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:
- The reviewers stated that the causal model underlying the research question was not well-specified, so the hypothesized pathway between the intervention and outcomes was not clear. The researchers clarified that they based their framework on the Chronic Care Model and added text to the report explaining this model and how it was used for this study.
- The reviewers asked the researchers to provide more detail on their methods, such as how they blinded providers and study participants to the interventions. The researchers explained that the clinics were randomized to an intervention so all providers and participants in a clinic experienced the same intervention. Therefore, providers and study participants were not blinded to condition, but the people assessing outcomes were.
- The reviewers disagreed with the researchers’ conclusions about the generalizability of their results. The reviewers noted that the researchers implemented a novel intervention in a single health system. Therefore, the reviewers did not consider this study to be pragmatic. The researchers edited the report by further emphasizing the limited generalizability of the study and by removing any reference to this study being pragmatic.
- The reviewers noted that the researchers did not conduct a pilot study to test the acceptability of the novel intervention, which might have informed the researchers about the potential for low uptake. The researchers acknowledged that they did not conduct a formal pilot study, but they did test the intervention in a different clinic shortly before the study began and found no problems with update. In the report, they commented that it would have been useful to complete a longitudinal pilot study in several clinics before implementing the full study.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results