Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
More to Explore...
Related PCORI-funded Research 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:
- Some reviewers indicated that the lack of significant differences between the two weight-loss interventions and the high participant attrition rate were a result of inadequate engagement of community members in the study. The reviewers interpreted the report’s description of patient and stakeholder engagement to indicate that there was considerable disagreement and debate in the community regarding this study. The researchers disagreed with the reviewers, stating that healthy debate indicated strong community engagement and partnership and that changes made to the study protocol indicated a successful collaboration where both researchers and stakeholders listened to each other’s ideas and concerns.
- The researchers requested more discussion about the implications of the study results, particularly the lack of effect for the two weight-loss interventions based on the Diabetes Prevention Program in this population. The reviewers hypothesized that this lack of effect indicated problems with intervention delivery, low participant and community engagement, and high rates of missing data. The researchers expanded their discussion around potential reasons for the lack of significant findings in this study. They stated that the findings are most likely related to the well-known difficulties with losing weight, compounded by social, economic, and environmental barriers to weight loss in the Marshallese population.
- The reviewers asked for clarification on how the researchers accounted for cluster in these analyses, since participants were clustered within churches and each church was randomized to one intervention or the other. The reviewers hypothesized that the sample size did not provide enough power to detect differences between groups because cluster was not taken into account in the power analyses. The researchers assured reviewers that they did consider clustering in all of their longitudinal analyses and in their power calculations and that the observed differences in outcomes between the two groups were too small to be considered significant.
- The reviewers questioned the researchers’ approach to accounting for missing data because the reviewers did not believe missing data could be considered missing at random since they were connected to study attrition. In response the researchers ran additional analyses that demonstrated no differences in the results based on whether the data were thought to be missing at random.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results