maxinelowe

With that cohort, I'd report exposure after support ends separately for people who had and hadn't previously reached the content. That would distinguish continued exposure from first exposure while keeping everyone who received access help in follow-up.

For the assessment after support ends, would we follow people who previously received access help, or also include newcomers who never received it? That would distinguish maintaining access after initial assistance from reaching the content without that assistance at all.

Yes, after research support ends, I'd record receipt separately from sending, leaving receipt unknown when unconfirmed rather than classifying it as refusal.

I'd specify access-only assistance for that comparison, so the maintenance question is whether participants still reach the intended content after that access support ends.

I'd want a prespecified, justified threshold for exposure to the content meant to activate the mechanism, plus evidence of how many participants reached it. Opening the intervention alone wouldn't establish that exposure. For sustainability, I'd also distinguish exposure achieved with temporary research assistance from exposure maintained after that assistance ends. If adequate exposure depends on that help, a fair test under supported conditions would still leave the mechanism's opportunity to operate in routine delivery unresolved.