In general, the "Getting the Word Out" draft strikes a reasonable balance between getting the results of PCORI-funded research into use in day-to-day clinical practice while maintaining the ability of investigators to publish results in peer-reviewed journals. However, several additional steps could be considered, as listed below.
Once the lay abstract, the medical abstract, the key table, and ancillary information are posted on the PCORI website, "push" notification should be sent to individuals and groups who would benefit from having this information. Patient organizations, guideline development committees, and organizations developing decision support would all benefit from an early "heads up" about PCORI research results. Consider a subscription list, as the constituencies interested in research results are likely different than subscribers to the current PCORI newsletters and emails.
To reduce the average time window between the final report being accepted and publication of the results in a peer-reviewed journal (allowing the final report to be released), PCORI should consider developing a relationship with several high-quality journals to facilitate "rapid review" of submitted papers. Some journals pay reviewers for a very rapid turnaround of submitted papers (within 48 hours, for example). These journals might be convinced to begin with the PCORI methodologic and content reviews of the final report to "jumpstart" the peer-review process. For investigators, would PCORI consider a modest incentive payment if an investigator gets the main paper from the research submitted say, within 1 month of the acceptance of the draft report (no reason they can't be prepared in parallel)?
PCORI and AHRQ clearly recognize that uptake of research into practice will require more than publication of articles in journals and reports on web sites. To achieve the greatest impact, research results will need to be incorporated into decision support tools for clinicians and patients for use in "real time" as management decisions are made in routine clinical practice. Such tools need to be accurate, up-to-date, unbiased, and delivered as part of the electronic workflow of modern health care.