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 asked for clarification on what patient sample the researchers used in developing their predictive model, since the researchers stated that the predictive model was developed in a separate methodology project. The researchers clarified that while they developed the predictive model in another PCORI-funded project, the data came from the same patient sample as the current project.
- The reviewers suggested that the researchers expand their discussion of the interaction between affordable care organizations and case management, asking whether there were aspects of the affordable care organizations that affected the quality of the care management services. The researchers responded that this study could not answer this question. In truth, they said that patients mostly wanted to find a key point person to help them navigate health services and did not really consider the relevance of the affordable care organization structure or of being part of a large health system.
- The reviewers suggested that the report’s conclusions overstated the importance of the social work case management intervention given the results of the project, which did not demonstrate significant differences between groups based on availability of the intervention. The researchers revised the conclusions to instead suggest that patients viewed social work as important for patient engagement in their health care. The researchers also noted in their response to reviewers that a finding of no difference was not the same as no value, since patients and providers viewed the case management intervention as being of high value.
- One reviewer questioned the threshold the researchers applied to patient characteristics they used to match case management participants to controls. In this study, the researchers allowed matching covariates to vary up to 25 percent between the case and the control, but the reviewer noted that a more common threshold was 10 percent variation between case and control. The researchers pointed out their sample size was not large enough for a 10 percent threshold to be possible. In addition, the researchers noted that even in randomized samples there are likely to be a few covariates that vary 25 percent or more. The researchers also noted that in their analyses, they accounted for potential confounding from covariates that varied to this level.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Study Registration Information
- Has Results