Final Research Report
This project's final research report is expected to be available by November 2023.
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 how generalizable the results of this study were to urban areas. The researchers expanded their discussion to note that although the project was conducted in a rural area, given the frequency of medication nonadherence and unhealthy lifestyle in urban as well as rural settings, the results may be generalizable to urban settings.
- The reviewers asked why the researchers included perceived stress as a separate outcome domain rather than including it within the mental functioning domain, given the high correlation between stress, anxiety, and depression. The researchers acknowledged this high correlation but explained that their community partners wanted stress prioritized because many feel that blood pressure is directly related to stress.
- The reviewers asked the researchers to discuss further their finding that peer coaching was effective for individuals under 60 with uncontrolled hypertension and to consider whether age concordance between the peer coaches and patients could have been a factor. The researchers considered this possible and extended their discussion of why peer coaching was more beneficial among younger patients in the discussion to include this hypothesis.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
*Monika M. Safford, MD, was the principal investigator of this study when it was funded.
- Has Results