Public Comments - Submissions

Peer Review Process Comments

Name of person or organization submitting comments: Association of Rehabilitation Nurses

Please identify which stakeholder group you represent: Clinician/Clinician Society

Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov, RoPR, or PROSPERO

Production of a draft final report, scientific abstract, and standalone results table

PCORI peer review process of the draft final report

Providing a version of the results summary that will be useful and comprehensible for use by patients and the general public

As outlined in the authorizing legislation, PCORI shall, “convey the findings of research in a manner that is comprehensible and useful to patients and providers in making health care decisions.” Specifically, PCORI is charged with reviewing and editing the medical professionals’ abstract, results table, and ancillary information for patients and general public with readability at the 8th-grade level. ARN is very supportive of ensuring patients and the public have access to research findings and are therefore concerned with the appropriateness of materials prepared at the 8th- grade level. While the average American reads at an 8th-grade level, it is recommended that patient education materials and instructions are written at a 3rd-5th grade reading level.

Submission of results table to ClinicalTrials.gov and/or other sites as appropriate, with a link to the abstract and standalone results table on PCORI’s website

Public posting of full final reports on PCORI’s website

We would recommend additional strategies and mechanisms for dissemination other than the PCORI web site. Professional organizations and patient advocacy groups could be utilized as catalysts to disseminate research findings to patients and healthcare professionals. Other means including videos, social media, and text messaging could be additional mechanisms for distributing research findings.

Awardee institution notification to PCORI of submission to journals and subsequent publication of papers resulting from funded projects

Timeline of the proposed peer review and public release process

Please rate how well the proposal meets PCORI’s obligations under its authorizing legislation

Please add any comment about your rating:

Please rate how well the proposal provides a clear understanding of the peer review and public release process

Please add any comment about your rating:

Please comment on the proposal’s feasibility given any competing obligations that awardee institutions funded by PCORI, or their investigators, may face.

The law requires that PCORI both conduct peer review of our funded primary research and make it available publicly within a specific timeframe. We propose to conduct peer review first, then post the results, so they can benefit from the review process. Do you agree or disagree with the sequencing of this process?

Please add any comment about your rating:

Please provide any additional comments that you have not already provided about any aspect of this proposal.

Upload a Document PCORI Peer Review Comments.pdf