Table 2. Results of the critical interpretive synthesis based on a priori data extraction criteria.

Theory	Could the theory help to inform interventions seeking to address populations (e.g., change conditions of risk?)	Could the theory help to inform interventions seeking to address social determinants of health?	Could application of the theory generate evidence to inform policy/practice change at population level?	Examples of theory application in population health identified through secondary review.
Absorptive Capacity (ACAP) (Zahra & George, 2002)	Possibly; remains focused on organizational level. Does explore larger systems factors, with the exception of structural, behavioural or political “social integration mechanisms”.	Possibly; could potentially be taken into consideration upon application of the theory through the activation triggers and social integration mechanisms.	Yes; could provide information on what is contributing to the success of an organization and what can improve its success.	One identified related to knowledge brokering in the health sector [24].
Active Implementation Framework (Fixsen et al. 2005)	Possibly; consistent focus on the community level but does not fully consider populations or systems.	Possibly; could be applied to implementation in areas that address SDH (e.g. education).	Yes; but the framework focuses more on community-level implementation.	Several identified related to sexual health [25], school-based positive behavioral supports [26], and HIV [27].
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al. 2009)	Yes; approaches implementation through a multilevel lens and recognizes factors existing at multiple levels of the system.	Possibly; does consider the importance of the organization knowing and prioritizing patient needs	Yes; could help to explore practice and policy change as it relates to implementing new programs.	Many identified related to various population health issues, such as tobacco cessation [28], child mental health [29] and nutrition [30], oral health [31], HPV vaccine [32].
Diffusion of Innovations for Service Organizations (Greenhalgh et al. 2004)	Yes; although focused primarily at the organizational level, considers system-level factors that affect diffusion, dissemination and implementation of innovations.	Possibly; sub-factors are associated with the innovation so could be adapted to address SDH.	Yes; provides a wide variety of factors that could be explored to generate evidence for practice and policy change.	Two identified related to HIV testing [33] and public health policy [34].
Ecological Framework (Durlak & Dupre, 2008)	Yes; takes a multilevel ecological approach by considering individuals in the context of their environments.	Yes; characteristics of the innovation consider community needs, values and cultural norms and examples of SDH interventions provided.	Yes; relevant factors described that could become levers for changes to policy and practice.	None identified.
Implementation Effectiveness Model (Klein & Sorra, 1996)	Possibly; focused at organizational level and does not explicitly address populations.	Possibly; does consider how climate within an organization influences implementation.	Possibly; it may generate evidence at the organizational level, this would not be widely applicable at a population level.	One identified related to mental health amongst low-income women and health care practitioners [35].
Multilevel Change Framework (Ferlie & Shortell, 2001)	Yes; multi-level and highlights the importance of the legal, political, and economic environment.	Possibly; however, factors focused on health care quality.	Yes; system-wide changes are considered in the scope of multilevel change and could provide useful evidence to inform practice/policy change.	Two identified related to HIV testing [36] and quality improvement in public health [37].
Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (Kitson et al., 1998)	Possibly; conceived as an organizational framework for health care and does not explicitly address populations.	Possibly; SDH could be considered as part of the context where the evidence is being implemented.	Yes; could generate evidence to inform practice change within particular settings but may have fewer implications for policy change.	Several identified but mostly related to health care settings: Oral health in home care setting [38]; community-based mental health care [39]; community-based health for people with disabilities [40].
Sticky Knowledge (Szulanski, 1996).	Possibly; focused more on the organizational level, but could be adapted to help inform the transfer of knowledge to populations.	Possibly; developed within a relatively narrowly-defined organizational context.	Yes; could be used to identify different barriers to implementing policies/programs, but developed in a business context may limit transferability to a larger or more diverse setting.	None identified.
Theoretical Domains Framework (Michie et al., 2005) & Behaviour Change Wheel (Michie et al., 2011).	Yes; although TDF remains largely focused on individuals; the policy categories of the BCW provide an explicit focus at the level of populations.	Possibly; the TDF does consider the role of resources and environment on behaviour change and the policy categories of the BCW could help to focus interventions relevant to SDH.	Yes; use of BCW could inform policy and practice, but the focus of the TDF on practice change suggests its influence on policy may be limited.	Many identified related to a various population health issues, such as tobacco cessation [41], childhood nutrition [42] and physical activity [43], oral health [44].