The AIM-Imp was designed to assess the acceptability of an implementation process (i.e., perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory). The measure consists of four items/statements (1. The implementation support thus far meets my approval 2. The implementation support thus far is appealing to me 3. I like the implementation support I have received 4. I welcome implementation support for the CAB + RPV injection treatment), each with a five-point rating scale (1 = completely disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = completely agree). The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least acceptability and 5 the most acceptability.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

The IAM-Imp is designed to assess the appropriateness of an implementation process (i.e., the perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation for a given practice setting, provider, or consumer, and the perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem). The IAM-Imp is a four-item/statement measure (1. The implementation support thus far seems fitting 2. The implementation support seems suitable for using the CAB + RPV injection treatment 3. The implementation support seems applicable for the CAB + RPV injection treatment 4. The implementation support seems like a good match) with a five-point rating scale (1 = completely disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = completely agree). The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least appropriateness and 5 the most appropriateness.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

The FIM-Imp was a four-item/statement measure (1. The implementation support seems implementable in our clinic/practice 2. The implementation support seems possible in our clinic/practice 3. The implementation support seems doable in our clinic/practice 4. The implementation support seems easy to use in our clinic/practice) and was measured on a five-point rating scale (1 = completely disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = completely agree). The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least feasibility and 5 the most feasibility.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the acceptability from the SSPs' perspective. The results for facilitators that are integral to successful implementation are presented.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the acceptability from the SSPs' perspective. The results for barriers that are integral to successful implementation are presented.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the appropriateness from the SSPs' perspective. The results for facilitators that are integral to successful implementation are presented.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the appropriateness from the SSPs' perspective. The results for barriers that are integral to successful implementation are presented.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the feasibility from the SSPs' perspective. The results for facilitators that are integral to successful implementation are presented.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the feasibility from the SSPs' perspective. The results for barriers that are integral to successful implementation are presented.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

The ILS is a 12-item (facilitate implementation, obstacles, clear department standards, knowledge, ability to answer questions, awareness of concept, recognition, support employee efforts to learn, support employee efforts to use intervention, persevere(s) through the ups and downs, carries on through the challenges and reaction to criticial issues) measure that assesses SSP understanding of the degree to which leadership in their clinic/practice setting is proactive, knowledgeable, supportive, and perseverant with regards to implementing the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment in their settings. The items are measured on a five-point rating scale (1 = very great extent, 2 = great extent, 3 = moderate extent, 4 = slight extent, and 5 = not at all). The mean score ranges from 1 to 5. Higher the score means less understanding in leadership.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

The ICS is a 9 item (team's main goals, importance of implementation, top priority, workshops, treatment training, training material, staff adaptability, flexibility, openness to new intervention) measure that assesses SSPs' perceptions of their team (i.e., the people that they work with) while using the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment in their clinic/practice setting. The items were measured on a five-point rating scale (1 = very great extent, 2 = great extent, 3 = moderate extent, 4 = slight extent, and 5 = not at all). The mean score ranges from 1 to 5. Higher the score means less seriousness for implementation in staff.

Full Analysis Set. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based interventions - Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) was a seven-question measure (contained both open and closed categorical questions) used to record details the modifications made to the implementation of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment procedures.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

CQI were a 60 minutes calls involved working through a plan to address the identified barriers, optimize processes, and evaluate these efforts. This process of addressing barriers was guided by a series of Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles. Number of PDSA cycles developed are presented.

Full Analysis Set. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The average time was categorized as: Up to 20 Minutes, Up to 40 Minutes, Up to 60 Minutes, Up to 90 Minutes, More than 90 Minutes and missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The average time was categorized as: Up to 10 Minutes, 11-20 Minutes, 21-30 Minutes, 31-45 Minutes, More than 45 Minutes and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The rating of acceptability was categorized as extremely acceptable, very acceptable, somewhat acceptable, a little acceptable, not at all acceptable and missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The rating of acceptability was categorized as extremely acceptable, very acceptable, somewhat acceptable, a little acceptable, not at all acceptable and missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The time off responses were categorized as Whole day annual leave, Half day annual leave, Whole day sick leave, Half day sick leave, Whole day unpaid, Half day unpaid, Other, Not taken time off and missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Up to 15 minutes, 16-30 minutes, 31-45 minutes, 46-60 minutes, More than 60 minutes, and missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Yes, No, Not Applicable and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Taxi- Transportation service, Dropped-off, Private vehicle, Bicycle/scooter/ skateboard/ walked, Public transport and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The time off responses were categorized as No, Yes - On the day of receiving the treatment, Yes - One day after receiving the treatment, Yes-Two days after receiving the treatment, Yes-More than two days after receiving the treatment, Not Applicable, Missing and Missing Response for 'Yes'. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question. Missing Response for 'Yes' include participants who responded 'Yes' but did not provide duration of time off.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The convenience responses were categorized as Extremely convenient, Very convenient, Somewhat convenient, A little convenient, Not at all convenient, and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Extremely convenient, Very convenient, Somewhat convenient, A little convenient, Not at all convenient, Not applicable; I did not have to reschedule and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Extremely positive, Very positive, Somewhat positive, A little positive, Not at all positive and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Extremely knowledgeable, Very knowledgeable, Somewhat knowledgeable, A little knowledgeable, Not at all knowledgeable and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question.The responses were categorized as Phone calls, Text/SMS messages, Existing clinic app, E-mail, Reminder in the mail, Another reminder and I did not receive reminders. The responses are not mutually exclusive.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Extremely helpful, Very helpful, Somewhat helpful, A Little helpful, Not at all helpful and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Completely agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Completely disagree and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Take over-the-counter pain relievers, Use a hot compress, Use a cold compress, Avoid sitting for long periods of time, Light stretching and exercise, None of the above, Other and I don't get sore after my injections.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12.

A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs that discussed facilitators for acceptability are presented.

Patient study participants (PSPs) who participated in interviews were analysed. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analysed.

A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs that discussed barriers for acceptability are presented.

Patient study participants (PSPs) who participated in interviews were analysed. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analysed.

A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs that discussed facilitators for appropriateness are presented.

Patient study participants (PSPs) who participated in interviews were analysed. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analysed.

A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs with barriers for appropriateness are presented.

Patient study participants (PSPs) who participated in interviews were analysed. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analysed.

A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs that discussed facilitators for feasibility are presented.

Patient study participants (PSPs) who participated in interviews were analysed. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analysed.

A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs that discussed barriers for feasibility are presented.

Patient study participants (PSPs) who participated in interviews were analysed. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analysed.

AIM assesses the acceptability of an intervention (i.e., perception among stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory). It is a four-item (1. The CAB+RPV injection treatment meets my approval for treating my HIV, 2. The CAB+RPV injection treatment is appealing to me, 3. I like the CAB+RPV injection treatment for my HIV, 4. I welcome the CAB+RPV injection treatment for my HIV) measure with a five-point rating scale, where 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree. The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least acceptability and 5 the most acceptability.

PSPs who completed the surveys at the relevant timepoints were included in the analysis. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analysed.

IAM assesses the appropriateness of an intervention (i.e., the perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation for a given practice setting, provider, or consumer; and the perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem). It is a four-item (1. The CAB+RPV injection treatment is fitting for my life, 2. The CAB+RPV injection treatment is suitable for my life, 3. The CAB+RPV injection treatment is applicable to my life, 4. The CAB+RPV injection treatment is a good match for my life) measure with a five-point rating scale, where 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree. The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least appropriateness and 5 the most appropriateness.

PSPs who completed the surveys at the relevant timepoints were included in the analysis. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analysed.

The four-item (1. The CAB+RPV injection treatment seems implementable in my life 2. The CAB+RPV injection treatment every 2 months is possible for me to use 3. The CAB+RPV injection treatment every 2 months seems doable in my life 4. The CAB+RPV injection treatment every 2 months seems easy to use in my life). FIM assesses perceived intervention feasibility. The items are measured on a five-point rating scale, where 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree. The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least feasibility and 5 the most feasibility.

PSPs who completed the surveys at the relevant timepoints were included in the analysis. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analysed.

The APCSAT is a 35-item measure that assesses SSP impressions of the data in their clinic. Sustainability refers to the ability to maintain and expand the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment and its benefits over time. SSPs were asked to rate their clinic/practice along a range of specific domains that affect sustainability, including: 'Engages Staff & Leadership,' 'Engaging Stakeholders,' 'Monitoring and Evaluation,' 'Implementation & Training,' 'Outcomes & Effectiveness,' 'Workflow Integration,' and 'Organizational Readiness.' Five items were presented to SSPs in each section. The items were measured on a seven-point rating scale (1 = little to no extent to 7 = to a very great extent. Domain total was divided by the total number of items with a score to get average score.

Full Analysis Set. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

The target window for participants to receive injection was from Day -7 to Day 7.

Safety population included all enrolled participants who received at least one dose of CAB + RPV Oral or CAB LA + RPV LA.

Plasma samples were collected from the participant at specific time points.

Safety population

CVF was defined as rebound as indicated by two consecutive plasma HIV-1 RNA levels >=200 c/ml.

Safety population

An adverse event (AE) is any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical study participant, temporally associated with the use of a study intervention, whether or not considered related to the study intervention. An SAE is defined as any untoward medical occurrence that, at any dose may result in death or is life-threatening or requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent disability/incapacity or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect or any other situation according to medical or scientific judgment or is associated with liver injury and impaired liver function.

Safety population

An adverse event (AE) is any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical study participant, temporally associated with the use of a study intervention, whether or not considered related to the study intervention.

Safety population

PSPs were asked to think about their experience of using the long-acting injectable medication versus the daily oral HIV medication, and to select their preferred treatment and all the reasons that support their preference. Results are categorized as: 'long-acting injectable HIV medication', 'daily oral HIV medication', 'no preference', Missing and Erroneous. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question. PSPs who completed this question incorrectly (i.e., checked reasons without a ticking a leading preference or checked more than one leading preference box) were included in Erroneous.

Patient study participants (PSPs) included all participants who successfully completed the survey at Month 12. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the acceptability from the SSPs' perspective. The results of themes that are integral to successful implementation are presented based on implementation strategies.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the appropriateness from the SSPs' perspective. The results of themes that are integral to successful implementation are presented based on implementation strategies.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.

A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the feasibility from the SSPs' perspective. The results of themes that are integral to successful implementation are presented based on implementation strategies.

Full analysis set included all staff study participants (SSPs) who completed at least one survey at any timepoint. Only those participants with data available at the specified time points were analyzed.