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:
- Reviewers commented that taking participants’ preferences into account when assigning them to one of three prioritization sessions in Phase 2 of the study, rather than assigning them completely randomly, made it less clear whether differences between groups were because of preferences or due to chance. The researchers acknowledged this concern and expanded discussion of this limitation in the report. They also added a table that compares participant characteristics in Phase 1 of the study by first preference.
- Reviewers noted that in addition to the preferences of patient participants, the relative workload and cost associated with different methods of soliciting patient input would be helpful for researchers to know. The researchers agreed these are important pragmatic considerations. The researchers could not evaluate the costs of different methods, but they added discussion about the time and resources required for each method.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
Note: This project was initially titled "Comparing Engagement Techniques for Incorporating Patient Input in Research Prioritization."