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 praised the researchers for undertaking this difficult pragmatic study and for providing such a forthright description of the problems the study experienced in its implementation as well as the lack of treatment effect on the primary outcome. The reviewers asked whether the researchers had considered looking for factors that may have interfered with the effect of the delivered interventions. The reviewers thought that identifying and measuring the mediating factors at the individual, hospital, and societal levels could explain why the intervention did not work and where the researchers could invest their energies in the future. The researchers added to the report’s discussion to reference these ideas and explain why there would be considerable difficulties measuring any of the constructs that could interfere with the effect of the intervention on patients.
- The reviewers questioned whether the lack of a treatment effect could have been caused by poor communications between the hospital team and community resources. The researchers explained that at each site they established a community research network to encourage collaboration between stroke units and community resources.
- One reviewer noted that an important lesson from this study appeared to be that hospitals did not appear to be sufficiently equipped to provide comprehensive patient support post stroke. The researchers agreed that this remains a concern given the continuing focus on acute care rather than rehabilitation and the difficulties obtaining reimbursement for transitional care management that is needed post stroke. The researchers suggested additional research on ways to incentivize institutions to set up the financial and staffing resources necessary to provide care transitions for these vulnerable patients.
- The reviewers asked whether the results of this study would be generalizable to patients with more disabling stroke symptoms than the participants of this study. The researchers acknowledged that the study was specifically focused on individuals with mild stroke or transient ischemic attack because there is substantial evidence that even individuals who are less disabled have high healthcare utilization post stroke and do not know the risk factors for future stroke. The researchers did not think that the results would be generalizable to more disabled stroke survivors and that including these more severe cases would likely increase uptake of their transitional care intervention and may have significantly affected outcome results related to physical function compared to patients with mild stroke symptoms and limited disability.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results