Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
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:
- Reviewers noted that there were baseline differences in patient use of a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device between the two intervention groups, Proactive Care and Reactive Care. Reviewers were concerned that this imbalance indicated that randomization of patients to intervention groups did not work as intended and asked the researchers to speculate on the reasons for this imbalance. The researchers responded that there was no clear reason for this discrepancy in CPAP use, but it might have been related to their finding that a subgroup of CPAP users used the device both at night and during the day, and more of these individuals may have been randomly assigned to the Reactive Care group. The researchers did point out that there were no other significant differences between the two groups at baseline.
- Reviewers asked why the report did not describe the first two projects of the study: (1) convening focus groups to learn about the patient community, and (2) patient and stakeholder engagement activities. The researchers explained that there was not enough room in the report to describe those projects in detail, so the report focused on the comparative effectiveness question. However, the focus group work is provided as a draft manuscript in the report Appendix.
- The reviewers considered the possible reasons that there were no group differences in CPAP use between the two treatment groups, noting that the Reactive Care group had access to more information about CPAP use and the related chronic illnesses than might normally be available to patients using CPAP. The researchers agreed, reiterating their surprise about the high baseline CPAP adherence rates they identified when most studies found a partial CPAP use pattern. They added a comment in the report’s Discussion section that their study differed from other studies, because other studies typically compared the active intervention with an inactive intervention, whereas this study included a comparison intervention, Reactive Care, that could also be considered active.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
^David M. Mannino, MD, was the original principal investigator for this project.
- Has Results