Table 4

Facilitators and barriers identified at the implementation phase

Management and collaboration
  • Common understanding of long-term nature of AIM process

  • Cooperation with academic institution

  • Enthusiasm from partners

  • Local partnerships

  • Partner's network

  • Partners organised and respected

  • Routine monitoring and evaluation from outset

  • Cooperation problems with existing partners

  • Failure by partners to meet deadlines

  • Internal organisational changes

  • Poor internal understanding of implementation

  • Problems establishing partnerships

  • Lack of clarity regarding partner roles

  • Resistance among partners to comply with the central scheme

  • Lack of monitoring

ResourcesAvailability of funding
  • Fundraising support from local organisations

  • Funds allocated to media campaign

  • Staff training as part of scheme set-up

  • In kind support from professionals

  • Production and distribution of supporting educational materials

Lack of funding
  • Lack of sufficiently trained personnel

  • Heavy workload or fear of increased workload

  • Lack of volunteers

  • Short time frame

  • Lack of data

  • Good internal leadership of consortium: central administration, support and information

  • Stability of key figures and personnel

  • Interministerial cooperation

  • Committed champions

  • National/top–down initiative

  • Challenges for national organisation to act locally

  • Policy maker misunderstanding problem

  • Resignation of champion

Nature of the intervention
  • Robust intervention

  • Pilot phase with good results

  • Cofinancing/cobenefits for partners

  • Links to other projects

  • Existing intervention with own resources (protocol/educational material)

  • No-charge nature of intervention (eg, free equipment and fitting)

  • Action taken from beginning to properly address target population

  • Strong research base and reliable data

  • Compliance with intervention easy and not too expensive

  • Legal clarity

  • Difficulties encountered when adapting intervention to setting

  • Large and complex interventions

  • Efficacy of recommended items questionable

  • Voluntary nature of participation (eg, voluntary standards)

  • Misunderstanding/lack of resources among enforcers

  • Confusion among consumers

Political, social and cultural environment
  • Change in national agenda

  • Better designed safety products on the market

  • Existing legislation

  • Change in political climate

  • Lack of safety culture among population

  • Circumstances relating to armed conflict

  • Interest in safety gave rise to a new market for safety equipment

  • Problem addressed was widely recognised

  • Publicity

Nature of the injury problem
  • Taboo subject (eg, suicide)

  • Relatively low number of child deaths

  • AIM, adoption, implementation and monitoring.