17. Complex solution for QCA model 6 ‐ consolidated model.

		Consistency score with subset relationship (n = 27 in each assessment)	Proportional reduction in inconsistency	Raw coverage	Unique coverage	Cases
1	CHILDSAT*THEORYDRIVEN*runinstudenttime*GOODRELPAR	0.846	0.756	0.106	0.106	Bruzzese 2008; Dore‐Stites 2007; Howell 2005
2	HIGHSCHOOL*CHILDSAT*THEORYDRIVEN*goodrelpar	0.845	0.786	0.162	0.063	Al‐Sheyab 2012; Berg 2004; Bruzzese 2004; Kintner 2012
3	HIGHSCHOOL*THEORYDRIVEN*runinstudenttime*goodrelpar	0.949	0.914	0.177	0.078	Al‐Sheyab 2012; Berg 2004; Bruzzese 2011; Joseph 2010
4	HIGHSCHOOL*childsat*THEORYDRIVEN*RUNINSTUDENTTIME*GOODRELPAR	1	1	0.064	0.064	Joseph 2013
	M1	0.875	0.823	0.41

QCA: qualitative comparative analysis.

[Notation: Upper case = condition is present; Lower case = condition is absent; * = logical and; + logical or; Key: HIGHSCHOOL = High School (lower case not in high school); THEORYDRIVEN = Authors explicitly named theory or presented conceptual model for intervention; RUNINSTUDENTTIME = Substantial component run in students' own time (e.g. lunchtime); GOODRELPAR = Good level of reported in engagement and/or developing relationships with parents; CHILDSAT = Children reported as satisfied; SUCCESSFULIMPLEMENTATION = Implementation of intervention successful]