Table 10 Use of programme theory in systematic reviews of effectiveness of interventions in SES populations

Review initiation: Indicate whether reported that PT is used to communicate aims of review in engaging with stakeholder or involving/recruiting different team members or obtaining funding

Review question/methodology: Indicate whether reported that PT is based on, or adapted from, existing tools/theories

Review question/background: Indicate assumptions on what intervention(s) may be likely to work/not work for SES populations? (a priori PT)

Review question/background: Indicate assumptions on how/why intervention(s) may be likely to work/not work for SES populations? (a priori PT)

Search strategy (selection criteria): Indicate whether reported that PT is used to make decisions on the inclusion criteria for studies in the review

Description of study characteristics: Indicate whether reported that PT is used to make decisions on coding information on study characteristics (data extraction)

Quality and relevance assessment: Indicate whether reported that PT is used as reference point in choosing quality assessment tools

Used to guide analyses: State that they specifically used their PT of how the intervention may work to guide the analysis

Synthesis: Present their synthesis based on their PT

Discussion/Conclusion: Use programme theory to explain what intervention(s) may be likely to work/not work for SES populations at the end of the review to explain their findings? (a posteriori PT)

Discussion/Conclusion: Revise or revisit or state their programme theory of how the intervention is likely to work’ at the end of the review to explain their findings? (a posteriori PT)

Additional considerations: Indicate whether reported that tool is based on shared consensus across the team or across stakeholders

Additional considerations: Was PT tested?