Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Related Journal Citations
Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also confirms that the research has followed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts who were not members of the research team read a draft report of the research. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. Reviewers do not have conflicts of interest with the study.
The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve how the research team analyzed its results or reported its conclusions. Learn more about PCORI’s peer-review process here.
In response to peer review, the PI made changes including
- Providing additional clarity about the unique roles of academic and community partners. Responding to reviewer questions about the membership in the Design Team and its differentiation from the research team, the researchers emphasized the participatory approaches used to make sure that everyone contributed to most aspects of the study.
- Describing how the researchers made sure that members of the Design Team represented certain segments of their target population. The researchers indicated that patient stakeholders were recruited from safety net practice settings that focus on care for disadvantaged populations, in response to reviewers’ questions about representation of individuals from disadvantaged groups.
- Explaining that the researchers were not able to achieve Objective 4 of the study, which was to quantitatively model outcomes of the strengths-based approach, because of the limited published data on patient-oriented outcomes from a strengths-based approach.
- Clarifying for reviewers that this study was not meant to be hypothesis testing or based on formal experiments. Instead, the researchers aimed to convey the iterative nature of the tool development undertaken in the project by showing how one study objective led to the next.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Study Registration Information
- Has Results