Surveying opinions of 149 registrants to the Research Registry: Awareness of and attitudes towards research registration

Riaz A Agha; Daniyal J Jafree; Martinique Vella-Baldacchino; Christopher Limb; Ter-Er Kusu-Orkar; Mirabel C Millip; Alexander J Fowler

doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.12.040

Surveying opinions of 149 registrants to the Research Registry: Awareness of and attitudes towards research registration

Int J Surg. 2017 Mar:39:182-187. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.12.040. Epub 2017 Jan 5.

Authors

Riaz A Agha¹, Daniyal J Jafree², Martinique Vella-Baldacchino³, Christopher Limb⁴, Ter-Er Kusu-Orkar⁵, Mirabel C Millip⁶, Alexander J Fowler¹

Affiliations

¹ Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Academic Surgical Collaborative, UK.
² UCL Medical School, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK; The Academic Surgical Collaborative, UK. Electronic address: daniyal.jafree.13@ucl.ac.uk.
³ Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK; The Academic Surgical Collaborative, UK.
⁴ Western Sussex Hospital's NHS Trust, Worthing, UK; The Academic Surgical Collaborative, UK.
⁵ University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; The Academic Surgical Collaborative, UK.
⁶ Barts and the London Medical School, London, UK; The Academic Surgical Collaborative, UK.

PMID: 28063975
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.12.040

Abstract

Background: Research registration is an important ethical principle in the Declaration of Helsinki, however, progress to increase registration has been slow. Understanding the attitudes of users towards registries may provide insights into increase research registration. In this survey-based study, we sought to gain insight from users of a single global research registry, the Research Registry^® (www.researchregistry.com).

Methods: A Google Forms survey was created and emailed to all users of the Research Registry^® (n = 1432). Multiple choice and free-text answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis respectively.

Results: From 925 contactable registrations, 149 (16.1%) completed the survey. The most commonly registered study type was retrospective cohort (32.2%). 23 registrations (15.4%) were made during the planning or conception of the study, whereas 67 (45.0%) registered at the time of journal submission, or during the peer review process. Of those that declared whether they had performed unregistered research or not, 51 (45.5%) participants had previously performed unregistered research. Registrants were most commonly made aware of the Research Registry^® through submission to the International Journal of Surgery (IJS) family of journals (n = 57, 47.5%). Survey participants identified the most important features of registration to be its convenience, including the ease, time and cost of registration. Thematic analysis revealed the most common motive for registration to be as a mandatory requirement of journal submission, and that registration can be improved by simplification of the registration process.

Conclusion: Registries must focus on engaging their network of users to ensure that research registration is a dynamic process. They need to adopt a user-centered and agile approach to their development, with a strong focus on "customer service". Moreover, by working in partnership with journals, it is possible to improve compliance with registration.

Keywords: Feedback; Helsinki declaration; Quality improvement; Registries; Surveys and questionnaires.

MeSH terms

Attitude of Health Personnel*
Biomedical Research / statistics & numerical data*
Humans
Motivation
Observational Studies as Topic / statistics & numerical data
Quality Improvement
Registries / standards*
Registries / statistics & numerical data
Research Design
Retrospective Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
United Kingdom