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
1757P - A real-world evaluation of the effectiveness of thermogram along with clinical breast examination in community-based breast cancer screening program
Presenter: Rahul Ravind
Session: Poster session 23
1758P - Body composition meets precision medicine: The prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients (pt) treated with Molecularly Targeted Agents (MTA)
Presenter: Cinta Hierro
Session: Poster session 23
1760P - Systematic review of quality of life (QoL) inclusion among endpoints, reporting and impact of QoL results in phase III non-inferiority trials of systemic treatments in oncology
Presenter: Jessica Paparo
Session: Poster session 23
1761P - Incidence of herpes zoster in cancer patients in Europe: A systematic review
Presenter: Inga Posiuniene
Session: Poster session 23
1762P - Are published data up-to-date? Analysis of time to publication in major oncological journals
Presenter: Pawel Sobczuk
Session: Poster session 23
1763P - The challenge for Cancer Trials Ireland (CTI) to sponsor NCI and non-EU sponsored trials in the EU
Presenter: Eibhlin Mulroe
Session: Poster session 23
1886P - Pembrolizumab and denosumab in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): A phase II trial (KeyPAD, ANZUP1601)
Presenter: Craig Gedye
Session: Poster session 23
1887P - Adjuvant everolimus (EVE) in patients (pts) with completely resected very high-risk renal cell cancer (RCC) and clear cell histology: Results from the phase III SWOG S0931 (EVEREST) trial
Presenter: Primo Lara
Session: Poster session 23
1888P - 24-month follow up of durvalumab and savolitinib combination in MET-driven clear cell and non-clear cell renal cancer
Presenter: Francesca Jackson-Spence
Session: Poster session 23