© 2000 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 92, No. 3, 195-204,
February 2, 2000
© 2000 Oxford University Press
REVIEW |
Outcomes Research in Oncology: History, Conceptual Framework, and Trends in the Literature
Affiliations of authors: Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Department of Adult Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Correspondence to: Stephanie J. Lee, M.D., M.P.H., Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney St., Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: stephanie_lee{at}dfci.harvard.edu).
Reprint requests to: Jane C. Weeks, M.D., M.Sc., Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney St., Boston, MA 02115.
"Outcomes research" is a commonly used term, but what does it really mean? In this review article, we 1) briefly review the historic background of outcomes research, paying particular attention to the social and political movements that helped shape the field; 2) present a conceptual framework to help classify the major areas of research and provide a working definition of outcomes research; and 3) review the oncology literature in the English language from 1966 through 1998 to examine temporal trends and characterize the body of work being presented to the practicing oncology community. We conclude that outcomes research is a broad concept, which, in its current usage, describes an array of distinct types of research. However, common themes are apparent when outcomes research is viewed in the context of its historic origins and is contrasted with other established disciplines, especially clinical trials. Our literature review shows that outcomes studies are increasing in absolute numbers, in relative proportion of the oncology literature, and in quality. We suggest that as different branches of investigation develop their own literature and methodologyin effect, outgrowing the generic label of outcomes researchthey become identified by separate, more precise terms.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. Tondini, P Fenaroli, and R Labianca Breast cancer follow-up: just a burden, or much more? Ann. Onc., September 1, 2007; 18(9): 1431 - 1432. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Tassinari, B. Poggi, E. Tamburini, M. Fantini, S. Nicoletti, and S. Sartori Quality of care in clinical oncology: from the dreamworld to the real world of outcome assessment Ann. Onc., January 1, 2006; 17(1): 177 - 178. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Lipscomb, M. S. Donaldson, and R. A. Hiatt Cancer Outcomes Research and the Arenas of Application J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2004; 2004(33): 1 - 7. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Z. Ayanian, E. A. Chrischilles, R. B. Wallace, R. H. Fletcher, M. N. Fouad, C. I. Kiefe, D. P. Harrington, J. C. Weeks, K. L. Kahn, J. L. Malin, et al. Understanding Cancer Treatment and Outcomes: The Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2004; 22(15): 2992 - 2996. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. J. Smith and B. E. Hillner Ensuring Quality Cancer Care by the Use of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Critical Pathways J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2001; 19(11): 2886 - 2897. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. C. Hodgson, C. S. Fuchs, and J. Z. Ayanian Impact of Patient and Provider Characteristics on the Treatment and Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, April 4, 2001; 93(7): 501 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||



