Ultimately, while many key insights were gained through the analysis of the reviews, the small number of reviews identified has limited our ability to form strong, specific, evidence-based recommendations. Nonetheless, several key insights have been drawn that can have a positive impact on the functioning and impact of SACs. We recommend that SACs include a minimum of six and a maximum of twelve members. Committees need to be large enough to encourage discussion and representation, but not too large as to lead to collective shirking. Communication was also noted to be a significant factor in SAC success. Thus we recommend that training and support be provided for committee members, as well as clearly delineated protocols and procedures for the group. In the same vein, the consequences of heterogeneity within SACs may pose a bar-rier to the group achieving their optimal performance. In order to overcome this barrier, we suggest implementing training measures and appointing experienced facilitators to fill gaps in knowledge and procedure, as suggested by the gathered evidence. However, conflicting **data** from the reviews prevents us from forming a concrete recommendation with regards to the optimal diversity within a SAC.