Quality of life research: types of publication output over time for cancer patients, a systematic review

Abstract

To examine the type of published research regarding quality of life for cancer patients over two 24-month periods: 1995-1996 and 2005-2006. A computer-based literature search was conducted using Medline. Two random samples of 120 publications identified in 1995-1996 and in 2005-2006 were coded as data-based research, reviews or programme descriptions. Data-based publications were further coded as measurement, descriptive or intervention research. Intervention publications were coded as psychosocial- or biomedical-based. Psychosocial intervention papers were coded using Cochrane Review criteria. In 1995-1996, 419 publications were identified and 1271 publications in 2005-2006. The majority of publications were data-based. The proportion of types of publications (data-based, reviews or programme description/case report categories) did not change significantly over time. Descriptive research dominated data-based publication outputs in 1995-1996 and 2005-2006. The current approach to quality of life research for cancer patients may be less than optimal for providing successful development of knowledge, improving healthcare delivery and lessening the burden of suffering.

Smoking and Mental Illness: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Output Over Time

“…It has been suggested in other fields of research that the predominance of descriptive research may be associated with advantages it offers for researchers in terms of greater convenience, productivity, and lower cost. 23,[28][29][30] Possible strategies to promote a greater focus on intervention research may include for instance such research being weighted more favorably by journal editors and/or in academic promotion criteria. 55 Further, it might be speculated that a lack of policy-driven or translation-focused research funding, in comparison to investigator driven research funding, may have contributed, 55 or that "smoking and mental illness" may not fit neatly into any one area of funding and so to some extent risk falling into a "funding gap."…”

“…To determine the focus of each data-based publication, such publications were categorized, based on a classification commonly adopted in other bibliometric reviews, 23,[27][28][29][30] as either:…”

“…23,36 Such analyses have been used to critically examine the progression of research in many fields including Indigenous 28 and rural 37 health, alcohol misuse, 27 physical activity and falls prevention, 23 and cancer. 30,[38][39][40] The outcomes of a number of such studies have demonstrated a lack of progression over time, concluding that this may contribute to a lack of impact on public health outcomes. 23,27,40 For example, no change in the proportion of data-based and non-data-based research surrounding the delivery of multidisciplinary cancer care was reported between 1997-2001 and 2002-2006.…”

“…[23][24][25] A number of frameworks have been suggested for how such progress might be conceptualized or measured, including the Sequential Model proposed by Nutbeam and colleagues 24,25 and Flay's Eight Phases of Research. 26 It has been proposed that over time there needs to be an increasing focus on data-based studies (collecting new information) as opposed to nondata-based studies [27][28][29][30] ; and on intervention research as opposed to descriptive research. 23,[27][28][29][30] Further, it has been suggested that intervention-focused research should increasingly utilize research designs that provide high-level evidence (including randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and systematic reviews), 23,28 and move beyond examining efficacy under optimal or controlled conditions to examining effectiveness and implementation in new populations and settings under real-world conditions.…”

“…26 It has been proposed that over time there needs to be an increasing focus on data-based studies (collecting new information) as opposed to nondata-based studies [27][28][29][30] ; and on intervention research as opposed to descriptive research. 23,[27][28][29][30] Further, it has been suggested that intervention-focused research should increasingly utilize research designs that provide high-level evidence (including randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and systematic reviews), 23,28 and move beyond examining efficacy under optimal or controlled conditions to examining effectiveness and implementation in new populations and settings under real-world conditions. [23][24][25]31,32 One recently proposed framework has conceptualized this progression of research as occurring over five phases of research translation: T0 to T4.…”