Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

More to Explore...

Related PCORI Dissemination and Implementation Project

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 confirms that the research has followed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts who were not members of the research team read a draft report of the research. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. Reviewers do not 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 how the research team analyzed its results or reported its conclusions. Learn more about PCORI’s peer-review process here.

In response to peer review, the PI made changes including

  • Expanding the Background section to provide more justification for the evidence gaps that the study aimed to fill.
  • Defining what the researchers meant by “non-specific factors,” which included patient-specific (spirituality, outlook) and contextual (treatment expectations, patient‐provider connection) factors.
  • Simplifying their presentation of results for Aim 1 by providing only the final multivariate model rather than also showing the intermediate analysis models.
  • Adding a discussion of the limitations related to the interpretation of the study findings, especially given that baseline data were collected after patients had initiated treatment. The reviewers were concerned that any observed differences in treatment outcomes may be a factor of therapy effectiveness rather than non-specific variables. The researchers did point out that as the goal of the study was to assess the predictive value of treatment expectations and perceptions of the patient-provider relationship, it would be appropriate to assess these factors before treatment was initiated and patients were unlikely to have such expectations or perceptions.
  • Expanding the limitations section of the discussion, and providing a more measured interpretation of the study findings given the important limitations that were identified.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Carol Greco, PhD
University of Pittsburgh
$728,340
10.25302/4.2019.ME.140210114
Measuring the Context of Healing: Using PROMIS in Chronic Pain Treatment

Key Dates

September 2014
March 2018
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