Overall, the topic is highly relevant and timely, especially as we move further into the digital era. With an aging population, exploring how health smart home (HSH) technology can support older adults is crucial. This study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative Technology Readiness Index (TRI) scores with qualitative insights. This approach provides a richer, multidimensional view of technology readiness and user perspectives, which strengthens the findings. Additionally, the practical implications discussed—especially around the roles of nurses and caregivers in implementing this technology—could be particularly beneficial for healthcare professionals and policymakers.

However, there are some critical areas where the manuscript could be strengthened. Specifically, the survey sample size is far too small to draw conclusions about each domain within the TRI instrument. The survey might be more appropriate as a pilot study to test recruitment feasibility and completion rates, as comparing groups with small categorical samples is inappropriate. Generally, the methodology section also lacks detail, especially concerning sampling choices and data collection tools. While convenience sampling is mentioned, there is limited explanation of why this approach was chosen and its potential impact on findings. Data collection appears to have been conducted within one organization using a multi-method approach, yet authors need to clarify the type of study—whether it is not a case study, pilot or feasibility study—and justify this choice.
Another point is that quantitative and qualitative findings are presented largely in parallel rather than integrated. A more cohesive synthesis, where TRI scores are directly related to or explained by qualitative insights, would clarify how these data points interact and support each other.

In the Discussion section, the manuscript could benefit from a deeper exploration. For example, there’s room to address why certain findings contradict past studies or reflect unique perspectives on privacy. Addressing these discrepancies and reflecting on how study limitations, like sample diversity for such a small size in a single setting, might influence results would enrich the analysis.

I would also like to see more specific recommendations for nursing practice. The implications discussed are insightful but could be more actionable, with clear steps for healthcare providers or technology developers. Finally, while the manuscript mentions directions for future research, these could be expanded with concrete suggestions, such as proposing longitudinal, multiple centres studies or exploring cross-cultural differences in HSH acceptance.

In summary, this manuscript has potential for publication in JAN. It tackles an important issue and could make a valuable contribution to nursing and healthcare literature. With revisions to enhance the methodology, integrate quantitative and qualitative findings more fully, deepen the discussion, and offer actionable recommendations, it would improve the standards of a publication.

My specific comments are as follows:
Abstract:
Results: Page 1, Lines 12-16. Please include brief numerical results (e.g., median TRI scores) or main qualitative themes for more concrete findings. Lower the tone of the conclusion due to the study's small sample size within a single care home, making the generalisability of findings questionable.
Implications for Nursing Practice: Clarify why nurse-researchers are uniquely suited to lead HSH projects, emphasising their understanding of patient needs and HSH functionalities.

Introduction
1. Link “aging in place” more directly to HSH technology to show its role in supporting safe, independent living.
2. Justification for Technology Use: Expand on the benefits of HSH for older adults, including health monitoring and caregiver support.
3. Literature Gaps and Contribution: Emphasize gaps in multi-stakeholder perspectives and specify this study’s unique contribution, particularly within the Australian context.
4. Definition of Technology Readiness: Provide a brief context on the Technology Readiness Index (TRI) and its relevance to HSH adoption.
5. Research Aims and Objectives: Page 4, Lines 27-34. Clarify if the objectives include comparing perceptions across different stakeholder groups (e.g., older adults, caregivers).
Methodology
1. Clarify why a “pragmatic, multiple methods” design was chosen and how it serves the study objectives.
2. Sampling Justification: Provide a rationale for using convenience sampling, noting any constraints (e.g., accessibility).
3. Participant Inclusion Criteria: Page 5, Lines 11-16. Expand on selection criteria, specifying characteristics like experience with technology or caregiving roles.
4. Data Collection Tools: Page 5, Lines 21-27. Explain the TRI dimensions and their relevance to this study.

1. Data Collection Method: Page 5, Lines 54-58. Remove the mention of participants being offered either focus groups or one-on-one interviews if all chose the latter. This Recruitment site description: Page 6, Line 4. Briefly describe the size and composition of each stakeholder group within the home. This information will help readers to interpret the findings.
2. Sample Size Justification: Page 6, Lines 38-40. Clarify whether the target sample size of 10-13 applies to both surveys and interviews and provide a rationale.

Results Section
1. Sample Characteristics: Page 8, Lines 19-47. There are too much text. Please consider summarising sample characteristics in a table.
2. Quantitative summary of TRI Scores: Consolidate tables 2-6 to summarise scores across TRI domains in one table. Add interpretations of median scores to contextualize patterns rather than only presenting median and IQR values.
3. Qualitative Themes and Integration: Consider integrating quantitative data within each qualitative theme to enhance the mixed-methods approach.
Discussion Section
1. Linking Findings to Literature: Engage more deeply with relevant studies, comparing and contrasting with current findings for a richer context.
2. Addressing Limitations: Explicitly address study limitations, such as sampling technique and sample size bias, and discuss how they might influence results.
3. Implications for Practice and Policy: Provide concrete recommendations, such as privacy regulations for health-related technology.
4. Recommendations for Future Research: Expand on future research suggestions, proposing larger sample sizes with multiple sites or longitudinal studies to explore demographic variations.