Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot 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 descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments.
The awardee made the following revisions in response to peer review:
- The awardee presented more detail to explain that intervention and comparison group participants were equivalent at the start of the study, in that the awardee recruited participants using the target clinics, regardless of whether the patients were already seeking help with insurance enrollment.
- The awardee confirmed that all participants in the study had gone through at least one reenrollment period for Medicaid benefits. Therefore, all participants had an opportunity to use the study’s intervention tool. In addition, the awardee confirmed that the intervention and control clinics had workflows already in place to flag any patients who were at risk of losing insurance coverage. As a result, the awardee had an equal likelihood of identifying patients in either the intervention or comparison group who lacked insurance, or who were at risk of losing insurance.
- The awardee edited the methods and intervention section to explain that the Tracking and Documentation Form tool ties to enrollment assistance actions taken for individual patients, if clinic staff entered the need for enrollment assistance in the form. The investigators were able to link patients’ use of the tool to insurance enrollment status and dates only retrospectively.
- The awardee revised the report to make study conclusions more tentative, responding to reviewers’ note that low use of the tool in intervention clinics reflected inherent difficulties in - intervention studies based on electronic health records and clinic workflows.
Final Research Report
View this project's final research report
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form