Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

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:

  • Reviewers commended the sophisticated analytic strategies and novel approaches used in this study. Also, they commented that the study’s main limitations included factors beyond the investigators’ control, such as the complexity of the topic and gaps in the literature.
  • Reviewers noted that using the number of chronic conditions was not an adequate way to identify the most complex subjects among the elderly without also considering frailty and disability. The researchers agreed that frailty and disability are important factors that affect decision making and added a comment to this effect. However, the focus of the study was on multiple chronic conditions.
  • Reviewers noted that the type of work described in this study is time-intensive and asked for a more nuanced discussion of how insights from this study could be scaled up and applied more broadly. The researchers acknowledged in the discussion that these methods for benefit-harm analysis were time- and resource-intensive, so priorities would need to be set about when to use these methods based on the potential for a benefit-harm analysis to change clinical practice guidelines.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Cynthia Boyd, MD, MPH
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
$1,095,150
10.25302/04.2020.ME.130307619
Informing Patient-Centered Care for People with Multiple Chronic Conditions

Key Dates

July 2014
March 2019
2014
2018

Study Registration Information

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
Health Conditions Health Conditions These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them. View Glossary
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: March 4, 2022