Table 3. Excluded studies of relevance.

References: Aboudara et al. [22], Huisman‐de Waal et al. [23], Sivakumar [24], Thomson et al. [25].

IPC: indwelling pleural catheter, MPE: malignant pleural effusion, QoL: quality of life (QoL).

	Aboudara et al. (2021)	Huisman‐de Waal et al. (2011)	Sivakumar (2021)	Thomson et al. (2013)
Title	A survey-based study of patient-centered costs associated with indwelling pleural catheters	‘High-tech’ home care: overview of professional care in patients on home parenteral nutrition and implications for nursing care	Interventions to improve health-related quality of life in malignant pleural effusion	The psychosocial impact of home use medical devices on the lives of older people: a qualitative study
Format	Journal article	Journal article	PhD thesis	Journal article
Country	United States of America	Netherlands	United Kingdom	United Kingdom
Topic	Socio-economic impact	Nursing care; implantable device	Quality of life	Use of home medical devices
Method	Cross-sectional survey	Questionnaire and interview	Patient and public involvement group; unstructured discussion	Semi-structured interviews of patients and partners
Reason for exclusion	Not qualitative	Not IPC	Relates to MPE but not IPC specifically	Not specific to implanted medical devices or IPC
Relevance	Reports quality of life issues in more detail than standard validated QoL questionnaires	Implantable device and its nursing care	Research relates to MPE QoL	Researches the psychosocial impact of medical devices in the home in an older population, including 2 participants with implanted devices
Participant number	20	64 patients (questionnaire) 17 nurses (interview)	7	12
Participant type	Patients with an IPC	Patients in receipt of parenteral nutrition. Nurse specialists or responsible homecare nurses.	Patients with an MPE n=5; family/informal caregivers n=2	Aged over 65 and using a medical device in the home patients n=12; partners n=7
Participant age	Median 64 years (interquartile range 58-71)	Mean 53 years (standard deviation 14.7; range 18-77)	Not reported	Mean 72 (range 65-83)
Participant- gender	13 female 7 male	42 female 22 male	Not reported	10 female 9 male
Aetiology	Malignant pleural effusion (in 19 of the 20)	Not applicable	Malignant pleural effusion	Not applicable
Results	No participant reported missing an important event due to their IPC, nor having insufficient money due to their IPC. 30% said there were activities they could not do any more, half of whom said this impacted negatively on their wellbeing and quality of life. 45% reported not travelling somewhere due to their IPC. 85% reported receiving care from an informal/unpaid care giver. No informal carers had to give up work but 12% were reported to have taken time off work to perform these duties.	Questionnaire revealed the most frequently reported problems were under the social behaviour, psychic autonomy, communication, and emotional stability subscales. In only 4% of outpatient clinic appointments were psychosocial problems such as anxiety, depression and coping discussed. In other contacts (e.g., telephone consultation) psychosocial counselling was not documented but nurses reported this typically occurred. Psychosocial issues were reported as the most important issue discussed at 4 out of the 5 home visits analysed.	Asked what factors of care were important to patients with MPE, five areas were reported to have particular importance to quality of life – (1) symptoms (and symptom management); (2) satisfaction with medical care; (3) independence; (4) cognitive function; and (5) mental wellbeing.	Two main themes identified: (1) Striving to maintain self-esteem. This included sub-themes of feeling powerless (particularly around the decision to accept the device), personal control (empowerment), mastering the device, and comparing oneself to others (with same condition/device). (2) The Social device. Identification of different ways in which devices influence social interactions which were grouped into ‘bringing people together’ and ‘disrupting social harmony’. The former included notions of joint ownership and co-management; while the latter included creating barriers within couples and in wider social contexts.