Table 2.

ASSESS tool item descriptions

#	Item	Description
1	Review or meta-analysis question	The overall question guiding the review or meta-analysis
	Notes	Use this space to write notes to yourself or other extractors regarding decisions on how to enter data
	Reported on page #	When used as a reporting tool, indicate the page number where the indicated information can be found
	ARTICLE CITATION
2	Study author, publication year	Indicate the study author name and publication year
3	Study title	Indicate the study title
	INTRODUCTION
	Implementation strategy	“Implementation strategy” refers to how the intervention was implemented.
	Intervention strategy	“Intervention” refers to the healthcare or public health intervention that is being implemented.
4	Rationale	For implementation strategy: the scientific background and rationale for the implementation strategy (including any underpinning theory/framework/model, how it is expected to achieve its effects and any pilot work). For intervention: the scientific background and rationale for the intervention being implemented (including evidence about its effectiveness and how it is expected to achieve its effects).
5	Aim(s), objective(s), or research question(s)	Are there clear aims, objectives, or research questions? Indicate the primary (upon which the study was primarily designed to address) and the secondary (addressing this is prioritized after the primary)
	METHODS: DESCRIPTION
6	Descriptions	A description of the intervention and implementation strategy. Identify the components that are core components vs those that are tangential and modifiable for the context, if possible.
7	Adaptation	A description of any adaptation that has and/or will occur.
8	Design	The design and key features of the evaluation, (cross referencing to any appropriate methodology reporting standards) and any changes to study protocol, with reasons
9	Participant types	Who are the participants in the intervention and implementation strategy
10	Comparison group	If experimental design, indicate the comparison group for the intervention and/or implementation strategy
11	Context	The context in which the intervention was implemented.
12	Sites	The characteristics of the targeted ‘site(s)’ (e.g locations/personnel/resources etc.) for implementation and any eligibility criteria.
13	Subgroups (optional)	Any sub-groups recruited for additional research tasks, and/or nested studies are described
14	Implementation phase	Indicate whether evaluation occurred pre-, during , and/or post-implementation
15	Process evaluation	Process evaluation objectives and outcomes related to the mechanism by which the strategy is expected to work
16	Sample size	Rationale for sample sizes (including sample size calculations, budgetary constraints, practical considerations, data saturation, as appropriate)
17	Analysis	Methods of analysis (with reasons for that choice)
18	Sub-group analyses	Any a priori sub-group analyses (e.g. between different sites in a multicenter study, different clinical or demographic populations), and sub-groups recruited to specific nested research tasks
19	Outcomes (assessment) (Implementation)	Defined pre-specified primary and other outcome(s) of the implementation strategy, and how they were assessed.  Document any pre-determined targets
	Quantitative column	Input the specific outcome
	Qualitative column	Input the specific outcome
	Acceptability	the perception among implementation stakeholders (beneficiaries and implementers) that the innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory
	Adoption	the intention, initial decision, or action to try or employ the innovation (i.e. uptake)
	Appropriateness	the perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation for a given practice setting, provider, or beneficiary; and/or perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem (OH prevention).
	Feasibility	the extent to which the innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting
	Fidelity	degree to which the innovation can be implemented as it was prescribed in the original protocol or as it was intended by the program developer
	Cost	(incremental or implementation cost) is defined as the cost impact of an implementation effort
	Penetration	the integration of a practice within a service setting and its subsystems
	Sustainability	the extent to which a newly implemented innovation is maintained or institutionalized within a service setting’s ongoing, stable operations
19	Outcomes (assessment) (Intervention)	Defined pre-specified primary and other outcome(s) of the intervention (if assessed), and how they were assessed.   Document any pre-determined targets
	Quantitative column	Input the specific outcome
	Qualitative column	Input the specific outcome
	Effectiveness	provision of services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit and refraining from providing services to those not likely to benefit (avoiding underuse and overuse, respectively)
	Efficiency	the avoidance of waste, including waste of equipment, supplies, ideas,and energy
	Equity	provision of care that does not vary in quality because of personalcharacteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status
	Patient centeredness	provision of care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions
	Safety	the avoidance of injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them
	Timeliness	reduction of waits and sometimes harmful delays for both thosewho receive and those who give care
	RESULTS: DESCRIPTION
20	Outcomes (findings) (Implementation)	Defined pre-specified primary and other outcome(s) of the implementation strategy, and how they were assessed.  Document any pre-determined targets
	Quantitative column	Input the specific outcome
	Qualitative column	Input the specific outcome
	Acceptability	the perception among implementation stakeholders (beneficiaries and implementers) that the innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory
	Adoption	the intention, initial decision, or action to try or employ the innovation (i.e. uptake)
	Appropriateness	the perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation for a given practice setting, provider, or beneficiary; and/or perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem (OH prevention).
	Feasibility	the extent to which the innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting
	Fidelity	degree to which the innovation can be implemented as it was prescribed in the original protocol or as it was intended by the program developer
	Cost	(incremental or implementation cost) is defined as the cost impact of an implementation effort
	Penetration	the integration of a practice within a service setting and its subsystems
	Sustainability	the extent to which a newly implemented innovation is maintained or institutionalized within a service setting’s ongoing, stable operations
20	Outcomes (findings) (Intervention)	Defined pre-specified primary and other outcome(s) of the intervention (if assessed), and how they were assessed.   Document any pre-determined targets
	Quantitative column	Input the specific outcome
	Qualitative column	Input the specific outcome
	Effectiveness	provision of services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit and refraining from providing services to those not likely to benefit (avoiding underuse and overuse, respectively)
	Efficiency	the avoidance of waste, including waste of equipment, supplies, ideas,and energy
	Equity	provision of care that does not vary in quality because of personalcharacteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status
	Patient centeredness	provision of care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions
	Safety	the avoidance of injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them
	Timeliness	reduction of waits and sometimes harmful delays for both thosewho receive and those who give care
21	Barriers to implementation	Identify any factors examined that do or could challenge successful implementation
22	Facilitators of implementation	Identify any factors examined that do or could support successful implementation
	METHODS: EVALUATION
23	Design	Follow steps 1, 2, and 3
	Step 1	Insert design type: Qualitative, Quantitative RCT, Quantitative non-randomized, or Mixed methods
	Step 2	Step 2 insert 5 corresponding criteria from instructions
	Qualitative criteria	1.1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question?
		1.2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question?
		1.3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data?
		1.4. Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data?
		1.5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation?
	Quantitative, RCT criteria	2.1. Is randomization appropriately performed?
		2.2. Are the groups comparable at baseline?
		2.3. Are there complete outcome data?
		2.4. Are outcome assessors blinded to the intervention provided?
		2.5 Did the participants adhere to the assigned intervention?
	Quantitative, non-randomized criteria	3.1. Are the participants representative of the target population?
		3.2. Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)?
		3.3. Are there complete outcome data?
		3.4. Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis?
		3.5. During the study period, is the intervention administered (or exposure occurred) as intended?
	Mixed methods criteria	4.1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question?
		4.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?
		4.3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted?
		4.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?
		4.5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?
	Step 3	Provide score (0 or 1) to each criteria where 1 indicates that the criteria was met and 0 indicates the criteria was not met
	RESULTS: EVALUATION
	Step 4	Sum the score from Step 3 and apply to the outcomes assessed
24	Outcomes
	Bias Column	Indicate the degree of bias based on the design and methods, where 1-2=higher bias and 3-5=lower bias. Can also input 'unclear' if the degree of bias cannot be determined, or 'NA' for outcomes not assessed