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 confirms that the research has followed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts who were not members of the research team read a draft report of the research. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. Reviewers do not 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 how the research team analyzed its results or reported its conclusions. Learn more about PCORI’s peer-review process here.
In response to peer review, the PI made changes including
- Explaining that the study was conducted in three phases, so time was the variable that determined which patients were exposed to the shared decision-making tool and coaching interventions.
- Clarifying that the primary outcome of the study was the impact of the studied tool on patient-physician shared decision making about stent selection in percutaneous coronary intervention. The researchers explained that the analysis of stent choice concordance with the patient’s stent preference was a secondary outcome, and therefore the results of these analyses were described in less detail.
- Revising the results to explain that clinician interviews were conducted after implementation of the shared decision-making tool, and why these interviews were only conducted at one site. The researchers also acknowledged in their Limitations section that more physician follow-up interviews about stent selection and use of the shared decision-making tool would have been useful to help understand the study results.
- Discussing in the Limitations section the lack of available nurse decision coaches and physician engagement, and how these may have affected the study outcomes. Although better physician engagement might have led to positive larger effect of the decision aids, the researchers noted in their response to reviewers that better engagement would not be a realistic expectation in most cardiology practices.
- Responding to reviewer concerns about problems with intervention implementation and uptake at the clinical sites by noting that these problems were part of the real-world experience of working in these clinical settings and would need to be overcome for improved implementation of a shared decision-making tool.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
Other Clinical Interventions
Other Health Services Interventions
Shared Decision Making
Training and Education Interventions