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 pointed out that one of the aims of the project was to assess the patient perspective on family training for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but patients were not consented directly and did not answer questions directly. Instead, the researchers asked the family members how the patients felt. The researchers acknowledged that the study was missing direct patient feedback, and this was a weakness of the study.
- The reviewers asked the researchers to explain why the number of skills check visits was different from the number of skills checks recorded. The researchers explained that participants would come to the visit, but some declined to perform the skills check, most likely because they were not prepared at the time.
- The reviewers noted that year of study (year 1 or year 2) was included in the analyses and asked the researchers to explain what was different between years 1 and 2 of the study. The researchers indicated that there were no substantive differences in study approach or study sample between these two years, but they had included year of study as a covariate just to make sure that they accounted for any unmeasured changes between year 1 and year 2 that might have affected participant willingness to enroll in or complete the study.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results