Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Nov 9:13:135.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-135.

Perspectives on neurological patient registries: a literature review and focus group study

Lawrence Korngut  1 , Gail MacKean, Lisa Casselman, Megan Johnston, Lundy Day, Darren Lam, Diane Lorenzetti, Janet Warner, Nathalie Jetté, Tamara Pringsheim
Affiliations
Review

Perspectives on neurological patient registries: a literature review and focus group study

Lawrence Korngut et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Patient registries represent a well-established methodology for prospective data collection with a wide array of applications for clinical research and health care administration. An examination and synthesis of registry stakeholder perspectives has not been previously reported in the literature.

Methods: To inform the development of future neurological registries we examined stakeholder perspectives about such registries through a literature review followed by 3 focus groups comprised of a total of 15 neurological patients and 12 caregivers.

Results: (1) LITERATURE REVIEW: We identified 6,435 abstracts after duplicates were removed. Of these, 410 articles underwent full text review with 24 deemed relevant to perspectives about neurological and non-neurological registries and were included in the final synthesis. From a patient perspective the literature supports altruism, responsible use of data and advancement of research, among others, as motivating factors for participating in a patient registry. Barriers to participation included concerns about privacy and participant burden (i.e. extra clinic visits and associated costs). (2) Focus groups: The focus groups identified factors that would encourage participation such as: having a clear purpose; low participant burden; and being well-managed among others.

Conclusions: We report the first examination and synthesis of stakeholder perspectives on registries broadly with a specific focus on neurological patient registries. The findings of the broad literature review were congruent with the neurological patient and caregiver focus groups. We report common themes across the literature and the focus groups performed. Stakeholder perspectives need to be considered when designing and operating patient registries. Emphasizing factors that promote participation and mitigating barriers may enhance patient recruitment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Registry literature review flowchart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Outcome Sciences Inc. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: A user’s guide. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2010. - PubMed
    1. Dreyer NA, Garner S. Registries for robust evidence. JAMA. 2009;302(7):790–791. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1092. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Caesar-Chavannes CR, MacDonald S. National population health study of neurological conditions in Canada. Chronic Dis Inj Can. 2013;33(3) in press. - PubMed
    1. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.; 1967.
    1. Farooqi A, Smith JF, Lakhani M, Meakin C, Sorrie R, Ashmore S. The impact and acceptability of a central register on the standard of monitoring of lithium therapy: Professional and patient perspectives. J Clin Governance. 2002;10(3):121–126.

Publication types