Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Results of This Project
Related Journal Citations
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. Those comments and responses included the following:
- Because so many patients were lost to follow-up, the reviewers requested that the researchers reanalyze the data including all patients with an initial assessment, even if patients did not have outcome data. The researchers responded that they chose their mixed-model approach specifically to deal with the expected missing data. The researchers stated that they required only that a person have a baseline and one post-baseline assessment for inclusion in the analyzed sample; the researchers did not require complete data for inclusion. As reviewers requested, the researchers did run additional analyses on primary outcomes and any significant secondary outcomes including all people with baseline data, but they kept the original primary analyses, as well.
- The reviewers asked the researchers to expand the discussion of limitations. The researchers added a limitation related to the large amount of missing outcome data. Researchers said that due to missing data, the sample they analyzed could have been systematically different from the original study sample. The investigators also stated that replication of the study results might be difficult because the study did not follow a framework for an intention-to-treat analysis because the analyzed sample did not include all the patients randomly assigned to the group receiving the intervention.
- The reviewers also argued that randomizing patients before obtaining full informed consent is a study limitation. Randomizing before consent could preclude a true intention-to-treat analysis because some randomized patients might choose not to participate in the study, the reviewers said. The researchers explained that if they had randomized after initial data collection, they would have captured only those patients motivated to engage in transitional care. Therefore, researchers thought they would not get a truly representative sample of the population if they had randomized at this later stage.
- The reviewers questioned the significance of evaluating joint intake versus individual intake appointments within the transitional care center training. The researchers noted that many of their stakeholders considered this question to be very important because joint intake procedures could speed access to services.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results