2. Adherence to the intervention (Analysis 1.9).

Study	Regular use % (self‐reported)	Regular use % (observed)a
Agius 2020	NA	56
Chen‐Hussey 2013	61.3	47.4
Gryseels 2015b	34	7.9
Hill 2007	NA	98.5
Kroeger 1997	81.9 (Ecuador), 91.3 (Peru)	NA
McGready 2001	90.5	84.6
Rowland 2004	95	NA
Sangoro 2014a	NA	99.2c
Sluydts 2016b	72 and 69 (successive surveys)	NA

^aMeasured using different strategies:
Agius 2020 reported by individual village health workers at the village level; details not provided
Chen‐Hussey 2013 observed by carrying out random sniff‐checks
Hill 2007 observed by carrying out sniff‐checks
McGready 2001 observed via random house visits, not specified

^bGryseels 2015 and Sluydts 2016 report results from the same study, but Sluydts 2016 only measured adherence based on usage the night before the survey, while Gryseels 2015 evaluated usage throughout the whole study period. The determination of observed adherence in this study also included unannounced visits to randomly selected houses to perform sniff checks and observe the correct application of the repellent.

^cSangoro 2014a estimated based on the number of participants included in the per‐protocol analysis (PPA), compared to the intention‐to‐treat (ITT).