Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
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 praised the researchers on describing the factors that are likely to contribute to Black patients being more likely to decline some evidence-based treatments but recommended that the researchers also acknowledge the importance of structural racism within the US health care system and how this has contributed to distrust of the health system by some Black patients. The researchers added a section on structural racism and its impacts on health disparities and doctor-patient shared decision making.
- The reviewers asked for clarification on which study participants, patients or clinicians, were blinded to intervention status, and when. The researchers explained that patients were blinded to the difference between the two videos but the clinicians were not. The statistical analysis was blinded until data collection was closed. The researchers added to their study limitations the possible effect of lack of blinding on the study results.
- Some reviewers questioned the researchers’ recommendations to disseminate the decision support videos presented in this study given the lack of significant effect. The researchers noted that decisional conflict was reduced and trended toward statistical significance, and there was no evidence of harm related to this intervention. Therefore, the researchers felt it was reasonable to consider disseminating the intervention given the acknowledged need for a decision support tool to help patients better understand the benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy to prevent cardiac arrest.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results