|This project's final research report is expected to be available by January 2020.|
Peer Review Summary
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 saw a disconnect between the intervention, which sought to encourage patients to discuss issues of concern with their providers, and the primary outcome, which assessed the closing of care gaps that are a priority in the healthcare system. The reviewers asked the researchers to elaborate on the rationale for choosing their primary outcome measure. The researchers agreed that there is a large step from patient priorities to reducing care gaps and that using intermediate measures would have been helpful. The researchers explained that they thought that more effective primary care visits would eventually lead to closing care gaps. They chose an outcome measure that would apply to a heterogeneous group of patients while being salient to the healthcare system. The researchers revised the report to address these issues in the sections on future directions and study limitations.
- Reviewers asked if researchers recorded and categorized patient concerns,and how often these concerns aligned with care gaps. The researchers said that indeed they recorded and categorized patient concernsbut the concerns did not align with specific care gap outcomes. The researchers listed the suggested priorities and subpriorities in two tables in a new appendix. The researchers developed the list of priorities through engagement with the study’s patient advisors.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
|Article Highlight: This study's research team designed a tool called Visit Planner to guide adults waiting to see their physicians in identifying top priorities for their visit and sharing these priorities with their clinicians. As reported in the Annals of Family Medicine, patients who used Visit Planner reported improved communication—including preparing questions and expressing their top care concerns—with their clinicians, compared to patients who did not use the tool.|