Results Summary and Professional Abstract
Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Related PCORI Dissemination and Implementation Project
Between Clinicians and Patients, Trained Community Members May Provide a Key Link
A feature story on this project, which highlights PCORI-funded studies that are testing whether lay people on clinical teams make a measurable difference to lower barriers patients may face in receiving care and following treatment plans.
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:
- While the reviewers generally found the study design and report strong, they asked that the researchers present some methods more clearly and correct some of the reporting of results. The researchers changed how they reported significant results (now, Pvalues < 0.05) and used softer, pared-down language in reporting outcomes.
- Reviewers asked for clarification of the intervention, called Individualized Management for Patient-Centered Targets (IMPaCT), and asked for more information about how this method differed from existing models for using community health workers (CHW). The researchers added more information in the background section and explained how IMPaCT differs from other programs that use CHW.
- Reviewers questioned whether the primary outcome measure could truly assess the primary outcomes identified by patients, which were to feel better and not to be limited by my health. The researchers noted that they selected the measure with community partner input and that it includes specific questions about how the patient’s health might limit their activities. They added this information to the measure’s description.
- Reviewers said they need convincing that the intervention can scale to a larger population. The researchers added a paragraph to the conclusion section to discuss scalability and softened the language they used in making assertions about the program.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
Other Health Services Interventions
Training and Education Interventions
Low Health Literacy/Numeracy
Individuals with Multiple Chronic/co-morbid Conditions