Table 2.

Participating physiotherapist's ratings and answers regarding measurements (n = 4) and treatment (n = 8) feasibility.

Questions for measurement's feasibility, n = 45	Median (min–max)	Percentage
To what extent was the demographic questionnaire filled in? (scale 0–10)	9 (0–10)
Where were the tests performed? Home/public location?		82/18
Did the physical tests work as planned? Yes/no		87/13
How important did you think it was that the tests were carried out according to the instructions? (scale 0–10)	9 (7–10)
Resources
How long was the measurement session, in minutes?	90 (60–90)
Management
Did you have the right competence to perform the measurements? Yes/no		100
How did you perceive your own motivation to perform the measurements? (scale 0–10)	10 (5–10)
Questions for treatment feasibility, n = 30	Median (min–max)	Percentage
Process
How did you perceive the participants attitude towards the treatment? positive/negative		90/10
How did the OEP protocol work? (scale 0–10)	9 (7–10)
For MI group only, n = 16 How well did the MI guide work? (scale 0–10)	7 (5–10)
Resources
How long was the treatment session in minutes?	60 (30–90)
Management
Did you have the right competence for the OEP? Yes/no		100
How was your own motivation for the OEP? (scale 0–10)	9 (6–10)
Questions for MI group only, n = 16
Did you have the right competence for the MI part of the treatment? Yes/no		82/18
How was your own motivation for the MI part? (scale 0–10)	10 (8–10)
Was the exercise carried out as planned? Yes/no		73/27
How well did the OEP work in the home environment? (scale 0–10)	9 (8–10)
How well did the individual adjustment of the OEP work? (scale 0–10)	8 (4–10)
Did the adherence of reporting the exercise diary work? Yes/no		97/3
Where there any health risks during treatment? Yes/no		0/100
Obstacles/advantages to performing the intervention in the home environment? Four areas emerged:	Prerequisite for participation, applicable, time, external factors

OEP = Otago Exercise Program, MI = Motivational interviewing