Results Summary and Professional Abstract
|This project's final research report is expected to be available by May 2019.|
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:
- Reviewers asked for additional justification for the newly developed measurement scale that researchers tested in this study. The researchers explained that the goal attainment scaling approach allowed for more-personalized goals, which suited the study’s purposes better than a more generic quality of life measure. The researchers also added examples of this measure in clinical care.
- Reviewers were unclear about why the study measured goal attainment using three different techniques, rather than comparing queuing and itemizing techniques more directly. The researchers said that they believed that the different ways of measuring goal attainment would affect a person’s attainment ratings. The researchers also stated that they wanted to explore different approaches to measuring goal attainment for their final analyses.
- Reviewers expressed concern about the multiple analyses that researchers conducted in this study without correcting for multiple hypothesis testing. The researchers explained that all of the subgroup analyses should be considered exploratory and hypothesis generating. They also added a Bonferroni correction so that the threshold for statistical significance would be more conservative.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.