|Key factor: Implication of trainers at district and community level|
|Moderator (mod)||Effect on implication|
|Initiation by decision-maker||
Positive effect: facilitated coordination and upscaled available resources. End result was enhanced implication.|
Negative effect: reluctance of staff to participate in the programme was due to a concern that their practice would be instrumentalized by political decision-makers. Participation was sometimes perceived as being imposed.
|Level of delegation from institutional hierarchy||Positive effect: more room for initiative on the part of district teams led to higher implication. The level of delegation was related to the intention of protecting the teams from an “intrusive” programme.|
|Institutional support from Head of Regional Education Authority||
Positive effect: promoted active participation of the health and social district departments.|
Negative effect: implementation was perceived as following a top-down mode of introduction, and adding constraints. This created reluctance to participate in the programme.
Counter-balance: development of relationships between participants counterbalanced the fact that the programme was in most cases imposed by staff at higher decision-making levels. This factors enhanced motivation and implication.
|Implementation area||Negative effect: the area referred to electoral districts and not national education districts. This led to tensions and reluctance as all the schools which related to the same school district could not be enrolled.|
|Name of programme||Negative effect: the name was unclear and determined reluctance to participate in the programme on the part of district teams|
|Key factor: Appreciation and accession to the programme|
|Moderator||Effect on appreciation|
Positive effect: overall, the programme was appreciated due to concreteness of its content “for the first time, we went into pragmatic and concrete things”.|
Negative effect: suggestions for programme development include: more focus on pragmatic issues, more focus on the needs of the different schools at the very start of the programme. Only one district focused on how staff could engage in the use of the tools introduced during the training. The development of specific content depended on the district staff’s competency (e.g. relaxation sessions). This situation affected school staff’s appreciation of the programme negatively.
|Training||Positive effect: inclusion of training in the programme enhanced accession to the programme as staff felt the programme was in line with their expectations.|
|Key factor: Development of partnerships|
|Moderator||Effect on development of partnerships|
|Institutional support||Positive effect: support from the head of the Regional Education Authority was beneficial to the implementation of the training, and the development of partnership work with the Teacher Training College.|
|Implication of the Teacher Training College.||
Positive effect: implication of the Teacher Training College in train-the trainer sessions had a positive effect on the initiation of partnerships.|
Moderating factor to implication of the training college: low implication of the Teacher Training Colleges was due to organizational and communication issues between the two institutions.