Table 4.

PRECIS-2 scores, as rated by five members of the research group.

Domain	Score	Rationale
Eligibility criteria	5	All health resort patients from 11 regions in the state of Styria between 30 to 65 years were eligible. However, those meeting ≥300 min of moderate-intensity PA were excluded from the study.
Recruitment path	4	Health insurance companies sent an invitation letter as part of their routine communication and offered the PA measurement.
Setting	5	Health resorts which agreed to join the project did not differ from the health resorts which did not respond to the invitation or agreed to participate later. Therefore, the setting in our study is identical to the usual health resort setting. The JACKPOT programme takes place in already existing sports clubs. No additional equipment is needed.
Organisation of intervention	3	Health resort: The PA counselling as well as the delivery of the starter package were additional and new tasks for the health resort staff. Otherwise, no more staff and no additional training were required.
	3	Sports club: Exercise instructors who already worked in the sports clubs were recruited. The additional 2-day training for JACKPOT instructors and the first 12 sessions were funded.
Flexibility of experimental intervention: delivery	5	Health resorts: A framework for the content existed, but when, where, and by whom the intervention was delivered was flexible. Sports club session: The framework for each JACKPOT session was standardised and a manual with 12 lectures was delivered. However, instructors could adapt the content as long as they stuck to the framework.
Flexibility of experimental intervention: attendance	5	JACKPOT instructors actively encouraged participants to regularly attend JACKPOT sessions. Participants were not excluded based on their attendance level. However, the 12 sessions were only free for the first five months.
Follow-up	PO = 1	Primary Outcome: Delivery of the accelerometer devices was expensive and time consuming.
	SO = 3	Secondary Outcome: Participants’ attendance was recorded by attendance lists which are part of the instructors’ routine. In addition, we asked instructors to make notes about reasons for their drop-out and from which health resorts the participants came. To obtain the attendance lists from instructors required additional effort.
Relevance of primary and secondary outcome	PO = 5	Primary Outcome: Regular PA is an important outcome for the participants because regular PA reduces the risks of many non-communicable diseases.
	SO = 5	Secondary Outcome: Only if people continue with the newly adopted PA behaviour they will derive health benefits. Therefore, it is important to assess the success of the implementation, the recruitment of participants and the attendance level of the programme.
Analysis	PO = 1	Primary Outcome: Because of the three measurements, careful screening of the data and complex analyses to ensure the validity of the results will be required.
	SO = 4	Secondary Outcome: No special programmes or statistical skills, but regular records are required.

Score 1 = very explanatory, Score 2 = rather explanatory, Score 3 = indifferent pragmatic, Score 4 = rather pragmatic, Score 5 = very pragmatic. PO = primary outcome (minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity PA per week), SO = secondary outcome (recruitment into the programme and level of attendance).