Studies
Outcome Categories
The outcomes of interest in the EGM fell into six broad categories: movement and coalitions, civic participation, capacity, independent and pluralistic media, use of key government information, and policy and policymakers (Figure 11). Civic participation (n = 41) was the most frequently studied major outcome domain, compared with movement and coalitions, and CSO activities and achievements (n = 28), capacity outcomes (n = 14). Independent and pluralistic media outcome accounted to (n = 13), use of key government information (n = 7), and policy and policymakers (n = 8). Frequency of Types of Outcome of Included Studies (n = 111)
In terms of evidence by sub-categories outcome domains, participation in governance (n = 35) and civic participation in coalition and movement (n = 16) were the most frequently examined within the civic participation major outcome category. Within the movement and coalitions major outcome category, participation of local communities in campaigns (n = 19) and influence of grassroots and CSO’s on public policies (n = 15) were predominant compared with funding to movements (n = 2) and partnerships (n = 2) which were the least studied.
Similarly, evidence related to media coverage of underserved groups (n = 8) appeared less frequently in the independent and pluralistic media major outcome category, whereas global right to information ratings (n = 4) were less common, and no evidence was identified for the rule of law index (n = 0) under use of key government information category. Also, very limited evidence exists on public participation in budgets (n = 1), the corruption perception index (n = 2), and the global open data index (n = 0).
Evidence on capacity-related major outcomes category focused exclusively on strengthening the capacity of grassroots movements, CSOs, media, and policymakers (n = 14). Similarly, all eight studies within the policy and policymakers category examined knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors of policymakers and other key actors.
Aggregate Map of Evidence: Outcome Versus Intervention Categories
Aggregate Map of Intervention by Outcome Categories of the Included Studies
The result show that, CSOs advocacy and movements and coalitions & CSOs’ activities and achievements outcome; and public policy and government agencies and civic participation outcome were the most studied major intervention versus outcome categories in this EGM. CSOs’ advocacy major intervention category and civic participation major outcome category; grassroots movement major intervention category against civic participation major outcome category; and media major intervention category and independent and pluralistic media major outcome category were thematic areas moderately studied. There is less evidence on interventions that tackle access to information to promote capacity outcome; grassroots movement and independent and pluralistic media outcome; CSOs’ advocacy and use of key government information outcome; Capacity building initiatives and independent and pluralistic media outcome; and media and use of key government information outcome.
For CSOs’ advocacy as an intervention category, there are studies related to multiple sub-intervention categories. Here, 23 studies related to Movement and Coalitions, and CSO’s activities and achievement, 16 on Civic participation, and 5 on Capacity as sub- intervention categories. Grassroots movement category includes interventions aimed at Grassroots and CSOs influence on public policies, and Participation of local communities in the activities and campaigns of movements and coalitions, with 9 studies for Movement and Coalitions, & CSO’s activities and achievement, 11 for Civic participation, and 7 for Capacity.
Distribution of Evidence on Outcome and Intervention Categories by Study Designs of Included Studies
Most of the studies included in the analysis utilized non-experimental designs to evaluate the inclusive governance interventions on various outcomes. Specifically, there were 81 qualitative studies addressing both outcome and intervention categories. None of the studies employed experimental designs or randomized control trials. Among those reporting on civic participation outcomes, the majority were summative evaluations (n = 37) (Figure 12). Similarly, most studies focused on movements, coalitions, and the activities and achievements of civil society organizations (CSOs) were also summative evaluations (n = 25). Notably, there were no process evaluations or systematic reviews across the different interventions and outcome categories in the included studies (Figure 12). Distribution of Studies on Categories of Outcome and Intervention by Types of Evaluation of Included Studies
Distribution of Evidence on Intervention and Outcome Categories by Geographical Regions
Distribution of Intervention and Outcome Categories Against Types of Study Designs of Included Studies
Distribution of Evidence on Intervention and Outcome Types Against Geographical Regions
Discussion
Summary of Main Results
Main Findings
The current Evidence Gap Map (EGM) highlights the existing evidence and gaps regarding the connections between inclusive governance interventions and outcomes on underserved populations in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Over the past two decades, evidence in this area has steadily increased. We identified 88 studies, including one ongoing study, spanning 48 countries across SSA. The Eastern African region contains the largest body of literature on the relationship between interventions and outcomes, surpassing Southern, Western, and Central Africa.
Among the various intervention categories, civil society organization (CSO) advocacy was the most extensively researched, while civic participation emerged as the most studied outcome category. Although 88 studies were included, evidence linking inclusive governance interventions to outcomes remains limited in several respects: there are relatively few rigorous impact evaluations, geographic coverage is uneven across SSA, and direct causal pathways between interventions and outcomes are not consistently examined. Notably, the relationship between CSO advocacy and movements and coalitions, as well as between CSO activities and achievement outcomes, featured the most substantial clusters of evidence, indicating potential areas for future synthesis. The studies identified in the EGM were predominantly summative evaluations, with no process evaluations or reviews found.
Areas of Major Gaps in the Evidence
The distribution of evidence across sub-Saharan Africa is uneven with certain regions and intervention types receiving substantial attention while others remain underrepresented (Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2020). . Eastern Africa emerges as the most studied region, driven by the prominence of Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, reflecting long-standing civic engagement, diverse civil society actors, and established governance reforms (McGee & Gaventa, 2011) In contrast, Central Africa is markedly underrepresented, highlighting persistent challenges in generating evidence in fragile or conflict-affected settings (Charbit, 2011). Western and Southern Africa show moderate evidence coverage, but several countries including Benin, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Burundi feature only sporadically, revealing gaps in understanding inclusive governance across diverse political contexts (Kock & Gaskins, 2014).
Across intervention categories, civil society organization (CSO) advocacy dominates the evidence base, followed by civic participation and grassroots movements. Media and access-to-information interventions are comparatively sparse, with few studies examining their role in promoting inclusion, transparency, and accountability. Similarly, capacity-building interventions targeting government institutions are limited, reflecting challenges in implementation and evaluation (Charbit, 2011; Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2020).
Outcome evidence is also uneven. Civic participation outcomes are most frequently reported, whereas evidence on policymaker behaviours, information use, and systemic transformations remains limited. Methodologically, the majority of studies are qualitative or non-experimental, constraining causal inference and limiting insights into the effectiveness of interventions (Odei Obeng-Amoako et al., 2023; Saran & White, 2018).
Overall, this EGM highlights key structural gaps: uneven geographic representation, methodological limitations, under-evaluation of access-to-information and media interventions, and limited evidence on state-actor responsiveness. These less studied thematic areas show the gap in evidence among the included studies. Addressing these gaps is critical to generating high-quality, context-specific evidence that can inform inclusive, accountable governance strategies across SSA, particularly for underserved populations such as ethnic minorities, informal settlement dwellers, smallholder farmers, and sexual minorities (Lane et al., 2023; Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2020).
Potential Biases in the Mapping Process
We used a comprehensive search strategy, covering published literature from 1990 up to 2024, with independent title, abstract, and full-text screening by pairs of reviewers, resolving disagreements through discussion and consensus. Although we had planned to assess the quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR 2 tool (Shea et al., 2017), no reviews were identified, and in line with guidance for evidence and gap maps (Snilstveit et al., 2016; White et al., 2020), we did not assess the methodological quality or risk of bias of primary studies.
Potential sources of bias in the mapping process include reliance on English-language databases, exclusion of reference list screening, and the possibility of missing gray literature, unpublished research, or recently completed studies. These factors may have limited the comprehensiveness of the evidence captured.
Limitations of the EGM
This EGM identified 88 studies that focused on the specific interventions and outcomes within the defined scope of our review. While these studies provide valuable insights, it is possible that other research on inclusive governance was not captured, particularly studies that did not measure the outcomes of interest specified in our PICOS framework. Additionally, critical appraisal of the included studies was beyond the scope of this mapping exercise. Again, it was beyond the scope of the interventions to provide a critical appraisal.
Stakeholder Engagement Throughout the EGM Process
Stakeholder engagement remained consistent throughout the EGM process. The authors collaborated closely with the Campbell Collaboration to develop this EGM.
Authors’ Conclusions
This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) consolidates and enhances the visibility of existing evidence on inclusive governance interventions, providing a single, accessible resource for policymakers, researchers, funders, and other stakeholders. The EGM includes studies predominantly from impact and summative evaluations, covering more than two decades and spanning the 48 countries in the sub-Saharan Africa region, with a particular concentration in Kenya, South Africa, Uganda and Ghana.
Our analysis indicates that certain aspects of inclusive governance, such as civic participation, movement and coalitions & CSOs activities and achievement outcomes are relatively well-documented. In contrast, other outcome dimensions, such as the use of key government information, remain under-studied. Regional disparities are also evident, with Eastern Africa receiving the majority of research attention, while Central Africa remains under-represented.
Overall, the EGM highlights both evidence clusters that present opportunities for further synthesis and policy application, as well as significant gaps that require targeted research. This resource provides a foundation for informed decision-making and supports the strategic planning of future evaluations and interventions to strengthen inclusive governance across the studied regions.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Interventions to Promote Inclusive Governance for Underserved Populations in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Evidence and Gap Map
Supplemental Material for Interventions to Promote Inclusive Governance for Underserved Populations in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Evidence and Gap Map by Clarice Panyin Nyan, Takyiwaa Manuh, Sheila Agyemang Oppong, Miriam Oppong, Isaac Letsa, Nana Esi Badu-Ansah
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We express our sincere gratitude to Prof. Howard White for his invaluable guidance and constructive criticism throughout the development of this Evidence and Gap Map (EGM). His expertise significantly shaped the quality and direction of this work. We also wish to acknowledge the unwavering dedication and support of our colleagues, whose contributions were instrumental during every phase of the EGM creation process. Our heartfelt appreciation goes to Dr. Kwadwo Danso-Mensah, Dr. Joseph Clottey, Desmond Kaledzi, Selorm Sorkpor, and Rodney Malesi for their valuable input and active involvement in establishing the EGM. Furthermore, we extend our gratitude to the Campbell Collaboration for their outstanding technical support, which played a crucial role in ensuring methodological rigor. We are particularly grateful to the Hewlett Foundation and their grantees for their comprehensive review and insightful comments on the scope and structure of the EGM. Lastly, we express our deep appreciation to the Hewlett Foundation for their generous financial support, without which the realization of this EGM would not have been possible.
Author Contributions
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Authors received funding from William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (#2023-02326-GRA).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Plans for Updating the EGM
The update process for the Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) will be managed by the core research or review team that developed it. A lead evidence synthesis specialist or systematic review coordinator will be appointed to oversee the updates, ensuring they align with the original framework and coding structure. This role involves conducting regular literature searches, screening and coding new studies, and incorporating them into the existing EGM matrix. To ensure transparency and accuracy, all updates will adhere to the same rigorous protocol established for the original EGM, which includes double screening and standardized data extraction. EGM updates will take place every 2 years. This schedule facilitates the timely integration of new evidence while maintaining quality control. Each update cycle will conclude with a brief summary report outlining the number of new studies added, any modifications to the coding framework, and significant changes in evidence coverage. This approach ensures that the EGM remains a dynamic tool that accurately reflects the evolving evidence base.
Differences Between Protocol and Full Report
After submitting the standardized protocol to the Campbell Systematic Review Journal, minor modifications were made to the search strategy, including the removal of the French language requirement.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Appendix
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
