Table 2.

Summary of the feedback of the key informants per round

Round 1
Aspect	Feedback
Lay out	“Average” (K3; K4) and “Very good” (K2) All key informants indicated that the draft guide was too dense (K1; K2 and K3). It was suggested to use one page per aspect of the guide (K1). Another suggestion was made to attach a logic model graph in addition to the draft guide aiming to clarify the aspects in the guide (K1).
Formulation	“Good” (K2; K3 and K4) Editing was suggested (K1; K4), and removing of brackets which restricted the flow of the content of the draft guide (K3).
Feasibility	“Feasible” (K2; K3) and “Average” (K4). Recommendations regarding the draft guide's detail and applicability were provided. For example, the guide should indicate more detail about its operationalization (K1, K5), including practical examples as to how to operationalise the guide (K4). The testability of the guide should be specified, once it has been implemented in practice (K4).
Relevance	“Very relevant” (K2; K3) and “Relevant” (K4). Comments included that support should be acquired for the roll-out of the best practice at national level (K2; K3).
Round 2
Lay out	The model attached to the draft guide should indicate a continuous process, by using arrows (K1).
Formulation	Further suggestions regarding spelling and grammar were made (K1; K2).