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:
- The reviewers noted that the researchers highlighted improvements in study outcomes within treatment groups and touted descriptive information they considered to be clinically important. The reviewers asked the researchers to downplay these results and focus on between-groups differences that were the main aims and hypotheses of the project. The researchers clarified multiple times in the text that the between-groups outcomes were not significant and that the other results were more exploratory but maintained that they needed to report all of the results of the study, not just those related to the comparative effectiveness aim.
- The reviewers cautioned the researchers regarding their interpretation of study results, given the level of missing data for study outcomes. The researchers disagreed that conclusions could not be made since they demonstrated in sensitivity analyses that missing data had little to no impact on study results.
- One reviewer questioned whether there were any harms to study participants related to the interventions. The researchers added a section to the report on harms based on adverse event reporting, quality of life, and parents’ exit interviews.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Patient / Caregiver Partners
- Wanda Bredlove, Parent Advisory Team
- Tia Yancey, Parent Advisory Team
- Pamela Carter-Taylor, Parent Advisory Team
- Misty Roveta, Parent Advisory Team
- Arcelia Carnes, Parent Advisory Team
Other Stakeholder Partners
- Jamie Zoellner, University of Virginia
- Paul Estabrooks, University of Nebraska Medical Center
- Wen You, Virginia Tech
- Jennie Hill, University of Nebraska Medical Center
- Donna Brock, University of Virginia
- Bryan Price, University of Virginia
- Jason Bookheimer, Danville Parks and Recreation
- Deanna Jones, Children's Health Care Center
- Kimberly Wiles, Children's Health Care Center
^This study was affiliated with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University when it was initially awarded.
- Has Results