TY - JOUR
T1 - Informing a national rare disease registry strategy in Australia
T2 - a mixed methods study
AU - Ruseckaite, Rasa
AU - Caruso, Marisa
AU - Mudunna, Chethana
AU - Helwani, Falak
AU - Millis, Nicole
AU - Ahern, Susannah
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to acknowledge the organisational support provided by the Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee of Rare Voices Australia. We also thank survey and interview participants for their time and participation in the study.
Funding Information:
This research was funded by Rare Voices Australia.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/10/31
Y1 - 2023/10/31
N2 - Background: Rare disease registries (RDRs) facilitate monitoring of rare diseases by pooling small datasets to increase clinical and epidemiological knowledge of rare diseases and promote patient centred best practice. The aim of this study was to understand the current state of RDRs in Australia, data captured, impact on patient outcomes, funding models, and barriers and enablers regarding their establishment and maintenance. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed methods study design was adopted. First, a list of Australian RDRs, primary contacts and data custodians was generated through online and consumer group (Rare Voices Australia (RVA)) contacts. A cross-sectional, anonymous online survey was distributed to registry custodians, managers, or principal investigators of 74 identified Australian RDRs, 88 RVA Partners, 17 pharmaceutical organizations and 12 RVA Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee members. Next, managers and coordinators of RDRs and databases who participated in the survey were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using basic descriptive statistics and content analysis, respectively. Results: Forty RDRs responded to the survey; nine were national, five were based in Australia and New Zealand, and the remaining were global. Of the 40 survey respondents, eight were interviewed. Most of the RDRs captured similar information regarding patient characteristics, comorbidities and clinical features, diagnosis, family history, genetic testing, procedures or treatment types, response to treatments and complications of treatments. Better treatment outcomes, changes in process of care and changes in quality of care were the most frequently reported benefits of the RDRs. The main challenges proved to be cost/funding of data collection, data completeness, and patient consent. When asked, the participants identified opportunities and challenges regarding potential options to streamline RDRs in Australia in the future. Conclusion: Findings from this study highlighted significant dataset heterogeneity based on the individual disease, and current lack of interoperability and coordination between different existing RDRs in Australia. Nevertheless, a nationally coordinated approach to RDRs should be investigated given the particular benefits RDRs offer, such as access to research and the monitoring of new disease-modifying treatments.
AB - Background: Rare disease registries (RDRs) facilitate monitoring of rare diseases by pooling small datasets to increase clinical and epidemiological knowledge of rare diseases and promote patient centred best practice. The aim of this study was to understand the current state of RDRs in Australia, data captured, impact on patient outcomes, funding models, and barriers and enablers regarding their establishment and maintenance. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed methods study design was adopted. First, a list of Australian RDRs, primary contacts and data custodians was generated through online and consumer group (Rare Voices Australia (RVA)) contacts. A cross-sectional, anonymous online survey was distributed to registry custodians, managers, or principal investigators of 74 identified Australian RDRs, 88 RVA Partners, 17 pharmaceutical organizations and 12 RVA Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee members. Next, managers and coordinators of RDRs and databases who participated in the survey were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using basic descriptive statistics and content analysis, respectively. Results: Forty RDRs responded to the survey; nine were national, five were based in Australia and New Zealand, and the remaining were global. Of the 40 survey respondents, eight were interviewed. Most of the RDRs captured similar information regarding patient characteristics, comorbidities and clinical features, diagnosis, family history, genetic testing, procedures or treatment types, response to treatments and complications of treatments. Better treatment outcomes, changes in process of care and changes in quality of care were the most frequently reported benefits of the RDRs. The main challenges proved to be cost/funding of data collection, data completeness, and patient consent. When asked, the participants identified opportunities and challenges regarding potential options to streamline RDRs in Australia in the future. Conclusion: Findings from this study highlighted significant dataset heterogeneity based on the individual disease, and current lack of interoperability and coordination between different existing RDRs in Australia. Nevertheless, a nationally coordinated approach to RDRs should be investigated given the particular benefits RDRs offer, such as access to research and the monitoring of new disease-modifying treatments.
KW - Interviews
KW - National strategy
KW - Rare diseases
KW - Registry
KW - Survey
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85175676027&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12913-023-10049-x
DO - 10.1186/s12913-023-10049-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 37907945
AN - SCOPUS:85175676027
SN - 1472-6963
VL - 23
JO - BMC Health Services Research
JF - BMC Health Services Research
IS - 1
M1 - 1187
ER -