Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Related Journal Citations
Stories and Videos
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 questioned the researchers’ conclusions of treatment success given that the sample of study participants was limited to those who were most adherent to the study requirements and therefore likely to be most amenable to change their behaviors. The researchers acknowledged selection bias of study participants could have contributed to the overall positive results.
- The reviewers also disagreed with the researchers’ contention that there was a causal relationship between all three treatment conditions and participants’ improvement given the lack of a true control group, such as a group of participants receiving no care or usual care. The researchers initially acknowledged the lack of a control group in their revised report but did not remove their causal conclusions. The researchers explained that there have been several studies demonstrating the ineffectiveness of usual care in changing health behaviors, which the reviewers noted was a historical comparison and not as strong as a direct comparison in a randomized trial. The researchers eventually removed their conclusions about the effectiveness of all three treatment interventions given the lack of a control group.
- The reviewers noted that the report referenced the interventions as low cost but did not provide data to support that description. The researchers added a section on intervention costs to their methods and results sections and described the limitations to their cost-assessment methods in the discussion.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results
- Multiple/Comorbid Chronic Conditions
- Mental/Behavioral Health
- Muscular and Skeletal Disorders
- Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders
- Kidney Diseases
- Chronic Kidney Disease
- Cardiovascular Diseases
- Congestive Heart Failure
- Coronary or Ischemic Heart Disease
- Respiratory Diseases
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease