28. Intermediate solution for QCA model 4 ‐ further modifiable intervention design features.

		Consistency score with subset relationship (n = 27 in each assessment)	Proportional reduction in inconsistency	Raw coverage	Unique coverage	Cases
1	THEORYDRIVEN*personalorindividual*SCHOOLNURSEINSTRUCT	0.926	0.876	0.253	0.167	Bruzzese 2008; Crane 2014; Dore‐Stites 2007; Kintner 2012; Lee 2011; Terpstra 2012
2	THEORYDRIVEN*runinstudenttime*schoolnurseinstruct	0.963	0.92	0.258	0.172	Al‐Sheyab 2012; Bruzzese 2011; Joseph 2010
	M1	0.933	0.883	0.425

QCA: qualitative comparative analysis.

[Notation: Upper case = condition is present; Lower case = condition is absent; * = logical and; + logical or; Key: THEORYDRIVEN = Authors explicitly named theory or presented conceptual model for intervention; SCHOOLNURSEINSTRUCT = Substantial component delivered by schools' nurse; PERSONALORINDIVIDUAL = Substantial components delivered that were individually personalised or delivered to individuals; RUNINSTUDENTTIME = Substantial component run in students' own time (e.g. lunchtime); RUNINLESSONS = Substantial component run during lesson time; SUCCESSFULIMPLEMENTATION = Implementation of intervention successful]

Overall solution

THEORYDRIVEN*runinstudenttime*schoolnurseinstruct +

THEORYDRIVEN*personalorindividual*SCHOOLNURSEINSTRUCT => PROCOUTSUM