Uses of cancer registries for public health and clinical research in Europe : results of the European Network of Cancer Registries survey among 161 population-based cancer registries during 2010-2012

AIM: To provide insight into cancer registration coverage, data access and use in Europe. This contributes to data and infrastructure harmonisation and will foster a more prominent role of cancer registries (CRs) within public health, clinical policy and cancer research, whether within or outside the European Research Area. METHODS: During 2010-12 an extensive survey of cancer registration practices and data use was conducted among 161 population-based CRs across Europe. Responding registries (66%) operated in 33 countries, including 23 with national coverage. RESULTS: Population-based oncological surveillance started during the 1940-50s in the northwest of Europe and from the 1970s to 1990s in other regions. The European Union (EU) protection regulations affected data access, especially in Germany and France, but less in the Netherlands or Belgium. Regular reports were produced by CRs on incidence rates (95%), survival (60%) and stage for selected tumours (80%). Evaluation of cancer control and quality of care remained modest except in a few dedicated CRs. Variables evaluated were support of clinical audits, monitoring adherence to clinical guidelines, improvement of cancer care and evaluation of mass cancer screening. Evaluation of diagnostic imaging tools was only occasional. CONCLUSION: Most population-based CRs are well equipped for strengthening cancer surveillance across Europe. Data quality and intensity of use depend on the role the cancer registry plays in the politico, oncomedical and public health setting within the country. Standard registration methodology could therefore not be translated to equivalent advances in cancer prevention and mass screening, quality of care, translational research of prognosis and survivorship across Europe. Further European collaboration remains essential to ensure access to data and comparability of the results.

Literature report : a review of policy learning in five strands of political science research

This paper reviews the policy learning literature in political science. In recent years, the number of publications on learning in the political realm increased dramatically. Researchers have focused on how policymakers and administrators adapt policies based on learning processes or experiences. Thereby, learning has been discussed in very different ways. Authors have referred to learning in the context of ideas, understood as deeply held beliefs, and, as change and adaptation of policy instruments. Two other strands of literature have taken into consideration learning, namely the diffusion literature and research on transfer, which put forward learning to understand who learns from whom and what. Opposed to these views, political learning emphasizes the adaptation of new strategies by policymakers over the transfer of knowledge or broad ideas. In this approach, learning occurs due to the failure of existing policies, increasing problem pressure, scientific innovations, or a combination of these elements.

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings. SETTING: We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications. PARTICIPANTS: Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search. INTERVENTIONS: The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?). CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.