Results Summary and Professional Abstract
Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Related PCORI Dissemination and Implementation Project
For Healthier Nights and Longer Lives
A narrative on this project, with a look at how experienced patients help those newly diagnosed with sleep apnea learn to use a challenging but effective treatment.
Improving Patient Experiences with CPAP Machines (right)
Dr. Parthasarathy talks about his study's use of mentors to train patients with sleep apnea to use CPAP machines in hopes of improving sleep outcomes.
Studying Efficacy of Patient-to-Patient Mentoring
Dr. Parthasarathy says a patient gave him the idea for his PCORI-funded study to improve sleep outcomes for patients assigned a CPAP machine.
Experiencing the Much-Needed Benefits of Sleep
Talking About Men's Health, March 20, 2019
In a contribution to the TAMH Blog, Dr. Parthasarathy highlights the importance of including patients in his project and how one of them proposed the idea for peer counseling to help people with sleep apnea and their use of a CPAP machine.
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 found the report to be well written, of high scientific quality, and to have minimal limitations.
- Reviewers recommended that the researchers include a cost-benefit analysis of the peer intervention, as this would likely be important to providers and patients. This was not possible because of funding restrictions. However, the researchers included information on the amount of time peer buddies spent doing in-person visits and on telephone calls with clients. Researchers noted that this information would also be helpful for implementing the program in different settings.
- Reviewers asked whether the intervention addressed issues of sleep hygiene, particularly short sleep duration, as this was known to differ based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Habitual short sleep duration could look like participants were not consistently using their continuous positive airway pressure machines, even when they were. The researchers acknowledged this issue and that they did not account for sleep duration in the intervention.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
View the COI disclosure form.
Other Health Services Interventions
Training and Education Interventions