Results Summary and Professional Abstract
|This project's final research report is expected to be available by October 2019.|
Peer Review Summary
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.
Peer reviewers commented, and the researchers made changes or provided responses. The comments and responses included the following:
- Reviewers asked whether the researchers considered randomizing at the level of clinical clusters rather than individual patients to prevent cross contamination within centers. The researchers said they reviewed follow-up care practices at participating sites to ensure that routine post-transplant care did not include elements similar to the survivorship care plan (SCP) intervention. The researchers felt that randomizing at the level of individual patients better controlled for variations in care practices across centers.
- Reviewers asked how the researchers used the SCP utilization assessment. The researchers said the assessment was a single, open-ended question to obtain qualitative feedback about the SCP intervention. They acknowledged that the question was not validated, so themes identified in this way need to be interpreted with this limitation in mind.
- Reviewers noted that convenience sampling to populate focus groups may have introduced a selection bias, such as low representation of ethnic minorities. The researchers agreed but said the results show that the focus groups did represent a diversity of transplant center sizes, experiences, and geography.
- Reviewers asked about the possibility of delivering the SCP intervention via email or a mobile app. The researchers said the present study investigated a paper-based SCP, but in the future they would like to implement the SCP in an electronic format, and an ongoing project is testing the SCP in a mobile app.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
^Navneet Majhail, MD, MS was the original principal investigator for this project.