Table 4 A summary of the key results organised by their corresponding NPT construct

Distinguishing from current practice

[34, 40]

Coherence

Fitting with school ethos

[34]

Coherence

Providers seeing the value or benefit of an intervention

[34, 36, 38, 44]

Coherence

Providers not delivering or not understanding how to deliver (use of specialist knowledge)

[38, 41, 42, 44]

Coherence

Collective Action

Training

[32, 34, 41, 42]

Coherence

Collective Action

Implementation driving force

[34, 37, 42,43,44]

Cognitive Participation

Role identity—provider ‘agreeing’ it should be part of their role

[30, 34, 40, 43, 44]

Cognitive Participation

Provider supporting intervention

[30, 33, 34, 39, 41]

Cognitive Participation

Provider motivation

[43]

Cognitive Participation

Sustainability

[30]

Cognitive Participation

Young people behaviour

[42]

Cognitive Participation

Providers feeling uncomfortable with delivery

[38]

Cognitive Participation

Collective Action

Budget cuts or limited resources

[41]

Collective Action

Disruption to school timetable

[34]

Collective Action

Favourable organisational climate/host support

[32, 34, 40, 41, 44]

Collective Action

Fidelity

[30, 31, 33, 36,37,38,39, 41,42,43,44]

Collective Action

Importance of staff skills, knowledge or characteristics

[35, 42]

Collective Action

Involving schools; monitoring outcomes

[40]

Collective Action

Schools prepared for implementation

[44]

Collective Action

Staff turnover

[41]

Collective Action

Modifying practice (from feedback)

[38]

Reflexive monitoring

Negative implementation experience

[41]

Reflexive monitoring

Positive feedback

[36]

Reflexive monitoring