|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:
- Most reviewer comments requested that researchers provide additional details in the draft report, and the researchers did.
- Reviewers questioned the need for this study’s intervention given that there was already a high rate of contraception use in the target population. The researchers noted that while overall use was high, over 40 percent of women do not use the most effective contraceptive methods, which this study hoped to change.
- Reviewers asked whether the researchers considered including a true control comparison group that received no intervention. The researchers responded that they chose to provide the control group participants with basic birth control information as it’s widely available. The investigators also provided this information because they thought their study would be more useful by testing the added effect of reproductive life planning over and above this basic information.
- Reviewers asked about the addition of the method congruence outcome, which did not seem patient centered. The researchers responded that this outcome was actually patient centered. The investigators explained that they added the outcome in response to the patient advisory group’s suggestion to address situations in which a woman chose a birth control method that may not be most effective but would be most congruent with her own beliefs and expectations.
- The reviewers identified a potential problem with the contraceptive satisfaction variable. The reviewers found that someone completing the survey once counted equal to someone who completed the survey multiple times, even though the latter provided more data. The researchers acknowledged that while this could be a problem for respondents who completed the survey during only one survey period, the high response rate at each survey period mitigated that concern.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.