## 4 Research and Workshop Methodology  
Our systematic survey results guided us in the design and implementation of our co-creation workshop aimed at engaging 20-30 participants through a series of structured activities, including brainstorming, affinity mapping, dot voting, quantitative questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. The selection and adaptation of these instruments were informed by our systematic review, ensuring that each activity was not only contextually relevant but also scientifically grounded, as illustrated in Figure 3. All 30 identified core constructs informed the design of the brainstorming sessions, affinity mapping, and semi-structured interviews. The 10 most frequently cited constructs in the literature served as the basis for the questionnaire, while the top five categories of assistive and robotic technologies identified were used to structure the dot voting activity.  
The co-creation workshop was designed to foster engagement, creativity, and data collection through a thoughtfully curated set of activities. These activities were strategically scheduled throughout the event, interspersed with breaks to maintain participant engagement and cognitive freshness. All workshop documents and materials are publicly shared as a part of this contribution, please see Supplementary Materials section for a direct link to our shared GitHub repo ([[https://github.com/](https://github.com/)]([https://github.com/](https://github.com/))). This initial phase of the workshop relied on an engaging brainstorming activity aimed at generating a wealth of ideas from participants, which were then organised through affinity mapping. This technique helped in clustering similar ideas and themes that emerged during the brainstorming session, facilitating a structured synthesis of participant input and highlighting prevalent trends and perspectives within the groups.  
Following the idea generation and organisation stages, dot voting was employed as a democratic tool to gauge the focus of our group members on the most relevant assistive and robotic technologies in their daily lives. Each participant was given a limited number of votes or 'dots' to vote on the assistive and robotic technologies they found most compelling or vital for their activities of daily living (ADL).  
To supplement the qualitative insights garnered from the brainstorming and voting activities, a quantitative questionnaire was distributed. This instrument was carefully developed from existing validated tools identified during the systematic review and adapted to ensure relevance and context-specific applicability. The questionnaire aimed to quantitatively measure participants' attitudes, perceptions, and other relevant metrics that could be statistically analysed.  
In the latter part of the workshop, semi-structured interviews were conducted to delve deeper into specific themes or issues that had emerged. These interviews were guided by a set of predefined questions inspired by the systematic review's findings, but they also allowed for open-ended responses, providing flexibility to explore new or unexpected topics raised by the participants. Each of these activities utilised content and instruments that were closely adapted from a diverse collection of research instruments gathered during the systematic review. In the next subsection, we explore in detail the methodology we followed in adapting the instruments to ensure their relevance and effectiveness in achieving our research objectives.