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 noted the high level of patient engagement and satisfaction described in the report and advised the researchers to discuss this more fully and how patient engagement could be related to intervention effectiveness. The researchers added information to the report about their community advisory board’s influence on the study, including intervention refinement and study implementation, which they believed contributed to the high patient satisfaction.
- The reviewers asked the researchers to address their questions about missing data analyses because there was not enough information provided in the report. The researchers expanded their discussion of missing data analyses for each aim. They explained their reasoning for using complete case analysis and added some sensitivity analyses controlling for baseline variables that appeared to be related to missingness. The researchers also stated that they had minimal loss of power given the low level of missing data and therefore chose not to conduct additional sensitivity analyses or multiple imputation, a more robust method for accounting for missing data.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Patient / Caregiver Partners
- Sandra Bailey
- Beatrice Cork
- Thomas Griffin
- Juan Lagunes
- Ruth Lambert
- Sylvia Strom
Other Stakeholder Partners
- Hala Fatima, MBBS, Eskenazi Health
- Kimberly Mitchell, RN, Eskenazi Health
- Has Results