Final Research Report

View this project's final research report

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 noted that the researchers did not find any benefit from the intervention based on the planned analyses. Positive findings were based on exploratory analyses comparing the experimental group to its baseline scores. The researchers acknowledged this and the need to be clear about the negative primary outcome. They revised the text.
  • Reviewers said the absence of a theoretical framework made it difficult to interpret the results of the study. The researchers said that given the lack of understanding about how parental stress affects child asthma outcomes, they reasoned that the mechanism may be complex.  They focused their efforts on building parental self-efficacy to manage stress. The researchers also added a figure to illustrate their conceptual model.
  • The reviewers noted that several planned analyses, based on the study protocol, were not completed. These included a per-protocol analysis and a comparison to a historical control. The researchers acknowledged that they wanted to include these analyses but did not have the resources to do so. They did add an analysis of intervention fidelity to the final report.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Stephen J. Teach, MD, MPH
Children's Research Institute
$2,287,149
10.25302/04.2020.AS.130705284
Improving Asthma Outcomes through Stress Management

Key Dates

December 2013
January 2019
2013
2018

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
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