Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Results of This Project
Related Journal Citations
Stories and Videos
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
- Providing more information on the involvement and activities of the Community Advisory Board and the National Advisory Board, and how those activities impacted the study.
- Clarifying the reasons for choosing ANCOVA as the primary analytic strategy, and using growth-curve modeling with the same covariates for sensitivity analyses because the study was not powered to use growth curve modeling as the primary strategy. The researchers noted that the sensitivity analyses support the main results for Aims 1 and 2, about which reviewers had raised concerns in the initial draft of the report. Per reviewers’ recommendations, the researchers also commented on the lack of sufficient power to use the growth curve modeling for intervention by time interactions as a study limitation.
- Conducting multiple imputation to account for missing data. The researchers initially considered multiple imputation as unnecessary since the low rate of missing data for both intervention and control groups would indicate that missing data was unlikely to explain the study results. The researchers noted that these analyses had shown non-significant results for all main outcomes.
- Indicating that the analyses for Aim 3, which focused on the heterogeneity of treatment effects, were considered exploratory. The researchers revised the report to provide all outcomes that were measured in these analyses, and explained why they did not correct the indicators of statistical significance for multiple comparisons.
- Explaining that women currently engaged in behavioral health treatment were included in the study because the researchers assumed that randomization would minimize any potential group differences in experience with such treatment. Per the reviewers’ recommendations, the researchers added information about behavioral health treatment involvement for the sample, adding the lack of consistent information about the use of behavioral interventions to the study Limitations.
- Revising the Results and Discussion sections so that they focus more on the main and exploratory outcomes, moving secondary outcomes to an appendix. Per reviewer recommendations, the researchers also revised the statements made in these sections to remove any that were not supported by the study findings or may have overstated the significance of the findings.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results