Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Results of This Project
Related Journal Citations
Stories and Videos
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 one stated goal of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of community health workers (CHWs) leading the intervention, but the effectiveness could not be measured because there was no comparison group. The reviewers stated that the lack of a control group made it difficult to discern whether the weight loss was due to the intervention or just to change over time. The researchers removed language attributing the weight loss to the intervention based on the reviewers’ feedback, but pointed out that it was unlikely that the weight loss was actually due to change over time or regression to the mean, since Black women, the target group for this study, tend to gain more weight over time rather than lose weight.
- The reviewers were also concerned about the analyses for the second study aim comparing two weight loss interventions where a significant percentage of the study sample had no follow-up. This resulted in an analysis that could not follow the intent-to-treat analysis preferred in clinical comparative research. The researchers revised their report to acknowledge that there was no way to determine whether the women who stayed in the study were different in some way from the women who did not participate, creating the potential for bias in the result.
- The reviewers questioned the researchers’ conclusions related to integration of CHWs into health care teams in order to deliver the culturally sensitive weight loss intervention. The reviewers felt that the study sample was too small and that the outcome measure was not designed to measure integration as the research team hoped. The researchers revised this section and presented their findings as qualitative and exploratory, describing individual CHW experiences rather than using a quantitative measure of integration.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results