Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Results of This Project
Related Journal Citations
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. Those comments and responses included the following:
- The reviewers indicated that they had difficulty matching the aims and hypotheses laid out at the beginning of the report with the methods and results described in the body of the report, particularly in relation to the outcome of nursing home placement. The researchers revised the report to better link the aims and hypotheses to the methods and results. They added a conceptual framework to help explain how they chose the outcomes they did. They also clarified the reasons why nursing home placement did not end up being a main outcome for the study.
- The reviewers recommended adjusting the presentation of qualitative interviews the researchers completed, saying that this information was important but not described fully in the report. The researchers created Appendix F to present the qualitative methods and interview results. They noted that they included only direct quotes that they felt represented the participant’s point of view accurately.
- The reviewers questioned the report’s assertion that the study findings were highly generalizable. The reviewers pointed out that the three sites had very different characteristics, and it was not clear how generalizable the results from these sites would be for rural settings or for populations mostly comprised of individuals from minority racial and ethnic groups. The researchers said they thought the results were generalizable to urban populations across the United States since the study enrolled participants from three very different cities, and they modified the discussion to say so.
- The reviewers questioned how the researchers described their results from analyses of participants older than 80 years of age. The reviewers considered these to be subgroup analyses of participants over and under 80 years old and suggested a number of revisions to the analyses and the text. Because these analyses seemed to be more confusing to the reader, the researchers removed all subgroup analyses from the report. They explained that the subgroup analyses were not intended as intermediary measures and their inclusion did not affect the main analyses.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results