The Cost-Quality Trade-Off

Need for Data Quality Standards for Studies That Impact Clinical Practice and Health Policy

Published in: Journal of Clinical Oncology, v. 23, no. 21, Editorial, July 20, 2005, p. 4581-4584

Posted on on January 01, 2005

by Jennifer Malin, Nancy L. Keating

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Observational studies of cancer patients often rely on existing administrative data such as insurance claims and cancer registry data. As researchers began to supplement administrative data with patient self-reported data or medical record review, limitations in the validity of these easily obtainable data sets began to emerge. Therefore, it is important to consider the accuracy of data obtained from various sources and whether trading highly accurate data for lower costs is acceptable, based on the intended use of the data. When weighing the advantages and disadvantages of data from various sources, the intended use for the data becomes an important consideration. Some uses of data may require less accuracy than others. Given the variety of available data sources and the differing uses of data, minimum standards of acceptable data quality are needed to assure the validity of data collection efforts with the potential to influence clinical care or policy. Decisions made by payors, lawmakers and other stakeholders have the potential for tremendous impact on health outcomes and should be made with the best available evidence.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.