Abstract 1727P
Background
Oncology databases/cancer registries can help facilitate quality cancer care and novel research. Their maintenance remains challenging in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). We explored barriers and facilitators of oncology database maintenance in Ukraine.
Methods
We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of oncology physicians at the Ukraine National Cancer Institute (NCI) to explore barriers and facilitators of oncology database data entry and use. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed via hybrid analysis.
Results
13 physicians were interviewed, including 6 (46%) junior and 7 (54%) senior NCI faculty. All were aware of local or international oncology databases. 10 (77%) entered patient data into them, including 7 (54%) to international and 8 (62%) to local databases. 6 (69%) thought that most of their oncology colleagues in Ukraine are not aware of the existence or value of cancer databases. The following themes have been identified: perceived benefits of cancer databases included improving patient care, research, standardizing clinical practice, care monitoring, and quality improvement. Obstacles of data entry included: time required, low quality of medical documentation, complex online interface. Some thought that physicians should be responsible for data entry, while others thought it should be done by nonmedical providers. Facilitators of data entry included appointing a physician leader to oversee quality and engagement, direct direction from supervisor, use for research publication or as part of a project of personal interest, monetary compensation, collaborating with colleagues abroad, data entry training.
Conclusions
Factors affecting data entry into and use of local and international cancer databases by oncology physicians in Ukraine included perceived benefits for career and patient care, required time, requirements from leadership, database technology characteristics. Given limited resources for local and population-based cancer registry maintenance in Ukraine and other LMICs, novel low-cost strategies for this are urgently needed.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1716P - Addressing clinical trial disparities in Spain: A digital solution
Presenter: Max Hardy-Werbin
Session: Poster session 23
1717P - Management of patients during a digital healthcare record system transition: A phase I unit experience
Presenter: Lyra Del Rosario
Session: Poster session 23
1718P - Impact of the economic status of the patient's country of residence on the outcome of oncology clinical trials
Presenter: Saki Nishiyama
Session: Poster session 23
1719P - Decentralized clinical trials: Is there a space in Italy?
Presenter: Celeste Cagnazzo
Session: Poster session 23
1720P - Experience in the provision of oncology services immediately after a major disaster
Presenter: Burak Aktas
Session: Poster session 23
1721P - Self-assessment tool and best-practice sharing to support hospitals in improving the quality of multi-disciplinary teams in lung cancer care
Presenter: Ernest Nadal
Session: Poster session 23
1722P - Factors contributing to differences in evidence compliance rate in cancer treatment among second opinion cases
Presenter: Tomomi Sanomachi
Session: Poster session 23
1723P - Improving access to molecular tumour boards for complex genomic profiles: A healthcare policy from the Netherlands
Presenter: Sahar van Waalwijk van Doorn-Khosrovani
Session: Poster session 23
1724P - Improving access to breast cancer diagnosis and treatment through navigation: Evaluation of a one-year pilot project in Botswana
Presenter: Ariane Migeotte
Session: Poster session 23
1725P - Genetic counselling for cancer in EU member states: Review and foundation for consensus recommendations
Presenter: J. Matt McCrary
Session: Poster session 23