Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
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 although the study went through modification of the study aims and analyses due to poor accrual and follow-up rates; the researchers did not seem to consider the study modifications in their rationale for the project. The researchers modified the background of the final report to better explain the importance of sociodemographic and contextual factors in developing interventions for postemergency department follow-up mental health care, aligning the background section better with the rest of the report.
- The reviewers expressed concern about the reporting and handling of missing data, noting that the quantitative portion of the study began with 326 participants but only 316 were in the data analysis, suggesting a violation of the intention-to-treat principle of analysis. The researchers explained that after participants provided informed consent and were assigned to one of the two study arms, 10 informed consent forms were not returned to the study team from the emergency departments where the researchers recruited the patients from, so these 10 patients could not be included in either the intervention or analysis.
- The reviewers said it was not clear how the study integrated findings from its quantitative and qualitative portions. The researchers said that for their revised protocol, the qualitative portion of the study focused on what in general helped or hindered patients’ engagement with treatment after emergency department discharge, rather than focusing on how the effect of the type of provider who helped serve as an intermediary to future services. The researchers said it was not possible to formally integrate findings from the qualitative and quantitative study components because the quantitative intervention was complete when the modified qualitative protocol was developed.
- The reviewers asked how the study handled missing data at the six-month point for the number of emergency department readmissions and inpatient visits and asked what strategies researchers used to promote study retention. The researchers said that they used statistical techniques, including multiple imputation, to account for the missing data but said there were no significant differences between patients with and without missing sixth-month data.
- For the qualitative portion of the study, the reviewers asked if the variation in interview length, 15-60 minutes, was a problem. The researchers said they were limited by the time that participants were able to provide, but the researchers felt that they had enough participant interviews to reach thematic saturation, despite the interviews’ short length.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Patient / Caregiver Partners
No information provided by awardee.
Other Stakeholder Partners
Meera Narasimhan, University of South Carolina John Magill, South Carolina Department of Mental Health
- Has Results