Final Research Report
This project's final research report is expected to be available by September 2024.
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 requested more information on how the researchers monitored treatment fidelity given that they allowed sites to skip some steps or strategies in the intervention toolkit. The researchers explained that although they did obtain some information on toolkit completion for administrative purposes, analysis of treatment fidelity was beyond the scope of this study. Further, the researchers noted that the pragmatic nature of this study precluded their ability to assess whether study participants who received all elements of the toolkit fared better than participants who did not.
- The reviewers questioned the approach the researchers took to assess the effect of missing data and whether the lack of significant differences between treatment groups could be the result of missing outcomes for a number of study participants. The researchers countered that their lost-to-follow-up rate was quite low given the pragmatic nature of the study, and that their approach to analyzing the effects of missing data did not indicate that this was a cause for the lack of difference between treatment groups.
- The reviewers asked the researchers to expand on the lessons learned and next steps for this research area, particularly related to the usefulness of integrated behavioral health (IBH). The researchers clarified that there is considerable evidence supporting IBH care despite the limited impact of their toolkit on the integration of this model into a range of clinical settings. Different study designs or focus on specific elements of the toolkit might provide more robust results.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results
- Cardiovascular Diseases
- Coronary or Ischemic Heart Disease
- Congestive Heart Failure
- Kidney Diseases
- Chronic Kidney Disease
- Mental/Behavioral Health
- Addiction/Substance Abuse
- Neurological Disorders
- Chronic Pain
- Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders
- Respiratory Diseases
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
- Multiple/Comorbid Chronic Conditions