Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39604990›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

How to establish and sustain a disease registry: insights from a qualitative study of six disease registries in the UK.

Edmund Stubbs, Josephine Exley, Raphael Wittenberg, Nicholas Mays

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Congenital anomaly registers in Australia: A national challenge.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Edmund StubbsPolicy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Josephine ExleyDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Raphael WittenbergPolicy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Nicholas MaysDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. Nicholas.Mays@lshtm.ac.uk.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research PR-PRU-1217-20602
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe advent of new chronic conditions such as long COVID-19 raises the question of whether and, if so, how best to establish new disease registries for such conditions. Prompted by the potential need for a long COVID-19 registry, we examined experiences of existing UK disease registries to understand barriers and enablers to establishing and sustaining a register, and how these have changed over time.

methodsWe undertook semi-structured interviews between November 2022 and April 2023 with individuals representing six disease registries that collect individual-level longitudinal data on people diagnosed with a chronic condition.

resultsRegistries examined were developed by a few individuals, usually clinicians, to gain a greater understanding of the disease. Patient voices were largely absent from initial agenda setting processes, but, over time, all registries sought to increase patient involvement. Securing long-term funding was cited as the biggest challenge; due to limited funds, one of the registries examined no longer actively recruits patients. Charities devoted to the diseases in question were key funders, though most registries also sought commercial opportunities. Inclusion on the NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio was also considered a vital resource to support recruitment and follow-up of participants. All registries have sought to minimise the primary data collected to reduce the burden on clinicians and patients, increasingly relying on linkage to other data sources. Several registries have developed consent procedures that enable participants to be contacted for additional data collection. In some cases, the initial patient consent and data sharing permissions obtained had limited the flexibility to adapt the registry to changing data needs. Finally, there was a need to foster buy-in from the community of patients and clinicians who provide and/or use the data.

conclusionWe identified six key considerations when establishing a sustainable disease registry: (1) include a diverse set of stakeholders; (2) involve patients at every stage; (3) collect a core data set for all participants; (4) ensure the data system is flexible and interoperable with the wider data landscape; (5) anticipate changing data needs over time; and (6) identify financial opportunities to sustain the registry's activities for the long term.

Indexed as

COVID-19Qualitative ResearchRegistriesChronic DiseaseHumansUnited KingdomChronic conditionsDisease registryHealth research data and infrastructureLong COVID-19Patient registry

Identifiers

PMID39604990
PMCPMC11603652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.