Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Peer-Review Summary

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 asked the researchers to discuss in more detail the possibility that their inability to detect a significant difference in antibiotic prescribing between the high-intensity and low-intensity communication groups challenges the idea that more effective communication would necessarily reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. The researchers agreed that their findings may challenge the assumption that more intensive communication can meaningfully affect antibiotic prescription rates, at least in the context that they studied. However, the researchers pointed out that higher-intensity communication may have other benefits than the ones measured in this study.
  • The reviewers noted that there were two intervention arms in the study but no control arm reflecting standard care, which made it impossible to answer whether the interventions affected the rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The researchers agreed this is an important point and added a statement in their discussion section on future research about the need to include a control or no intervention arm to better determine the impact of communication on inappropriate prescribing.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Kathy Goggin, PhD
Children's Mercy Hospital
$2,078,452
10.25302/01.2021.CDR.150731759
Improving Clinician-Parent Communication to Reduce Antibiotic Misuse

Key Dates

April 2016
November 2020
2016
2020

Study Registration Information

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
Health Conditions Health Conditions These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them. View Glossary
Populations Populations PCORI is interested in research that seeks to better understand how different clinical and health system options work for different people. These populations are frequently studied in our portfolio or identified as being of interest by our stakeholders. View Glossary
Intervention Strategy Intervention Strategies PCORI funds comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) studies that compare two or more options or approaches to health care, or that compare different ways of delivering or receiving care. View Glossary
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: April 26, 2022