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:
- Reviewers asked about the large number of study participants who did not engage in the treatments, especially participants in the care-as-usual arm. They asked whether the researchers had any thoughts about why there was so little engagement when participants had completed the consent and baseline assessment process. The researchers explained that their care-as-usual condition followed typical hospital procedures, which were to refer patients to social workers or other community agency so there would be very limited involvement of these individuals in the treatment arm. The researchers acknowledged that because they used intent-to-treat analyses they did not take treatment engagement into consideration but would consider looking more closely at this issue in future papers.
- One reviewer expressed concern about the small number of patient representatives on the study’s advisory board compared to healthcare professionals and researchers. The researchers explained that the Patient Leadership Team of three people was actually part of a larger organization of people who have experienced intimate partner violence but many of those individuals did not feel comfortable being public in the study. The researchers also noted the professional representatives on the larger community advisory board filled multiple roles as patients, representatives of underrepresented groups, and people living mental illness.
- Reviewers noted that the report did not address differences in intimate partner violence when the partners represent sexual minorities. The researchers acknowledged that this is an important way forward for research on intimate partner violence and said they would be writing a paper on this topic in the future.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Patient / Caregiver Partners
- Elaine Bell, Survivors Advocating for Effective Reform
- Ineabelle Geena Cruz, Survivors Advocating for Effective Reform
Other Stakeholder Partners
- Jaime Saunders, Willow Domestic Violence Center
- Allison O'Malley, RESOLVE of Greater Rochester, Inc.
- Has Results