Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
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:
- The reviewers requested additional details on the qualitative methods used, specifically asking that the questionnaires used in the study be included in the report along with an explanation of how the researchers developed. The researchers expanded their description of the qualitative methods they used and expanded the results section to include representative quotes. However, they said that those who would like to see the questionnaires can request them from the first author.
- The reviewers asked for more detailed information on the two interventions used. The researchers expanded their description of the interventions and clarified the differences between them. The researchers added a web link for information on Problem Solving Treatment (PST).
- The reviewers suggested that beyond depression, the study could have more appropriately evaluated whether PST improved problem-solving skills. The researchers noted that the primary objective of PST is depression treatment, so depression was their primary outcome. However, their secondary outcomes did measure problem-solving skills, and the researchers indicated that future post-hoc analyses would look at associations between social problem solving and depression outcomes.
- The reviewers suggested subgroup analysis, stating that it would be interesting to show whether factors like social support or living alone related to outcomes. The researchers said the idea is intriguing. The study was limited to reporting analyses defined from the outset of the project, but the researchers said they will look further into the data collected for such analyses. They added that preliminary analyses suggest no subgroup differences based on how long people had lived in the United States or based on social support or living arrangements.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results