Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Stories and Videos

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:

  • The reviewers said that the report was unclear on whether the per-protocol analyses were preplanned, and what reported analyses were exploratory. This affected the reviewers’ comfort with the study’s original conclusions regarding the success of the integrated medical group visits (IMGV) compared to standard primary care visits. The researchers revised their analyses descriptions to specify what was pre-planned and what was exploratory. The researchers noted that they conducted much of the exploratory analyses based on the advice of patient and scientific advisors. The researchers also tempered their conclusions regarding the success of the IMGV since there was no significant difference in primary outcomes between the two treatment arms.
  • Reviewers commented that it was unclear whether different components of the IMGV intervention, including mindfulness techniques and group visits, were meant to work independently, additively, or synergistically. The researchers replied that Figure 2 demonstrates the proposed mechanism of how different aspects of the intervention work, but the study was not designed to assess how well individual components work or whether they work in synergy.
  • Reviewers noted that the study provided no information on the range of treatmentsthe usual care participants received and suggested that without better-defined mechanisms for treatment components, any differences observed could be due to the amount of attention participants received in the study. The researchers agreed that they did not collect important information on the control group, such as time spent with clinicians. They expanded on this in the limitations section.
  • Reviewers noted that the researchers collected several measures of intervention uptake for the IMGV group, as well as measures on use of non-pharmacological treatments in the usual care group but did not use these data in analyses to help identify reasons for the null study findings. The researchers explained that they did not factor in non-pharmacological treatment changes because so many participants in the usual care group were already using non-pharmacological treatments when they started the study.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Paula Gardiner, MD, MPH
Boston Medical Center
$1,929,563
10.25302/04.2020.AD.13046218
Integrative Medicine Group Visits: A Patient-Centered Approach to Reducing Chronic Pain and Depression in a Disparate Urban Population

Key Dates

September 2013
March 2019
2013
2019

Study Registration Information

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
Health Conditions Health Conditions These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them. View Glossary
Populations Populations PCORI is interested in research that seeks to better understand how different clinical and health system options work for different people. These populations are frequently studied in our portfolio or identified as being of interest by our stakeholders. View Glossary
Funding Opportunity Type
Intervention Strategy Intervention Strategies PCORI funds comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) studies that compare two or more options or approaches to health care, or that compare different ways of delivering or receiving care. View Glossary
Research Priority Area
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: March 4, 2022