This resource is not based on experiential expertise. It's an academic systematic review analyzing four published studies using traditional research methodologies. The authors explicitly note the absence of meaningful involvement from service users and peer workers who possess lived experience. They recommend prioritizing experiential expertise in future interventions, stating that service users and peer workers can offer crucial insights into needs and preferences through their lived experiences.

This resource has limited grounding in practice wisdom. While it synthesises evidence from clinical practice settings and identifies implementation factors cited by practitioners (like staff training, stakeholder engagement, contextual adaptation), it primarily relies on formal research methodologies rather than frontline practice knowledge. The authors acknowledge this limitation and call for more "pragmatic knowledge bases" that incorporate practitioner experiences alongside traditional evidence to better understand real-world service change initiatives.

This resource is entirely based on research and evaluation insights. It's a systematic overview analyzing four published systematic reviews, synthesizing evidence from 23 primary studies across nine countries. The methodology follows rigorous Cochrane guidelines, employs standardized quality assessment tools (AMSTAR 2), and uses systematic data extraction and analysis. However, the authors note critically low evidence quality and recommend future research employ more robust methodologies, consistent outcome measures, and comprehensive documentation.