The burdensome logistics of data linkage in Australia - the example of a national registry for congenital heart disease.

Objective Data linkage is a very powerful research tool in epidemiology, however, establishing this can be a lengthy and intensive process. This paper reports on the complex landscape of conducting data linkage projects in Australia. Methods We reviewed the processes, required documentation, and applications required to conduct multi-jurisdictional data linkage across Australia, in 2023. Results Obtaining the necessary approvals to conduct linkage will likely take nearly 2 years (estimated 730 days, including 605 days from initial submission to obtaining all ethical approvals and an estimated further 125 days for the issuance of unexpected additionally required approvals). Ethical review for linkage projects ranged from 51 to 128 days from submission to ethical approval, and applications consisted of 9-25 documents. Conclusions Major obstacles to conducting multi-jurisdictional data linkage included the complexity of the process, and substantial time and financial costs. The process was characterised by inefficiencies at several levels, reduplication, and a lack of any key accountabilities for timely performance of processes. Data linkage is an invaluable resource for epidemiological research. Further streamlining, establishing accountability, and greater collaboration between jurisdictions is needed to ensure data linkage is both accessible and feasible to researchers.

Obstacles in establishing a national disease registry in Australia: lessons from the development of the CHAANZ Congenital Heart Disease Registry.

Objectives To provide insights into the obstacles which pose challenges to the set-up of any National Registry in Australia. Methods An analysis of our experience in executing a Multi-Institutional Agreement (MIA) and obtaining ethics and governance approvals, post-award of a large Medical Research Futures Fund grant in June 2020. Results From July 2020, our timeline to an executed MIA was 283 days, despite full-time staff working towards this goal. Subsequently, after lead site ethics approval, time to site governance approvals ranged from 9 to 291 days. A total of 214 emails were sent during the MIA development and signing. There were 11-71 emails sent to individual governance offices and the number of requested points of additional information ranged from 0 to 31 queries. Conclusions There were considerable time delays in executing the initial (pre-research) stages of a National Federal Government funded Registry project which required substantial time and resources. We report a wide variation in requirements between different states and institutions. We propose several strategies which could be implemented to facilitate a more streamlined approach to research ethics and governance. This centralised approach would allow for better use of funding and facilitate better progress in medical research.