Results Summary and Professional Abstract
Results of This Project
|This project's final research report is expected to be available by October 2020.|
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:
- The reviewers expressed concern about the considerable amount of missing data, given the attrition of 75 percent of those participating in the coaching intervention. The researchers agreed that the level of participation was suboptimal and revised the results to better describe the level of participation. They also noted that patients could still receive the coaching intervention but not use the activity sensors or not upload activity data at 12 months. This may have led to an underestimate of patients’ physical activity, especially compared to self-reported physical activity. The researchers did, however, reflect on how missing data in activity monitoring and multiple comparisons may have overestimated the effectiveness of the coaching intervention.
- The reviewers cautioned the researchers to consider the heterogeneity in intervention delivery in their limitations section. The researchers acknowledged that there was variability in the type of activity monitor used and how patients used them, and that patients had the option of not attending some of the intervention sessions. They stated, however, that these aspects of the study illustrate the pragmatic nature of the study design, allowing patients to take advantage of the intervention based on their enthusiasm and preferences.
- The reviewers noted that there were clinical differences between patients who completed and did not complete the six-month data collection. The researchers acknowledged that patients who completed the six-month data collection tended to have fewer comorbid conditions but worse airflow obstruction. The same patients were also more likely to be white, partnered, and physically active at baseline. However, these differences were the same for both treatment groups so there does not appear to be a treatment-related reason for the difference.
- The reviewers questioned the value of self-reported measures of physical activity. The researchers agreed that self-reported physical activity data is less valuable than directly measured data but said it would be unrealistic to require objective measures of physical activity in such a large study sample. They also noted that restricting the study to only subjects who would wear a device would have created biases in the findings.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
Other Clinical Interventions
Other Health Services Interventions
Training and Education Interventions