Table 1.

Facilitators & Barriers of Implementation

Barriers	Facilitators
1- Intervention Characteristics
B1.1 Name of intervention  B1.2 Lack of evidence base  B1.3 Adaptability – conflict between standardise vs tailoring to context  B1.4 Lack of resources  B1.5 Safety consideration  B1.6 Physical and temporal barriers  B1.7 Failures in new technology implemented	F1.1 Cost to participant F1.2 Cost to organisation F1.3 Pragmatic and clear programme content F1.4 Adaptability (both by implementers and to context) F1.5 Programme compatibility with staff and participants F1.6 Development and availability of innovative information and communication technologies F1.7 Credibility from evidence source F1.8 Positive perception of intervention implementer by participants F1.9 Sustainability of the intervention
2- Inner Setting
B2.1 Competing priorities  B2.2 High staff turnover  B2.3 Lack of communication within the team  B2.4 Lack of support from leadership  B2.5 Lack of funding  B2.6 Implementing intervention from obligation  B2.7 Staff burnout  B2.8 Lack of perceived responsibility and motivation among organisations  B2.9 Limited capacity to take part in multiple initiatives  B2.10 High level of organisation and administration needed  B2.11 Too much change required to implement  B2.12 Poor staff training quality	F2.1 Strong commitment from leadership F2.2 Clear information and communication strategies within organisations F2.3 Provider training and capacity building F2.4 Strong shared commitment and sense of ownership F2.5 Feedback to staff F2.6 Easy to integrate intervention goals within existing structures F2.7 Strong staff relationships
3- Outer Setting
B3.1 Cultural barriers  B3.2 Instability or lack of policies supporting target group  B3.3 Poor relationship between organisation and community  B3.4 Lack of community buy-in  B3.5 Lack of coordination and communication between organisations  B3.6 Funding between collaborating organisations  B3.7 Availability of resources	F3.1 Participation of stakeholders in decision-making process F3.2 Funding F3.3 Accessible to communities in which intervention was implemented F3.4 Community involvement to support the intervention F3.5 High perceived fit of intervention in policy goals/agendas F3.6 Political advocacy and support F3.7 Effective communication strategies between stakeholders F3.8 Volunteerism F3.9 Role of support and research system F3.10 Leadership and buy-in from range of stakeholders
4- Individual Characteristics
B4.1 Lack of motivation  B4.2 Lack of knowledge  B4.3 Perceived imposed participation in intervention training  B4.4 Values inconsistent with lifestyle/context  B4.5 Lack of perceived importance of communicating with participants by organisation staff  B4.6 Perceived workload among staff  B4.7 Poor participant attitude  B4.8 Challenge to find committed leaders	F4.1 Well-trained F4.2 Dedicated F4.3 Leaders take ownership of problem addressed by intervention F4.4 Leaders motivate others F4.5 High individual motivation of staff F4.6 High perceived importance of intervention by staff F4.7 Positive attitudes and beliefs F4.8 Members and leaders experienced increases in self-efficacy F4.9 Feeling empowered F4.10 Strong feeling of reward from engaging across all levels
5- Processes of Implementation
B5.1 Insufficient resources allocated for implementation  B5.2 Complexity of intervention  B5.3 Top-down implementation strategy	F5.1 Engaging key stakeholders in decision-making throughout whole implementation process (Including pre-delivery of intervention) F5.2 Appointed community-based members as leaders F5.3 Designed using existing resources and context characteristics F5.4 Involvement of experts to tailor intervention F5.5 Using theoretical model to inform recruitment strategies F5.6 Support and research staff checking in with program staff facilitated problem solving and feedback loops F5.7 Use of wide variety of strategies to implement the intervention F5.8 Enough time for preparation before delivery F5.9 Collaborative effort built into design