## 2 Approach to Study Selection  
The narrative synthesis of the overview of systematic reviews follows a structured methodology tailored for narrative reviews based on the ANDJ narrative cehcklist.  
The narrative review was conducted using specific, targeted searches across PubMed and Scopus, focusing on peer-reviewed journal articles related to the medical applications of socially assistive robots. To ensure methodological rigor, conference proceedings, dissertations, and non-English documents were excluded. The selection criteria focused on studies with applications in the health domain, including--but not limited to--clinical implementation, therapeutic impact, and patient interactions with these technologies in healthcare settings. By restricting the search to medical applications, the review aimed to provide a comprehensive and reliable synthesis of the current evidence on the role of socially assistive robots in the health domain.  
In addition, a qualification framework was applied, based on predefined quality criteria, to assess the inclusion of studies in the review. See Algorithm 1 for the review process used in this overview.  
1. This search strategy was designed to ensure both comprehensiveness and precision in retrieving relevant studies. Targeted searches were conducted across PubMed and Scopus, focusing on peer-reviewed journal articles related to the medical applications of socially assistive robots. This approach ensured the inclusion of high-quality, rigorously vetted studies. The search query was carefully structured using the keywords listed in Table 1, which were systematically combined with Boolean operators (AND, OR) to refine and optimize the search strategy. This allowed for a targeted yet extensive retrieval of the relevant literature. The selected keywords were applied to both the titles and abstracts of full article searches. The selection criteria specifically targeted studies with applications in the health domain, including--but not limited to--clinical implementation, therapeutic impact, and patient interactions with these technologies in healthcare settings. This methodology was carefully designed to strike a balance between specificity and breadth. On one hand, it enabled the precise identification of studies directly related to our research focus, reducing the risk of including irrelevant literature. On the other hand, it broadened the scope enough to capture relevant discussions that might not be immediately evident from a title-based search alone. This strategic approach allowed us to construct a high-quality literature base, ensuring a well-founded and thorough analysis of the role of socially assistive robots in healthcare.
2. Perform targeted searches on PubMed and Scopus using the query from Step 1.
3. Filter studies published in peer-reviewed journals that focus specifically on the social and assistive robotics field.
4. Evaluate each study based on the following criteria: \(\circ\) N1: Clarity of the study's rationale in the introduction \(\circ\) N2: Appropriateness of the study design \(\circ\) N3: Clear description of methodology \(\circ\) N4: Clarity of results presentation \(\circ\) N5: Justification of conclusions based on results \(\circ\) N6: Disclosure of conflicts of interest
5. Assign a score from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) for parameters N1-N5.
6. Assign a binary assessment (Yes/No) for N6 regarding conflict-of-interest disclosure.
7. Select studies meeting the following criteria: \(\circ\) N6 must be \"Yes\" \(\circ\) N1-N5 must each score greater than 3.
8. Include the preselected studies in the overview.