Limitations and strengths of the study
Due to pragmatic reasons, we were unable to perform random allocation in our study. While random allocation is considered the gold standard for clinical trial design, we had to balance the need for rigorous scientific methodology with the practical realities of conducting a study in a real-world clinical setting. As a result, we had to use a non-randomized allocation method to assign participants to different groups, which causes limitations in terms of internal validity and generalizability of the findings. However, we believe that the pragmatic approach we used allowed us to better reflect the clinical practice and optimize the study’s feasibility and acceptability, thus providing insights that inform clinical practice and policy decisions. The Working Time Tracking Form was designed and used for the first time in this study. The home care professionals described the form as easy to use, but medication education in the IG at the follow-up assessment at 1 and 2 months might also include robot use guidance. For further use, it is suggested to revise this form to separate the medication education and robot use guidance. In addition, it is noteworthy that the filling of the Working Time Tracking Form affected the workload of the home care professionals, but based on their evaluation, it was on average 2 min per visit.Moreover, the data were collected with a paper form in older home care clients’ homes. This avoided the risk of high attrition rates among home care professionals posed by electronic data collection after the home visits [