Results Summary and Professional Abstract
|This project's final research report is expected to be available by January 2021.|
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 asked for the researchers’ rationale in choosing a peer navigation intervention to improve patient adherence to monitoring and treatment guidelines. The researchers said they used the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) Model to guide their adherence intervention and evaluation efforts. The IMB model, first proposed in 1992, gives a framework for how information, motivation, and behavior skills influence health behavior. It has been used as a theoretical basis for behavioral intervention studies.
- The reviewers asked for information on the cost and cost effectiveness of the intervention. In general, PCORI research studies cannot include cost-effectiveness analyses. The researchers said they did not have cost data for the study but provided an estimate based on the amount of time required from patient navigators and for clinical support assistance for each patient, plus the training and preparation time required for patient navigators, and the cost of developing online educational modules and text messaging.
- The reviewers had questions about recruitment, asking why only 52 percent of eligible patients agreed to join the study, what barriers prevented more from participating, the possibility of selection bias, and why the study recruited much more Chinese-American participants than other Asian-American subgroups. The researchers responded that the main reasons patients gave for not participating were not being willing to talk about their hepatitis B disease with a person they did not know and not wanting to disclose their medical information to the research team. The researchers said they did not anticipate the higher proportion of Chinese-American participants and would continue to explore the reasons for the difference in recruitment levels.
- The reviewers asked about treatment fidelity and the number of participants attending one, two, or all three educational sessions about hepatitis B management. The researchers explained that they only used complete cases–participants attending all three sessions–in their analyses. The researchers also explained that evaluative procedures throughout the study assessed intervention fidelity but did not describe any formal measurement of treatment fidelity.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
The Conflict of Interest Disclosures for this project will be posted here soon.
Other Health Services Interventions
Training and Education Interventions