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:
- The reviewers found the report to be a thorough description of a well-conducted study.
- The reviewers noted that the patient advisory board was made up of people who were able to invest a lot of hours to the project, and therefore was likely limited to people with more resources and that could afford to devote that much time to the study. They asked whether the patient advisory board accurately reflected the study participants. The researchers explained that they recruited advisory board members the same way they recruited study participants but acknowledged that individuals with multiple jobs and difficult work schedules might have found the time investment to be unmanageable. The researchers also stated that they tried to accommodate broad advisory board participation by having the meetings in the evening and offering different options for engaging in the intervention.
- The reviewers asked the researchers to consider whether the study results were dampened by common behavioral research problems like people entering research studies being more motivated to change their behavior, or at least trying to appear more engaged. The researchers acknowledged that these factors could be an issue that would affect the generalizability of their results.
- The reviewers asked about the engagement of primary care providers in the study, and whether the primary care providers treating study participants were aware of the study. The researchers described how they involved primary care providers at the beginning to introduce the study and also to give providers a chance to remove people from the contact lists if the clinicians felt a patient would not be appropriate for the study. The researchers acknowledged that they did not involve the primary care provider otherwise in the study, and that strengthening the collaboration with the provider would be worth testing in the future.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
^Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute was the original organization associated with this project.
- Has Results