Results Summary and Professional Abstract
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:
- Commenting on the relatively low rate of use of the electronic portal by parents and teachers, the reviewers suggested that focus groups might help elicit ideas for how to increase participation. The researchers replied that focus groups were beyond the scope of the current project but noted that they conducted interviews with 19 parents in the intervention arm.
- The reviewers asked whether the researchers were surprised to find that only 10 percent of children identified with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) ended up being eligible for the study and whether it might have been helpful to expand the intervention to a wider group, such as patients who were undergoing treatment by specialists. The researchers explained that they excluded most of the children who were not considered eligible for the study because the children’s primary care provider was not actively managing their ADHD in the prior year. This included patients who were managing their ADHD with outside providers or who had no ADHD care in the prior year. Another subset of patients was not eligible because they had one of a number of co-occurring conditions, such as autism. A small portion were not in the target age range of 5-12 years old.
- The reviewers asked for more discussion on the researchers’ speculations regarding whether care managers’ difficulty engaging some families in the intervention was related to the method of communication, i.e., electronic or in-person. The researchers expanded on this discussion, adding previous research describing the benefit of face-to-face sessions.
- The reviewers wondered what, if any, harms were associated with the intervention. The researchers said the harms they disclosed in their consent agreement were risk of exposure of confidential information and potential discomfort answering questions. The researchers said participants did not report experiencing either harm.
- The reviewers commented that the study description seemed to indicate that the communication interventions in this study would improve shared decision making, but there was little discussion in the report about shared decision making. In response, the researchers added content regarding how the tiered communication intervention would likely facilitate shared decision making, but they admitted that the study did not include a measure of the quality of shared decision making.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
Other Health Services Interventions
Training and Education Interventions