Final Research Report
This project's final research report is expected to be available by December 2022.
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 questioned the consistency of the survivorship care plans (SCP) that were used in this study since practitioners could adapt the SCP template to their needs and whether differences among the care plans had an effect on their successful use in the three implementation strategies. The researchers explained that all participating providers used the same basic SCP template, but that template included only general recommendations. Providers were expected to add patient-specific recommendations to the SCPs and the analyses were performed based on patients receiving those specific recommendations. The SCPs were never meant to be uniform, said the researchers.
- The reviewers noted that the report did not present information on oral medication use. The researchers explained that although they had initially planned to include adherence to oral medications in their analyses, they found the data collection method for oral medications—patient recall—was not as reliable as data collection for other health service use by medical record. They stated that including the oral medication data could have significantly affected how much data they were able to include in their analyses.
- The reviewers asked the researchers to discuss the possibility of cross contamination, where providers might use skills that are part of one study arm with patients in another study arm, given that randomization was at the patient level. The researchers agreed that this was not an ideal randomization scheme for this study, but noted that alternate schemes where they might randomize by health system, clinic, or provider could create even more bias and confounding by community type or by clinic specialty.
- Has Results