Table 3.

Organisational systems in combination with training.

Authors	Antecedent-based				Consequence-based
	Assess	Super roles	Response	Others	Mon/feed systems	Others	Effectiveness	Maintenance/generalization
Crates and Spicer 2012		Second generation trainees: allied health or nursing professionals, individuals with degree qualifications or adult education qualifications working in leadership roles within government and nongovernment service provision organisations	First generation trainees were asked to train the second-generation trainees		PSR used for the intervention plans (as part of the longitudinal practicum)		Staff: Quality of Behaviour Assessment and Intervention Plans: positive Fidelity of Plans: negative Residents: Challenging behaviour: positive Others: Referrals: positive Cost effectiveness: anecdotal positive	Generalization: positive
Dench 2005		Supervisors of trainees-staff are attending a supervisors’ workshop			PSR used by supervisors		Staff: Quality of Behaviour Assessment and Intervention Plans: positive Fidelity of Plans: no information Residents: Challenging behaviour, positive Quality of life: no information (only anecdotal) Others: Organisational cost benefit analysis: positive
Haberlin et al. 2012		4 supervisors in one group	Pyramidal training (train the trainer program) for one of the groups		Training supervisors on how to deliver feedback		Staff Correct teaching procedures: positive for both groups (higher results for pyramidal group) Knowledge: positive for both groups	Generalization: Positive Maintenance: Positive for pyramidal group only
MacDonald et al. 2018		72 managers first level managers	Manage and review staff practise was one of the objectives of the course		Training in PSR		Staff Quality of staff support Fidelity of PBS plans and staff performance: negative Knowledge: positive for the experimental group Residents: Challenging behaviour: positive Quality of life: Negative	Generalization: Positive Maintenance: Positive for pyramidal group only
McGill et al. 2018	Assessing provider’s score on defined social care standards	Managers and direct care staff were trained together by the researchers.		3 h briefing session	Using traffic light system to evaluate performance (researchers faded their support and managers carried on the responsibility)		Staff: Quality of support: Positive (ASM scores) Negative (Mean percentage of engagement) Residents: Challenging behaviour: positive Quality of life: negative Others: Provider’s quality of support: positive	Maintenance: positive for reduction in challenging behaviour
McKenzie et al. 2002							Staff: Staff practice: positive Knowledge: positive Others: Staff challenging behaviour attribution: negative	Maintenance: positive for staff practice and staff knowledge
O’Dwyer et al. 2017		Staff at a team leader level	Staff responsible to create an implementation plan for the team, after the training.		Training for using BSP QE-II		Staff: Behaviour Support Plan quality: positive but the quality of the BSPs of the trained group remained below optimal levels Residents: Challenging behaviour: negative Mental health: positive Others: frequency of restraint: negative	Generalization: positive Change (quality of BSPs Remained below optimal Levels)
Reid et al. 2003		All trainees were supervisors	Through teaching supervisors feedback skills		Supervisors were taught feedback skills		Staff: Performance based training skills: positive	Generalization: the Impact on the trainees of The supervisors was not Measured
Wardale et al. 2014		25.9% of the sample were allied health professionals (psychologists, occupational therapists), 24.6% direct support workers, 22.4% service managers, 20.6% service coordinators or team leaders 6.6% ‘other’ (such as educational staff).					Staff: PSP quality: positive Knowledge: positive Others: Causal attributions: positive Evidence-based practises: negative