Table 4 Extent of Performance of the RID intervention
NH | 1a) Atten-dance MPT | 1b) Meetings coach + MPT | 1c) (Phone)-meetings coach + PL | 3a) AIP * created | 3b) Contribution coach, PL, MPT in designing AIP | 3c) Adjustments AIP based on feedback | 4a) Start with implementation in weeks | 4b) Execution A actions of AIP as intended | 7) Adjustments AIP based on interim results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 76–100% | 9 | 0 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8 | 8.4 | Not necessary |
2 | 0–25% | 7 | 5 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8–16 | 8.5 | Yes |
3 | 26–50% | 13 | 12 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | >  16 | 5.4 | No |
4 | 76–100% | 7 | 3 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8 | 7.0 | Yes |
5 | 26–50% | 9 | 7 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8–16 | 6.4 | Yes |
6 | 26–50% | 5 | 4 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8–16 | 7.9 | Not necessary |
7 | 51–75% | 8 | 3 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8–16 | 7.9 | Yes |
8 | 26–50% | 11 | 12 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8–16 | 6.3 | Yes |
9 | 76–100% | 9 | 8 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8–16 | 7.0 | N.A. B |
10 | 51–75% | 6 | 2 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8–16 | 3.4 | N.A. |
11 | 76–100% | 5 | 3 | No. | N.A. | N.A. | >  16 | 5.0 | N.A. |
12 | 26–50% | 7 | 2 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8–16 | 6.8 | N.A. |
13 | 76–100% | 8 | 4 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8 | 7.3 | N.A. |
14 | 76–100% | 5 | 7 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8–16 | 7.8 | N.A. |
15 | 76–100% | 5 | 1 | Yes | Reasonable | No | Within 8–16 | 5.3 | N.A. |
16 | 76–100% | 7 | 10 | Yes | (Very) large | Yes | Within 8–16 | 6.3 | N.A. |