Results Summary and Professional Abstract
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 review identified the following strengths and limitations in the report:
- In response to reviewers’ questions about the handling of missing data, the researchers explained that the rate of missing data was low. The researchers also noted that there were no differences between study groups in the amount of missing data or in the characteristics of participants with missing data. Therefore, the researchers assumed that data were missing at random and did not attempt to input data for these participants or conduct sensitivity analyses.
- The reviewers noted that the study did not prove the main hypothesis, which was that the combination of community health worker and mobile health interventions would produce better results than either intervention alone. The researchers revised the discussion and conclusion sections to clarify that point.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
Incentives for Behavior Change
Other Clinical Interventions
Other Health Services Interventions
Training and Education Interventions