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 were impressed with the researchers’ transparency regarding the problems they faced implementing this study and their willingness to discuss the lessons learned.
- One reviewer questioned the impetus for this research, questioning the need to conduct a large randomized controlled trial comparing physician palliative care home visits to physicians meeting with patients using telehealth with registered nurses conducting home visits. The researchers acknowledged that in the postpandemic environment it may not seem as necessary to test whether patient outcomes are the same with in-person and telehealth care, but when the study was initially devised and conducted this was the major question in the field.
- The reviewers suggested that many of the problems the researchers faced could have been uncovered using a different study design instead of implementing a full-scale randomized controlled trial. The researchers agreed that in hindsight, a stepped wedge research design could have given them more warning about some of the obstacles they would face in implementing the study. However, the researchers noted that such a design would be less appropriate to evaluate comparative effectiveness and more appropriate to evaluate how the telehealth intervention could be integrated in a palliative care practice. The stepped wedge design would also not have solved some of the challenges they faced with this study, including technological challenges and workforce shortages.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results
- Multiple/Comorbid Chronic Conditions
- Cardiovascular Diseases
- Congestive Heart Failure
- Kidney Diseases
- Renal Failure
- Chronic Kidney Disease
- Liver Diseases
- Liver Failure
- Mental/Behavioral Health
- Mild Cognitive Impairment
- Neurological Disorders
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Respiratory Diseases
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease