Methods	Sampling frame: via 3 hydrotherapy services in Auckland, with potential participants given information packs by clinicians. Data collection: focus groups, with an option provided for individual interview. Data analysis: content analysis framework with constant comparative methods.
Stated aim of study	To explore the perceived benefits of hydrotherapy from a patient's perspective.
Details of participants	Country: New Zealand. Sample number: 15. Age: ≥ 56 years. Gender: mixed. SES: Not stated Ethnicity: 14 New Zealand European, 1 Samoan. Occupation/employment: Not stated
Details of exercise programme	Name of programme: Not stated Provider(s): Hydrotherapy services. Training: Not stated Setting: hydrotherapy pool. Content: hydrotherapy exercise programme.
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, several steps taken.
Were steps taken to increase rigour in data collection?		Yes, several steps taken.
Were steps taken to increase rigour in data analysis?		Yes, several attempts.
Were the findings of the study grounded/supported by data?		Well grounded.
What was the breadth and depth of findings?		Good/fair breadth, but little 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		Medium.