**4. Discussion**

We have presented a study of occupational therapists' use of a digital tool for assessing housing adaptations. Fänge et al. [16] have previously raised the possibility of implementing a tool developed for research in a clinical practice context. The current study suggests that this remains a challenge in relation to occupational therapy. The participants repeatedly indicated that there was a lack of correspondence between the tool and their daily work. Whether this challenge was caused by the technological aspect of the tool or whether it concerns the tool's structure can be discussed. However, the results of this study support Fänge et al. [16] finding that it can be difficult to directly transfer a research tool to clinical practice. Instead, tools can be adjusted to existing practices to ensure wider acceptance by occupational therapists. At the same time, both this study and the study by Fänge et al. [16] investigated users with relatively little experience with the tool. Future research

should therefore examine whether these challenges are reduced if the occupational therapists have more knowledge of and experience with the tool.

The current study covers the adoption of a digital tool in clinical practice. We used diaries to capture the immediate impressions about the tool and a follow-up focus-group interview to uncover the bigger picture of the tool's use in clinical practice. The combination of the two data-collection methods was well suited for the research conditions, given that interventions occurred with short notice across a relatively wide geographical area. However, the diary method was challenging to manage from a distance. For example, some participants did not adhere to the recommendation to fill out the diary within 24 hours of the interaction with the client. Screen logging might represent an alternative to this kind of data collection in future studies, as it does not require the participants to remember to fill out a diary during their busy workday.

This study also suffers from several limitations that should be considered before drawing conclusions. First, only seven occupational therapists participated in the study. As the study was not formally implemented in a municipality, it was challenging to recruit a larger number of participants. Second, the participants had not used the tool in paper form before participating in the project. Therefore, the findings reflect their early experiences with a new tool in a new format that challenged their existing work practice related to housing adaptations. Third, the tool used in this study was only a prototype. Therefore, there were instances in which the application shut down in the middle of data collection. Moreover, the report module had not been fully developed at the time of data collection. For this reason, we have not reported on therapists' use of the mobile app after they returned to their offices but solely focused on the use of the tool in the clients' homes.
