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:
- Reviewers asked whether the researchers considered using the completion of a course of pulmonary rehabilitation as the primary outcome for the trial. The researchers stated that they had not considered this alternate outcome but noted that completion of a course would be the same as 100 percent adherence. The report does present adherence comparisons between intervention arms to assess the effect of adherence on the chosen primary outcome, six-month hospitalization and death.
- The reviewers asked the researchers to provide justification for consenting participants twice: the researchers consented all participants before randomization to treatment, then participants randomized to the telehealth option provided consent a second time for that experimental condition. The researchers explained that this approach allowed them to collect participants’ consent to receive and complete repeat surveys and have their electronic health data tracked for the study. The researchers did not want to include the telehealth experimental condition in consents going to participants randomized to the standard care group because these participants might feel that they were losing out on the high-tech intervention and refuse to participate in the study.
- One reviewer asked the researchers to provide a better rationale for their hypothesis that telehealth-based pulmonary rehabilitation would have better outcomes than standard pulmonary rehabilitation. The researchers clarified that they actually hypothesized that referral to the telehealth option would have better outcomes than referral to the standard option because patients from Hispanic and African-American communities did not have adequate access to standard, clinic-based pulmonary rehabilitation.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Patient / Caregiver Partners
- Jose Leon
- Mercedes Leon
Other Stakeholder Partners
- Clara Londono, Urban Health Plan
- Has Results