11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What are the requirements for developing a successful national registry of auditory implants? A qualitative study

      , , , , , ,
      BMJ Open
      BMJ

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Hearing loss is an area of unmet need, and industry is targeting this field with a growing range of surgically implanted hearing devices. Currently, there is no comprehensive UK registry capturing data on these devices; in its absence, it is difficult to monitor clinical and cost-effectiveness and develop national policy. Recognising that developing such a registry faces considerable challenges, it is important to gather opinions from stakeholders and patients. This paper builds on our systematic review on surgical registry development and aims to identify the specific requirements for developing a successful national registry of auditory implants.

          Design

          Qualitative study.

          Participants

          Data were collected in two ways: (1) semistructured interviews with UK professional stakeholders; and (2) focus groups with patients with hearing loss. The interview and focus group schedules were informed by our systematic review on registry development. Data were analysed using directed content analysis. Judges mapped the themes obtained against a conceptual framework developed from our systematic review on registry development. The conceptual framework consisted of five categories for successful registry development: (1) planning, (2) registry governance, (3) registry dataset, (4) anticipating challenges, (5) implementing solutions.

          Results

          Twenty-seven themes emerged from 40 semistructured interviews with professional stakeholders and 18 themes emerged from three patient focus groups. The most important factor for registry success was high rates of data completion. Benefits of developing a successful registry of auditory implants include: strengthening the evidence base and regulation of auditory implants, driving quality and safety improvements, increased transparency, facilitating patient decision-making and informing policy and guidelines development.

          Conclusions

          This study identifies the requirements for developing a successful national registry of auditory implants, benefiting from the involvement of numerous professional stakeholder groups and patients with hearing loss. Our approach may be used internationally to inform successful registry development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Dementia prevention, intervention, and care

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

            Despite increasing awareness about the potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on biomedical research, no comprehensive synthesis of the body of evidence relating to financial conflicts of interest has been performed. To review original, quantitative studies on the extent, impact, and management of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (January 1980-October 2002), the Web of Science citation database, references of articles, letters, commentaries, editorials, and books and by contacting experts. All English-language studies containing original, quantitative data on financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions were included. A total of 1664 citations were screened, 144 potentially eligible full articles were retrieved, and 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. One investigator (J.E.B.) extracted data from each of the 37 studies. The main outcomes were the prevalence of specific types of industry relationships, the relation between industry sponsorship and study outcome or investigator behavior, and the process for disclosure, review, and management of financial conflicts of interest. Approximately one fourth of investigators have industry affiliations, and roughly two thirds of academic institutions hold equity in start-ups that sponsor research performed at the same institutions. Eight articles, which together evaluated 1140 original studies, assessed the relation between industry sponsorship and outcome in original research. Aggregating the results of these articles showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions (pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio, 3.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.63-4.91). Industry sponsorship was also associated with restrictions on publication and data sharing. The approach to managing financial conflicts varied substantially across academic institutions and peer-reviewed journals. Financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions are widespread. Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Practical tips for surgical research: blinding: who, what, when, why, how?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                BMJ
                2044-6055
                2044-6055
                September 04 2018
                September 2018
                September 12 2018
                September 2018
                : 8
                : 9
                : e021720
                Article
                10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021720
                38e942b9-04cd-4396-b878-25739939dfbd
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article