Mixed-methods evaluation reveals improved data quality and utility in cancer registries, highlighting the role of machine learning and automation.
Cancer is typically a notifiable disease, with notifications captured in population-based cancer registries (PBCR) to inform public health cancer control. Despite the importance of PBCRs, a knowledge gap exists regarding the impact of novel and advanced data engineering technologies on PBCR health information, data quality and utility. To examine the impact of electronic reporting, machine learning and automation on PBCR data quality and utility. A mixed-methods, participatory, performance story evaluation was conducted in 2022 to examine data quality (completeness, coverage, timeliness and efficiency) and utility (real-time dashboards and research) of health information collected between 2012 and 2021 by the New South Wales Cancer Registry (NSWCR), a PBCR in New South Wales, Australia. A two-fold increase in cancer notifications was observed between 2012 and 2021 (n = +171,841; 103% increase). Electronic data receipt increased by 63-percentage points between 2015 and 2021 (12% to 75%), and the number of services that provided electronic data also increased during this time. Timeliness of data receipt improved between 2012 and 2021, with 87% (n = 293,544) received on time in 2021. Manual requests, data extraction and processing times decreased from 4791 to 483 requests (2012-2021) and 921 to 63 days (2017-2021). Utility was enhanced, as supported by collaboration. Greater confidence in population-level quality improvement initiatives was reported, and an increase in research activity and functionality observed. Electronic reporting, machine learning and automation can improve data quality, utility and cancer control capability, with collaboration remaining essential.Implications for health information management practice:Innovative technologies and collaboration can improve PBCRs and strengthen health care, policy, research and health system capability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stapleton et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: