Study	Reason for exclusion
Akasawa 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not published in the English language
Al Aloola 2017	Considered for process evaluation: core processes not available; educational programme for teachers ‐ child data not collected
Al‐Sheyab 2015	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded on comparison (tested effects of TAJ‐Plus vs TAJ)
Alreshidi 2015	Considered for process evaluation: excluded as did not include implementation research questions.
Anderson 2004	Considered for process evaluation: excluded as did not reflect a school setting ‐ school specifically designed for children with chronic disease
Ando 2016	Considered for process evaluation: core processes not evaluated
Arnold 2012	Considered for process evaluation: did not include implementation research questions nor in‐depth process or contextual information (did not meet the criteria for a process evaluation)
Arıkan‐Ayyıldız 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not school based; clinical settings
Augustin 2003	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded on comparison: intervention group received weekly workshops for 6 weeks, control group was given standard educational materials on asthma management Considered for process evaluation: did not include implementation research questions (did not meet the criteria for a process evaluation)
Becker 2003	Considered for outcome evaluation: not school based
Bignall 2015a	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded, as comparison received an intervention (intervention group (20 minutes breathing retraining plus education) or control group (20 minutes standard education))
Bollinger 2010	Considered for process evaluation: included only information on cost‐effectiveness, not information on implementation
Bowen 2013	Considered for outcome evaluation: not school based Considered for process evaluation: did not contain core components of a process evaluation; did not include implementation research questions nor in‐depth process or contextual information (did not meet the criteria for a process evaluation)
Brooten 2008	Considered for process evaluation: did not include implementation research questions nor in‐depth process or contextual information (did not meet the criteria for a process evaluation)
Bruzzese 2001	Considered for process evaluation: did not include implementation research questions nor in‐depth process or contextual information (did not meet the criteria for a process evaluation)
Bruzzese 2006	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded, as focussed on family‐level self‐management, rather than child‐level self‐management
Bruzzese 2011a	Considered for outcome evaluation: unclear whether asthmatic students (with diagnosed asthma) were included. Considered for process evaluation: in addition to the above, did not represent a study of implementation using recognised tools
Burgess 2017	Considered for process evaluation: did not address process questions
Burkhart 2003	Considered for outcome evaluation: large number of children under 5 were included (mean age, < 5)
Bush 2014	Considered for outcome evaluation: not an intervention study (observational design) Considered for process evaluation: no information to suggest that evaluating processes of implementation formed a key part of the intervention
Butz 2005	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded on comparison: usual care not provided to comparison group Considered for process evaluation: did not include implementation research questions nor in‐depth process or contextual information (did not meet the criteria for a process evaluation)
Carpenter 2016b	Considered for process evaluation: not school‐based; school not instrumental for delivery
Cheung 2015	Considered for process evaluation: excluded, as provided a detailed description of planned intervention but not of implementation
Chini 2011	Considered for process evaluation: did not contain core components of a process evaluation
Christiansen 1997	Considered for process evaluation: did not include implementation research questions nor in‐depth process or contextual information (did not meet the criteria for a process evaluation)
Clark 1986	Considered for outcome evaluation: published before cutoff point
Clark 2003	Considered for outcome evaluation: duplicate (on manual screening)
Coté 1997	Considered for outcome evaluation: not school based
De Godoi 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not solely about asthma
de Greef, 2017	Considered for process evaluation: not an intervention study
DePue 2007	Considered for process evaluation: limited process data were presented, although they were not deemed to be collected via recognised tools nor reported by standardised means
Eakin 2012	Considered for outcome evaluation: large number of children under 5 years of age (mean age, < 5)
Evans 2001	Considered as a process evaluation study and an outcome evaluation study
Fernandes 2006	Considered for outcome evaluation: large number of participants outside the 5‐ to 18‐year‐old target age range
Francis 2001	Considered for process evaluation: not deemed to have included the core components of a process evaluation via structured tools
Gardida 2002	Considered for outcome evaluation: not published in the English language
Gerald 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not an intervention study
Gibson 1998	Considered for outcome evaluation: schools were not randomised, and inclusion of only 2 schools means that intervention and randomisation effects would conflate if schools were randomised Considered for process evaluation: did not contain the core components of a process evaluation
Grad 2009	Considered for process evaluation: not deemed to have included the core components of a process evaluation via structured tools
Greenberg 2010	Considered for process evaluation: focus of the study was long‐term impact on student health, not implementation. Focus group data were collected, although these data were not presented
Greer 2009	Considered for process evaluation and outcome evaluation: focus on improving knowledge about asthma among children without asthma
Gregory 2000	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded on the basis of study design. Only 2 sites randomised ‐ 1 school in each arm. Any intervention effect was conflated with school effect Considered for process evaluation: was deemed to not address implementation research questions
Halterman 2004	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded ‐ deemed to not include a sufficient component of self‐management
Halterman 2011	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded – delivered in part at school and in part in the home – included a substantial home component; not possible to disentangle which part may be driving any change
Halterman 2011a	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded, as comparison received asthma care Considered for process evaluation: stand‐alone process evaluation identified but focused on an allied part of the trial that was not school based
Halterman 2012	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded, as comparison received asthma care Considered for process evaluation: deemed to not include the core components of a process evaluation using structured tools
Hemate 2012	Considered for process evaluation: did not contain the core components of a process evaluation
Hill 1991	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded, as the intervention did not foster self‐management skills
Horner 1998	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded ‐ study not designed as an RCT Considered for process evaluation: deemed to not include the core components of a process evaluation using structured tools
Horner 2003	Considered for outcome evaluation: study design was non‐experimental
Hughes	Considered for process evaluation: although some satisfaction data were collected, the study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools
Johnson 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not school based; clinical settings only
Jones 2005	Considered for process evaluation: school site was not judged to be instrumental for delivery of the intervention; sites external to school were also used for intervention delivery
Joseph 2004	Considered for outcome evaluation: not school based
Joseph 2007	Considered for outcome evaluation (along with linked papers): excluded, as comparison included asthma education Note: included in process evaluation
Joseph 2013a	Considered for outcome evaluation (along with linked papers): excluded, as comparison included asthma education Note: included in process evaluation
Kaufman 2011	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools
Kenny 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not school based
Khan 2014	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded, as not school based
Khoshnavay 2013	Considered for process evaluation: received from study author; did not include core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools
Kintner 2015	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded on comparison as the control group received alternative asthma education Considered for process evaluation: did not contain the core components of a process evaluation
Knight 2005	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools
Krishna 2006	Considered for outcome evaluation: deemed as not school based
Lakupoch 2017	Considered for process evaluation: not school based
Lewis 2005	Considered for outcome evaluation: study as designed included no randomisation
Li 2017	Considered for process evaluation: did not address process evaluation research questions
Liao 2006	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools; included home visit components
Lin 2017	Considered for process evaluation: school setting not central for delivery
Lipman 2017	Considered for process evaluation: did not address process evaluation research questions
Loman 2017	Considered for process evaluation: did not address process evaluation research questions centrally
Louisias 2016	Considered for process evaluation: did not address process questions
Lu 2017	Considered for process evaluation: did not include core components of process evaluation
Lurie 2001	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools; some data on stakeholder perceptions were collected, but study did not address implementation research questions
Lwebuga‐Mukasa 2002	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation
Maa 2010	Considered for process evaluation: did not contain core components of a process evaluation
MacPherson 2011	Considered for process evaluation: did not contain core components of a process evaluation
Mangan 2006	Considered for process evaluation: did not contain core components of a process evaluation
Marabini 2002	Considered for outcome evaluation: not focussed on children (mean age, approximately 50)
McClure 2008	Considered for process evaluation: did not fall into the category of self‐management (supported management through observation)
McElmurry 1999	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools; included home visit components
McEwen 1998	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools; included home visit components
McLaughlin 2006	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools
Meng 2000	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools
Meurer 1999	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools
Millard 2003	Considered for outcome and process evaluation: not focussed on self‐management; educational activities were aimed at parents; study did not contain the core components of a process evaluation
Mitchell 2017	Considered for process evaluation: core processes not available
Morphew 2013	Considered for process evaluation: presented an economic evaluation ‐ not a process evaluation
Morphew 2017	Considered for process evaluation: core processes not available
Morton 2017	Considered for process evaluation: not reliant on schools for delivery
Mosnaim 2017	Considered for process evaluation: not an intervention study
NCT00217776	Considered for outcome evaluation: not an intervention study (trial protocol)
Neuharth‐Pritchett 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not focussed on children; focussed exclusively on training educators
Nuss 2016	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools
Otim 2015	Considered for process evaluation: presented an economic evaluation ‐ not a process evaluation
Patel 2007	Considered for process evaluation: presented an outcome and economic evaluation ‐ not a process evaluation
Peers 2017	Considered for process evaluation: did not include core processes
Pender‐Phaneuf 2016	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools
Perry 2000	Considered for outcome evaluation: study not considered to be an RCT
Petrie 2010	Considered for process evaluation: study did not evaluate processes
Quaranta 2012	Considered for process evaluation: study did not report on implementation processes
Quaranta 2015	Considered for process evaluation: study did not involve an intervention
Rasberry 2014	Considered for process evaluation: study did not report on implementation processes
Raun 2017	Considered for process evaluation: correlational analysis
Rhee 2012	Considered for process evaluation: presented an outcome and economic evaluation ‐ not a process evaluation
Richterová 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not published in the English language
Rodriguez‐Martinez 2017	Considered for process evaluation: focussed on an economic evaluation
Sabla 2017	Considered for process evaluation: did not contain core components of a process evaluation ‐ focused on evaluating the validity of teaching materials
Salisbury 2002	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded, as comparison group received additional intervention beyond usual care Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools
Scherer 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not focussed on self‐management among children
Schlueter 2011	Considered for process evaluation: study implementation focussed on parental smoke reduction
Schneider 1997	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools; some processes and context were described but were not evaluated
Schuller 2015	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools; some processes and context were described but were not evaluated
Scott 2006	Considered for process evaluation: did not allow for implementation processes to be evaluated; only 6 students were included, precluding assessment of core components of a school‐based asthma intervention
Scott 2008	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools; unclear if school was not instrumental in delivery of the intervention
Scott 2011	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; process data were collected using structured tools; unclear if school was not instrumental in delivery of the intervention
Shanovich 2009	Considered for outcome evaluation: study was not judged to be an RCT
Sharek 2002	Considered for outcome evaluation: study was not school based
Shaw 2005	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation (reported that process evaluation was conducted but did not report the findings)
Shaw 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not school based
Shegog 2001	Considered for outcome evaluation: delivery of the intervention not contingent on schools (not school based)
Shelef 2016	Considered for process evaluation: described development of study protocol, not implementation
Staudt 2015	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation
Suwannakeeree 2016	Considered for process evaluation: study did not include the core components of a process evaluation; included diaries for symptom monitoring alone
Szefler 2016	Considered for process evaluation: not an intervention study
Szefler 2017	Considered for process evaluation: core aspects of the process evaluation were not addressed
Tate 2009	Considered for process evaluation: study did not seek to address process evaluation/implementation research questions and did not include process data
Terpstra 2012a	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded on comparison, as trial tested added impact on additional engagement with caregivers in an established intervention Note: included as a process evaluation
Thornton 2016	Considered for process evaluation: school not instrumental for delivery; main components delivered at home
Urrutia‐Pereira 2017	Considered for process evaluation: core aspects of process evaluation not addressed
Valery 2007	Considered for outcome evaluation: intervention not school based
Velsor‐Friedrich 2004	Considered for outcome evaluation: no randomisation described (not an RCT) Considered for process evaluation: study did not seek to address process evaluation/implementation research questions and did not include process data
Velsor‐Friedrich 2012	Considered for outcome evaluation: excluded on comparison (study compared alternative asthma interventions) Considered for process evaluation: study did not seek to address process evaluation/implementation research questions and did not include process data
Volerman 2017	Considered for process evaluation: core aspects of process evaluation not addressed
Walter 2016	Considered for process evaluation: review in progress; not an intervention study
Walton 2004	Considered for process evaluation: study did not seek to address process evaluation/implementation research questions and did not include sufficient process data
Webber 2005	Considered for process evaluation: study did not seek to address process evaluation/implementation research questions and did not include sufficient process data
Weng 2007	Considered for outcome evaluation: study not deemed to be an RCT
Wensley 2004	Considered for outcome evaluation: not a school‐based intervention
Whitman 1985	Considered for outcome evaluation: published before cutoff date
Willeboordse 2016	Considered for process evaluation: school not instrumental in delivery
Wilson 2008	Considered for process evaluation: did not contain the core components expected in a process evaluation; focussed on implementation at a school district level rather than among students and within schools
Wyatt 2008	Considered for process evaluation: study did not seek to address process evaluation/implementation research questions and did not include sufficient process data
Wyatt 2013	Considered for process evaluation: study provided in‐depth description of the process of developing content but not implementation; study therefore did not seek to address process evaluation/implementation research questions
Yawn 2000	Considered for outcome evaluation: not focussed on asthmatic children; study did not report on outcomes for asthmatic children separately from non‐asthmatic children Considered for process evaluation: study did not seek to address process evaluation/implementation research questions and did not include sufficient process data
Yoshida 2011	Considered for process evaluation: study was not an intervention study
Young 2001	Considered for process evaluation: some implementation notes included, but study did not seek to address process evaluation/implementation research questions using structured tools
Zografos 2007	Considered for process evaluation: study did not seek to address process evaluation/implementation research questions using structured tools

RCT: randomised controlled trial.

TAJ: XXX.