Final Research Report
This project's final research report is expected to be available by December 2022.
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 noted that not all of the cross-sectional designs discussed in the report would result in all participants receiving the intervention, despite the researchers’ claims that this is a particular advantage of stepped-wedge research designs like those discussed in the report. The researchers revised the report to specify that all participants would receive the intervention only in closed-cohort, stepped-wedge trials where additional participants are not added to the cohort over time.
- The reviewers asked the researchers to describe further how suggestions from their stakeholder advisory panel tied into the sample size and analytic design research in this study. The researchers explained that stakeholder input was not necessarily directly related to sample size calculation or stepped-wedge methods, but to how this research could affect the timeliness or usefulness of study results.
- The reviewers questioned if the methods developed were based on independence estimating equations and the researchers were inconsistent in their acknowledgments of the potential limitations using this approach. The researchers clarified the report by referring to generalized estimating equations instead of independence estimating equations throughout. They also provided additional simulation results comparing their method using generalized estimating equations to other analytic methods and demonstrating that the researchers’ methods are robust, even in cases where the distribution of scores does not follow a normal distribution.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Study Registration Information
- Has Results