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 asked for more information about the bachelor’s-trained care advocates in this study, noting that the report was inconsistent in the terminology used to refer to these individuals and it would be helpful for readers to understand their role better to determine whether these care advocates could fit into a variety of clinical settings. To provide greater clarity, the researchers renamed the care advocates “bachelor-level providers” and added information to the report regarding these providers’ training in depression care. The researchers also explained that they did not monitor care sessions closely because this was an effectiveness study; therefore, they wanted to test the intervention in the most real-world environment as possible.
- The reviewers were unclear on what the researchers considered an episode of depression since the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology was measured at multiple intervals.
- The reviewers disagreed with the report’s conclusions that the Engagement-Focused Care Coordination intervention was preferable to the Problem Solving Education condition since the finding was mostly due to depression rates in the comparator group rather than changes in depression in the intervention group. The researchers revised their conclusions to point out the lack of differences between the two groups but felt that without a true control group they could not consider whether the continued presence of depressive symptoms among participants in both treatment groups meant that the treatments did not work.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results