We agree with this process of registration on clinicaltrials.gov
We agree with the use of a draft final report and abstract.
We particularly agree with the use of a stand-alone results
table which should offer a succinct visual support, especially
for consumers.
We strongly support the peer review process which includes:
a. Submitted the draft final report
b. Review team
c. Review conference
d. Review summary
e. Revisions to the draft final report
f. Formal acceptance
g. Begin 90-day period
Although we undersand the importance of utilizing
"nationally recognized experts in this field, we would
strongly recommended including conusmers on the review
team as a key component of this proposal is making the
information available to the public.
Regarding "translation for patients and the general public" we
disagree with a readability level of 8th grade as the
recommended readability level for patient materials is
6th grade (source: U.S. National Library of Medicine-
National Institutes of Health.) Indeed, heatlh literacy is
the largest barrier to health care access. In addition, we
recommend that peer review include consumers, as
mentioned previously. Finally, a 500 word abstract may not
provide sufficient understanding for the layperson who may
not have access to the full report. Most important with
regard to making the research available would be information
to consumers on how this data is helpful to them. This is
particularly true of how the data affects subgroups such
as underserved populations experiencing health
disparities.
We agree with this recommendation.
We disagree with merely posting on the PCORI and awardee
websites. The information can be shared as "news you can
use." We would recommend utilizing social media such as
Facebook and Twitter for the public. The information must
also be accessible to people with disabilities online. Lastly,
the information should be translated into other languages
such as Spanish to increase public access.
We agree with the recommendations for the responsibilities
of the awardee.
We agree with the timeline which will avoid "prior publication"
in journals yet also not delay the results to the public.
Somewhat Well
Our primary concern is information access to the public.
Very Clear
No additional comments.
We agree that the policy on conflicts of interest will faciliate
credibility and transparency.
Somewhat Agree
Again, consumers should be included in peer review.
We particularly agree with the use of a stand-alone results
table which should offer a succinct visual support, especially
for consumers.
a. Submitted the draft final report
b. Review team
c. Review conference
d. Review summary
e. Revisions to the draft final report
f. Formal acceptance
g. Begin 90-day period
Although we undersand the importance of utilizing
"nationally recognized experts in this field, we would
strongly recommended including conusmers on the review
team as a key component of this proposal is making the
information available to the public.
disagree with a readability level of 8th grade as the
recommended readability level for patient materials is
6th grade (source: U.S. National Library of Medicine-
National Institutes of Health.) Indeed, heatlh literacy is
the largest barrier to health care access. In addition, we
recommend that peer review include consumers, as
mentioned previously. Finally, a 500 word abstract may not
provide sufficient understanding for the layperson who may
not have access to the full report. Most important with
regard to making the research available would be information
to consumers on how this data is helpful to them. This is
particularly true of how the data affects subgroups such
as underserved populations experiencing health
disparities.
websites. The information can be shared as "news you can
use." We would recommend utilizing social media such as
Facebook and Twitter for the public. The information must
also be accessible to people with disabilities online. Lastly,
the information should be translated into other languages
such as Spanish to increase public access.
of the awardee.
in journals yet also not delay the results to the public.
credibility and transparency.