Table 1 Facilitators & Barriers of Implementation

 B1.1 Name of intervention

 B1.2 Lack of evidence base

 B1.3 Adaptability – conflict between standardise vs tailoring to context

 B1.4 Lack of resources

 B1.5 Safety consideration

 B1.6 Physical and temporal barriers

 B1.7 Failures in new technology implemented

F1.1 Cost to participant

F1.2 Cost to organisation

F1.3 Pragmatic and clear programme content

F1.4 Adaptability (both by implementers and to context)

F1.5 Programme compatibility with staff and participants

F1.6 Development and availability of innovative information and communication technologies

F1.7 Credibility from evidence source

F1.8 Positive perception of intervention implementer by participants

F1.9 Sustainability of the intervention

 B2.1 Competing priorities

 B2.2 High staff turnover

 B2.3 Lack of communication within the team

 B2.4 Lack of support from leadership

 B2.5 Lack of funding

 B2.6 Implementing intervention from obligation

 B2.7 Staff burnout

 B2.8 Lack of perceived responsibility and motivation among organisations

 B2.9 Limited capacity to take part in multiple initiatives

 B2.10 High level of organisation and administration needed

 B2.11 Too much change required to implement

 B2.12 Poor staff training quality

F2.1 Strong commitment from leadership

F2.2 Clear information and communication strategies within organisations

F2.3 Provider training and capacity building

F2.4 Strong shared commitment and sense of ownership

F2.5 Feedback to staff

F2.6 Easy to integrate intervention goals within existing structures

F2.7 Strong staff relationships

 B3.1 Cultural barriers

 B3.2 Instability or lack of policies supporting target group

 B3.3 Poor relationship between organisation and community

 B3.4 Lack of community buy-in

 B3.5 Lack of coordination and communication between organisations

 B3.6 Funding between collaborating organisations

 B3.7 Availability of resources

F3.1 Participation of stakeholders in decision-making process

F3.2 Funding

F3.3 Accessible to communities in which intervention was implemented

F3.4 Community involvement to support the intervention

F3.5 High perceived fit of intervention in policy goals/agendas

F3.6 Political advocacy and support

F3.7 Effective communication strategies between stakeholders

F3.8 Volunteerism

F3.9 Role of support and research system

F3.10 Leadership and buy-in from range of stakeholders

 B4.1 Lack of motivation

 B4.2 Lack of knowledge

 B4.3 Perceived imposed participation in intervention training

 B4.4 Values inconsistent with lifestyle/context

 B4.5 Lack of perceived importance of communicating with participants by organisation staff

 B4.6 Perceived workload among staff

 B4.7 Poor participant attitude

 B4.8 Challenge to find committed leaders

F4.1 Well-trained

F4.2 Dedicated

F4.3 Leaders take ownership of problem addressed by intervention

F4.4 Leaders motivate others

F4.5 High individual motivation of staff

F4.6 High perceived importance of intervention by staff

F4.7 Positive attitudes and beliefs

F4.8 Members and leaders experienced increases in self-efficacy

F4.9 Feeling empowered

F4.10 Strong feeling of reward from engaging across all levels

 B5.1 Insufficient resources allocated for implementation

 B5.2 Complexity of intervention

 B5.3 Top-down implementation strategy

F5.1 Engaging key stakeholders in decision-making throughout whole implementation process (Including pre-delivery of intervention)

F5.2 Appointed community-based members as leaders

F5.3 Designed using existing resources and context characteristics

F5.4 Involvement of experts to tailor intervention

F5.5 Using theoretical model to inform recruitment strategies

F5.6 Support and research staff checking in with program staff facilitated problem solving and feedback loops

F5.7 Use of wide variety of strategies to implement the intervention

F5.8 Enough time for preparation before delivery

F5.9 Collaborative effort built into design