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:

  • Overall, the reviewers found the report to be commendable, well organized, and clearly written, requiring only minor revisions.
  • Reviewers noted that the lack of fidelity testing of the intervention led to a number of participants not receiving the complete study intervention. The researchers responded that they designed the study with the constraints of routine clinical practice in mind, taking into consideration some of the challenges likely to occur in implementing such an intervention in clinical settings. However, they also agreed that future efforts should have greater emphasis on early fidelity testing to identify potential barriers to intervention implementation.
  • A reviewer commented that lack of oversight of telephone coaches allowed too many participants to not receive the intervention. The researchers noted that members of patient advocacy organizations performed the telephone coaching rather than study personnel or hospital staff. The researchers agreed that real-time monitoring and feedback during the intervention could have been helpful. They also added this point to the discussion.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Jerry Krishnan, MD, PhD
University of Illinois at Chicago
$2,054,803
10.25302/04.2020.IH.12114365
PATient Navigator to rEduce Readmissions -- The PArTNER Study

Key Dates

May 2013
November 2018
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
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