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:
- Reviewers asked the researchers to provide additional background information on their study participants, particularly related to alcohol use disorder, opioid use disorder, and mental illness. The researchers explained that they did not record substance use disorders based on feedback from their patient engagement group. That group wanted to move away from the stereotype of substance abuse among people with hepatitis C. They also noted that substance use is often inaccurately recorded in patient records. The researchers did add information to the final report about the few occurrences in the study sample of people denied insurance coverage due to a failed drug test.
- The reviewers identified a possible source of selection bias in the study because more participants in one study arm than in another had Medicaid insurance rather than private insurance, which could be considered an indicator of poverty. The researchers acknowledged this concern and explained that they tested for bias through sensitivity analyses that are provided in the report appendices. The sensitivity analyses showed no evidence of bias or other concerns in the main study results.
- One reviewer expressed concern about the timeliness of this study given the rapid changes in the standard of care for people with hepatitis C. The researchers countered that their recent paper in a major hepatology journal indicates the importance of this research. They also expanded their discussion of the most important outcomes and lessons learned in the report.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results