Agreement with related findings in other studies was also good. Relevance was rated no or very minor concerns overall. The relevance of the sub-finding to the subject of the review was high. Both studies were from different areas of the UK. Adequacy was rated as serious concerns. There is some concern about both the lack of quantity of data for a finding of generality, and a lack of depth for an explanatory finding. The overall assessment of confidence was low, having been downgraded by two increments due to concerns over methodology and adequacy. Review sub-finding 3c: Information after discharge from HF services Patients reported being well informed while they were in the HF clinic, but received no information after discharge to primary care. Patients interpreted this change in an ambivalent way, as if not confident in the continuing significance of their CHF and whether they needed ongoing care for their CHF. This sub-finding was based on 1 study14 . Methodological limitations were rated serious overall. The included paper was rated serious due to small number of participants (4), poor explanation of methods and low richness of data, in which the researchers voice was quite prominent. Coherence was rated no or very minor concerns overall. This specific finding could not be properly assessed, as there was no related data for comparison. Relevance was rated minor concerns overall. The relevance of the sub-finding to the focus of the review was very high. Concern was due to the study being from outside the UK, and the interviews being in Swedish. It is not clear to what extent the same problems occur in the NHS, but given the similarly pattern of HF clinic discharge, there is potential for the same issue to arise. 