Table 1.

Practice details and contextual levers

	Outer contexta				Inner context
					Practice core		Adaptive reserve		Attitude to intervention
	Relevant historical factors or recent events	Particulars of patient populations	Other external contextual issues i.e. rural setting	Links with the external environment	(i.e. Staffing IT maturity, staff roles and space)	Facilitative leadership	Aligned management model	Healthy relationship infrastructure
A	Worked with AUSDRISK diabetes tool: mixed success.	High socio-economic status (SES), some migrants but “high health literacy”	Lack financial support for longer consults	Accreditation context for prevention. Medicare Local training on PEN-CAT software	Good 3 GPs. Inconsistent data entry	Strong PM	Aligned, whole of practice systems prevention focus prior	Good strong team	Very engaged – all clinicians participated. No prior facilitation experience
B	Stable practice	Mixed SES	Semi-rural practice. Few local specialists bulk bill	Good connections to allied health providers (AHPs), long distance to medical specialists	Good 1–2 GPs.	Strong	Partially aligned, through risk assessment and recall system	Strong	Organised and committed. All clinicians participated
C	Acted as a diabetes collaborative.	Medium/mixed SES	Suburban practice	Some visiting AHPs; can be cost barriers	Fair. Few systems. 13 GPs Very busy	PM felt let down by GPs	Partially aligned, variation for weight, height, alcohol, smoking	Fair – many meetings	Poor: 3/13 GPs participated
D	Long interest in HIV care	Medium-Low SES. Many of a non-English-speaking background, overseas students.	Suburban practice	AHP referrals for more difficult patients	Staff turnover during intervention, 4 GPs Inconsistent data entry	Hierarchic – leaders positive	Aligned roles post intervention Systems for PNs to see clients before GP	Dysfunctional staff tensions. PN resignation led to redeveloping a prevention team.	Lead GP and PM support. All GPs participated, but at varying levels Key PN opposition
E	A university teaching practice	Medium	Rural - People have to drive for services.	Good AHP connections at low cost	Good 2–3 GPs Good recall system	Strong	Whole of practice approach	Vibrant culture well organised and enthusiastic	Engaged – all clinicians participated
F	Utilise health check MBS items	High SES, mostly Caucasian employed families.	Suburban practice	Free gym passes	12 GPs Inconsistent data entry Cramped	Fair	Fragmented Nurse hired as prevention coordinator	Teamwork mostly informal. PNs overworked	Weakly engaged while PN champion on leave. Then good 5/8 GPs fully participated, 2 partly
G	New building new IT system	Low SES	Most clinical staff related to each other. Specialists’ cost an issue	AHP links	5+ GPs Poor – major IT change Cramped	PM led, but away for much of intervention	Disorganised PNs not at meetings	Fair Poor communications	Unresponsive 4/5 GPs weakly participated
H	Recently opened practice	Low-mid SES. Many patients of Greek background	Suburban practice Yet to go through accreditation	Community Health for AHPs	Fair IT deficiencies in new start clinic	Solo GP supportive	Aligned following GP / PN discussions	Fair – some GP/ PN communication difficulties	Positive Slow start until GP / PN discussions

^aThe government and regulatory aspects of each practice were shared given the similarity of the setting