## 2 Systematic Review Methodology
### Literature Review Search Process  
To gain a comprehensive understanding of factors influencing the acceptance of robotics and assistive technologies among people living with frailty (PwF), a systematic literature review was meticulously conducted. This review employed a comprehensive search strategy utilising leading academic databases, including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed scholarly articles published within the five years preceding the review, including all literature available up to October 2023. This cut-off point was intentionally selected to allow sufficient time for the thorough analysis and synthesis of relevant findings prior to the co-design workshop and associated activities, which took place on 20 November 2023. Establishing this timeline ensured that the most current and influential research could inform the development of workshop materials and design decisions, while maintaining a practical window for evidence integration and preparatory planning. To ensure a comprehensive search and capture of relevant literature, a strategic approach was employed for keyword selection. Logical operators were meticulously applied across a combination of pertinent keywords and their synonyms (detailed in Table 1). This approach aimed to maximise the identification of relevant studies. Figure 1 visually presents the bibliographic landscape of the included articles at this stage, providing a comprehensive overview of the scholarly field under investigation. Transparency and reproducibility are ensured by sharing the exact search strings used for each database in Appendix E. Searches were conducted within the title field, with syntax customised for each platform using appropriate operators, wildcards, and field-specific selectors, in accordance with the established protocol. Where necessary, additional metadata filters were either embedded within the queries or applied through the database's interface. To analyse the thematic structure of the literature systematically, we performed a co-word analysis using VOSviewer v1.6.20, utilising the co-word analysis bibliometric method that examines term co-occurrence patterns. Titles and abstracts from the included studies formed the text corpus, with the visualisation optimised for legibility by displaying the top 25 most frequent terms and enlarging node labels. The analysis revealed three key clusters: Cluster 1 (_challenge_, _opportunity_, _digital age_) reflected contextual and structural influences on technology adoption; Cluster 2 (_intervention_, _outcome_, _patient_, _caregiver_) mapped to practical healthcare applications; and Cluster 3 (_acceptance_, _intention_, _usefulness_, _technology acceptance model_) aligned with user perception and theoretical frameworks. These clusters quantitatively validated and extended our narrative synthesis, highlighting underrepresented connections, such as the co-occurrence of caregiver and digital age, that merited deeper exploration. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Keyword** & **Synonyms and Related Words** \\ \hline Older People & Old [er], Elder [ly], Senior, Age [ing], Geriatric \\ Technology & Assistive, Care, Nursing, Digital, Automation, Home \\ Management, Smart Home, Aid, Inclusive, Support \\ Challenge, Limit, Barrier, Access, Concern, Obstacle, Issue, \\ Inhibit, Constraint, Restriction, Adopt, Embrace, Impede, \\ Integrate, Accept, Infuse \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Search terms and synonyms used in systematic literature review. Figure 1: Bibliometric network visualisation of included literature. The findings directly informed our co-design workshop by shaping discussion themes around the literature's dominant patterns. For instance, Cluster 1's focus on external influences prompted dialogue around systemic barriers, while Cluster 3's emphasis on behavioural drivers guided activities targeting user acceptance.