Table 2.

Joanna Briggs institute (JBI) critical appraisal summary of the included studies (n = 15).

Study	Design	JBI checklist used	Overall appraisal	Main methodological strengths	Main methodological concerns
Haughton et al. (21)	Qualitative (In-depth interviews)	JBI Qualitative	Moderate	Clear objectives; appropriate methodology	Limited reflexivity reporting
Hoekstra et al. (22)	Longitudinal study	JBI Cohort	Moderate–High	Longitudinal follow-up; clear outcomes	Confounding factors incompletely addressed
Marshall et al. (23)	Intervention scale-up analysis	JBI Cross-sectional	Moderate	Detailed adaptation description	No comparison group
Fichtner et al. (24)	RCT	JBI RCT	High	Randomization; valid outcomes	Limited long-term maintenance reporting
Maher et al. (25)	RCT	JBI RCT	High	Robust analysis	Attrition and sustainability not fully explored
Scheffey et al. (26)	Implementation study	JBI Quasi-experimental	Moderate	Strong implementation focus	Effectiveness outcomes limited
Hasson et al. (27)	Quasi-mixed methods	JBI Mixed Methods	Moderate	Multi-level implementation analysis	Limited causal inference
Lyons et al. (28)	Randomized Pilot Trial	JBI RCT	Moderate–High	Feasibility well reported	Small sample size
Hicks et al. (29)	Perspective article	Not formally appraisable	Contextual evidence	Implementation insights	Opinion-based
Pynnönen et al. (30)	RCT	JBI RCT	High	Strong theoretical framework	Sustainability not assessed
Nettlefold et al. (31)	Cluster RCT	JBI RCT	High	Large-scale assessment	Fidelity variation
Tan et al. (32)	Feasibility study	JBI Quasi-experimental	Moderate	Feasibility and safety evaluated	No control group
Wong et al. (33)	Pilot evaluation	JBI Quasi-experimental	Moderate	Adherence measured	Small sample size
Koorts et al. (15)	Workshop	Not formally appraisable	Contextual evidence	Scale-up insights	Expert opinion
Leeman et al. (34)	Multi-phase implementation study	JBI Quasi-experimental	Moderate–High	Comprehensive planning	Limited effectiveness evaluation