Subject to Notice of rights. ISBN: 978-1-4731-3093-7 Methodological limitations were rated serious overall. Two papers were rated serious limitations: one due to lack of context and richness in our area of interest, the other due to lack of detail and reflection on the methods. Two papers were rated as moderate limitations: one because the aims, methodology and findings were poorly discussed, the other because there was little description of the participants. One paper was rated as minor limitations. Coherence was rated minor concerns overall, based on the finding that clinicians see a problem and think it can be improved. Although there were a number of different improvements suggested, they were compatible with each other. It would be impossible however, to conclude in favour of any particular intervention from these data, and it is clear that there is a tension between disease- specific protocols and holistic management. Relevance was rated minor concerns overall. The relevance of the sub-finding to the focus of the review was high, as these models may have the potential to improve patient experience at transitions. All but one study was from the UK, and they were in a number of different settings, although some are from before 2010. Adequacy was rated as moderate concerns. The sub-finding was general, and found in a number of studies, but there was inadequate depth (for example, there were no case studies or examples of pathways in action). The overall assessment of confidence was low, having been downgraded by two increments due to concerns regarding methodology, and adequacy along with other minor concerns. 