Methods	Sampling frame: sequential purposive sampling to recruit from RCT that recruited from the community. Data collection: semi‐structured individual interviews. Data analysis: thematic analysis guided by grounded theory method: systematic and structured engagement, and interplay and constant comparison.
Stated aim of study	To explore how key stakeholders (physical therapists, telephone coaches and patients) experienced, and made sense of, being involved in delivering or receiving an integrated physical therapy and telephone coaching intervention.
Details of participants	Country: Australia. Sample number: 6 participants (10 physical therapists, 4 telephone coaches). Age: ≥ 50 years. Gender: mixed. SES: Not stated Ethnicity: Not stated Occupation/employment: Not stated
Details of exercise programme	Name of programme: Not stated Provider(s): physiotherapists and telephone coaches. Training: physical therapists: at least 2 years of postgraduate musculoskeletal experience. Coaches completed training programme by HealthChange Australia. Setting: private practice and at home. Content: exercise and physical activity programme with telephone coaching, plus a booklet explaining the benefits of exercise. Coaching component: assistance with behaviour change through effective information exchange, assistance to form behavioural goal intention, and helping to convert intention into action. Exercise component: 4‐6 individualised lower limb exercises performed 3 times a week and advice to increase general physical activity. Coaching component: mean 28 minutes per call, with 6‐12 calls over the 6‐month intervention. Exercise component: 30‐minute consultations in weeks 1, 3, 7, 12 and 20 of a 6‐month period, with exercises carried out 3 times a week.
Notes
Quality appraisal
Questions used to judge the dependability and credibility of studies		Review authors' judgements
Were steps taken to increase rigour in sampling?		Yes, fairly thorough attempt.
Were steps taken to increase rigour in data collection?		Yes, several steps taken.
Were steps taken to increase rigour in data analysis?		Yes, fairly thorough attempt.
Were the findings of the study grounded/supported by data?		Well grounded.
What was the breadth and depth of findings?		Good/fair breadth and depth.
To what extent does the study privilege the perspectives and experiences of older people with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip?		A lot.
Overall dependability and credibility of findings		Review authors' judgements
Dependability of findings		High.
Credibility of findings		High.