|This project's final research report is expected to be available by June 2019.|
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. Those comments and responses included the following:
- Reviewers questioned the reasons for developing taxonomies for stakeholder engagement. The researchers responded that there are no existing taxonomies for how engagement impacts research, and this research fills a specific methodological gap identified in the 2013 PCORI Methodology Report.
- Reviewers asked about the purpose of the person centeredness of research scale and particularly the purpose of the summary score produced by the scale. The researchers explained that the scale could be used to compare the person centeredness of two research products, such as study abstracts. They acknowledged that at this point, the summary score for a specific research product is not meaningful without a comparator product.
- Reviewers questioned the plan to evaluate the best method to get person-centered input on a research project. The study’s comparison between the Translation Studio, involving researcher input, and the Community Engagement Studio, involving patient and community member input, seemed inappropriate to reviewers. The reviewers said that the two approaches should be considered complementary rather than alternative activities. The researchers explained that the purpose of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the Community Engagement Studio in obtaining person-centered input, compared to the Translation Studio.
- Reviewers asked the researchers to temper their conclusions about the impact of patient and stakeholder feedback on research. The researchers revised their limitations and conclusions sections to stipulate that the comparison of inputs in this study demonstrated that patient and stakeholder input was more person-centered than researcher input. It was beyond the scope of the study to determine how person-centered input impacted the research process.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.