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.

Overall, the reviewers found the report to be creative and innovative. The reviewers also accepted the researcher’s reasoning and conclusions in the report. Criticisms were primarily requests to expand or clarify the writing in sections throughout the report.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Donald Nease, MD^
University of Colorado Denver
$1,084,765
10.25302/07.2020.ME.13035843
Creating Locally Relevant Health Solutions with the Appreciative Inquiry and Boot Camp Translation Method

Key Dates

September 2013
December 2018
2013
2018

Study Registration Information

^John Westfall, MD was the original principal investigator for this project.

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: March 4, 2022