Skip Navigation

JNCI Monographs 2004 2004(33):142-154; doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgh020
© 2004 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clauser, S. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clauser, S. B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

2004 © Oxford University Press

Article

Use of Cancer Performance Measures in Population Health: A Macro-level Perspective

Steven B. Clauser

Correspondence to: Steven B. Clauser, PhD, Acting Chief, Outcomes Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7344, EPN Room 4005, Bethesda, MD 20892-7344 (e-mail: clausers{at}mail.nih.gov).

The use of performance measurement to inform macro-level studies of cancer control and quality of care is receiving increasing interest at the state, national, and international level. This article describes the use of these measures to inform health policy and monitor cancer disparities and disease burden. Applications are discussed in clinical and provider-reported outcomes such as cancer incidence, mortality and survival, and outcome-linked processes of care, and patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction/experience with care. The use of economic measures to monitor and evaluate the burden of illness is also discussed. The growing demand for surveillance capability coupled with the need to expand both the quality and breadth of available measure sets, suggests that there is a need to supplement traditional clinical and provider-reported process and outcomes measures with patient-reported outcomes measures such as health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction and experience with care. In addition, there is also a need to broaden and standardize outcome-linked process-of-care measures to improve the ability to measure and monitor incremental progress in improving cancer care. Finally, better measures of indirect costs of cancer care, such as loss productivity and caregiver burden among the aged, would improve national estimates of the cost of illness associated with cancer.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CA Cancer J ClinHome page
J. Lipscomb, C. C. Gotay, and C. F. Snyder
Patient-reported Outcomes in Cancer: A Review of Recent Research and Policy Initiatives
CA Cancer J Clin, September 1, 2007; 57(5): 278 - 300.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Natl Cancer Inst MonogrHome page
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]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.