Skip to main content

Table 6 Participants’ mean score regarding barriers for DRSs

From: Barriers and facilitators for disease registry systems: a mixed-method study

Category of barriers

Barriers

Mean ± SD

Mean ± SD

1.Poor cooperation/coordination between stakeholders

The difficulty of coordination between provincial DRSs in multicenter registries

4.40 ± 0.10

4.30 ± 0.12

 

Limited and non-continual cooperation of physicians with DRSs

4.40 ± 0.10

 
 

Lack of coordination between universities and inter-sectoral cooperation

4.40 ± 0.10

 
 

Developing separate and parallel DRSs with different systems

4.33 ± 0.03

 
 

The reluctance of medical centers to cooperate with people and out-of-center DRSs

  
 

4.33 ± 0.03

  
 

Lack of coordination and cooperation of different stakeholders in a DRS

4.13 ± 0.17

 
 

Non-obligation for medical centers to cooperate with DRSs and provide data

4.13 ± 0.17

 

2. Lack of or non-use of standards

Not using data standardization

4.26 ± 0

4.26 ± 0

 

Lack of other registry standards such as reporting standards, functions, etc

4.26 ± 0

 

3. Data quality-related problems

Different measurement units of variables in different diagnostic and treatment centers

4.26 ± 0.20

4.06 ± 0.17

 

Missing data due to lack of past information or follow-up of patients

4.00 ± 0.06

 
 

Human errors in entering data into DRS

3.93 ± 0.13

 

4.Data collection-related problems

Non-cooperation of physicians in the process of collecting data

4.33 ± 0.29

4.04 ± 0.15

 

Inconsistencies in data collection from different data sources

4.13 ± 0.09

 
 

Incompleteness of data in hospital information systems as a data source

4.13 ± 0.09

 
 

Unclear definition of case (inclusion and exclusion criteria)

4.00 ± 0.04

 
 

Failure to comply with the data collection guideline

4.00 ± 0.04

 
 

Restrictions of retrospective data collection from paper records

4.00 ± 0.04

 
 

The disagreement of stakeholders on identifying and defining cases

3.86 ± 0.18

 
 

High volume of data elements defined for DRSs

3.86 ± 0.18

 

5.Lack of motivation and interest

Lack of transparency of registry benefits for participants

4.06 ± 0.11

3.95 ± 0.30

 

Lack or limitation of financial incentives

4.46 ± 0.51

 
 

The concern of physicians about the transparency of their performance through the registration of their patients’ data

4.00 ± 0.05

 
 

Increased employee workload due to the registry functions

3.86 ± 0.09

 
 

Employees' fear of changes in the work process following the implementation of DRS

3.73 ± 0.22

 
 

Mandatory entry of data into the registry system by staff while on duty

3.60 ± 0.35

 

6. Threats to ethics, data security and confidentiality

Lack of specific data ownership regulations

4.20 ± 0.28

3.92 ± 0.30

 

Non-backup of data stored in DRSs

4.20 ± 0.28

 
 

Lack of data confidentiality and security standards in data sharing

4.00 ± 0.08

 
 

Researchers' access to patients' personal and identity information

3.60 ± 0.32

 
 

Unauthorized access to confidential and sensitive patients’ information

3.60 ± 0.32

 

7.Management problems

Lack of needs assessment by ministry of health and universities to implementing DRSs

4.40 ± 0.50

3.90 ± 0.29

 

Lack of skilled and trained staff

4.26 ± 0.36

 
 

Manpower costs

4.20 ± 0.30

 
 

Lack of unified guideline and protocol for standardization of DRS functions

4.20 ± 0.30

 
 

Non-allocation of resources according to the priorities and necessities of the DRS in Iran

4.06 ± 0.16

 
 

Lack of long-term planning of DRSs by ministry of health and universities

4.06 ± 0.16

 
 

The dependence of DRSs on individuals (not on systems)

4.06 ± 0.16

 
 

Rapid changes of policy makers and managers

4.06 ± 0.16

 
 

Instability of staff in DRSs

4.06 ± 0.16

 
 

Insufficient knowledge of how to implement DRSs

4.00 ± 0.10

 
 

Unstable organizational structure and an appropriate steering committee for DRSs

4.00 ± 0.10

 
 

Implementing a DRS without having clients to use its results

4.00 ± 0.10

 
 

Implementing DRSs only for the purpose of using individual benefits

4.00 ± 0.10

 
 

Lack of specific budget for DRSs

3.93 ± 0.03

 
 

Server cost

 

3.93 ± 0.03

 

Lack of connection of a DRS to an essential health service

3.86 ± 0.04

 
 

Lack of evaluation of DRSs by ministry of health and universities

3.86 ± 0.04

 
 

Cost of equipment, software and hardware

3.80 ± 0.10

 
 

Not identifying the scope of DRSs by managers and investigators

3.80 ± 0.10

 
 

Non-applicability of some DRS purposes

3.66 ± 0.24

 
 

Lack of participation of various specialists in steering committees

3.60 ± 0.30

 
 

Managers' desire to implement a DRS because it is a mode

3.40 ± 0.50

 
 

Lack of continuous training workshops for DRSs

3.33 ± 0.57

 
 

Lack of familiarity of applicants for implementing DRSs with clinical and medical sciences

3.20 ± 0.70

 

8.Technological problems

Restrictions on the data exchange between DRSs and other information systems

4.46 ± 0.63

3.83 ± 0.38

 

Lack of support of universities for providing servers for DRSs

4.06 ± 0.23

 
 

Limited technical support for the DRS by the ministry of health

3.86 ± 0.03

 
 

Lack of appropriate maintenance and IT support by IT vendors

3.73 ± 0.10

 
 

Internet disruption and its low speed in Iran

3.53 ± 0.30

 
 

Lack of user-friendly software used in registries

3.40 ± 0.43

 

9.Limited patients’ participation

Non-cooperation of physicians for referring patients to the registries

3.93 ± 0.30

3.63 ± 0.42

 

Lack of patients’ participation for follow-up

3.33 ± 0.30

Â