Table 8.

Facilitators and barriers to maintenance.

Name	Description	Illustrative quote
Continuity of the intervention	All the partner organisations indicated that they would be happy to continue with the programme which they felt was a good fit with their other initiatives, if it could be sustainably resourced.	“Speaking informally to some of the clinicians, they're certainly very keen and it does fit exactly perfectly well with what they're already doing…our community works very well when things are happening from within it, and that's a really important feature for us… I think the fact that … it was done in such a way it could be built almost from within, and that worked really well.” (RT-F-07)
	They also generally felt that the CHWs would be happy to continue to deliver the programme, but the volunteers' stated views on this in one focus group were mixed—one said they would be happy to continue, another did not want to, and another wanted further training if they were to continue.
Funding	The main stated requirement for continuing with the intervention was funding, in particular for the VC role, and the possible need to recruit extra staff in order to maintain the project was also mentioned. One VC suggested a small amount of funding for recruitment and promotion would also be required. Several VCs commented that they would need continued support from the SPICES research team to continue to deliver the intervention, particularly with regard to training, recruitment and IT support.	“it would be nice to be reassured that we've still got you guys to fall back on some of the technical support… and [Health coach name] been just great with the coaching, again that's not my area of expertise.” (NHF-03)
Infrastructure	Members of the research team noted the need to retain a core support team to deliver the interventions, particularly the health coach and admin roles. Considerable administrative support was required, particularly during participant recruitment. Dealing with booking and rescheduling appointments was extremely time-consuming. The research team also commented that the local primary care system embraced the project much more than was anticipated before its start. Integrating it into that system thus seemed more feasible than we had predicted. We had expected much less enthusiasm from (busy) healthcare providers, so this was really good news.	“…integrating it into a service rather than just thinking of it as a voluntary sector thing is really good, and seems to be working out well.” (RTM-01)