Results Summary and Professional Abstract
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 asked that the researchers refer to the Four Supports study in the abstract. The researchers adapted that model for use in their PCORI-funded study. The researchers said they left the name of that intervention out intentionally because while it provided a preliminary framework, the intervention developed for this study differed substantially in content and structure, thanks to the work of the stakeholders. The reviewers insisted that the abstract still indicate that the intervention under study was a modification, and the researchers added a statement to that effect.
- The reviewers expressed concern that the stakeholder parents who helped develop the intervention were not representative of the study population. The researchers added a table to the report listing the names and experience of the eight parent stakeholders. The researchers acknowledged that the stakeholders were not ethnically diverse and may overrepresent cases where children died. The researchers added comments about the representation of parents as well as other stakeholders to their study limitations section.
- Given the lack of significant results at 3-5 weeks postdischarge, the reviewers wondered about the durability of the intervention and whether more pronounced results might be seen at other time points. The researchers suggested that measuring at an earlier time point could be more helpful and added a sentence to the report saying that they plan to conduct analyses of outcomes at the time of PICU discharge.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
Shared Decision Making
Other Health Services Interventions
Training and Education Interventions
Individuals with Multiple Chronic/co-morbid Conditions