Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
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:
- Reviewers questioned the study conclusions indicating that one intervention was found to be better than the other on the main outcome. Reviewers explained that they believed this conclusion to be overstated because the two groups were not comparable at baseline and there was significant missing data. The researchers added text in multiple places acknowledging how group differences and missing data might have biased the study results and reminding the reader to consider the study results within these limitations.
- Some reviewers were skeptical about the actual engagement and consideration of patient stakeholders in establishing the research questions and the overall focus of the report because they perceived that less weight was given to patient-reported outcomes and the patient experience than to other outcomes. The study patient partners wrote a lengthy response to the reviewers describing their active involvement and explaining why some of the online materials for patients had not been updated once study recruitment ended. They also expanded the description of patient and stakeholder engagement in the report.
- Some reviewers hypothesized the missing data could be attributed to patients feeling stigmatized because they were being asked questions related to their opioid use, and that better patient engagement could have addressed this response from patients. The study patient partners acknowledged that some patients may have felt uncomfortable answering questions about their opioid use but that this was not because of poor patient engagement. The researchers pointed out that the goal of this study was to find the best ways to communicate with patients about the possibility of reducing their reliance on opioids.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Patient / Caregiver Partners
Penney Cowan, Founder & CEO, American Chronic Pain Association Tom Norris, Chronic Pain Patient & Chronic Pain Patient Advocate
Other Stakeholder Partners
Consumer Reports Health ABIM Foundation
- Has Results