3. Discussion
RECRUITMENT
This study will conduct a holistic evaluation, not only based on a mixed-methods approach addressing the effectiveness, technology acceptance, and socio-economic impact, but also by involving the key stakeholders: patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. In addition, the use of the health outcome framework will shape the scientific evidence compared to the SoC. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and scientific conferences [However, this study is not free of limitations. The first is related to the recruitment process. The healthcare professionals/research assistants will recruit the intervention participants according to their subjective assessment, which will not allow for the participants’ randomization. Second, the design of the data collection process, where the control period information will be retrospectively collected, will not allow the quality of life to be used as a main outcome. Moreover, thirdly, the existing differences in the ADLIFE intervention and the SoC across the different health systems might lead to a bias of the ADLIFE global effect. To address this twofold concern, the ADLIFE intervention must first be defined as a pragmatic trial [Furthermore, the ADLIFE intervention as a complex intervention implies working closely with local stakeholders, and considering the implementation as an iterative, recursive, and long-term process. The complex interventions allow the implementation to vary across different contexts with no loss of the core intervention components. The standardization of interventions might be rather into the underlying process and functions than on the specific form of the components delivered [