TABLE 3.

Central Cancer Registry Characteristics by Electronic Reporting Adoption

Characteristics	Lower Adopters of Electronic Reportinga	Higher Adopters of Electronic Reporting
Central Cancer Registries	Kansas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Nevada	North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Louisiana
Volume of cases	One high volume Two medium volumes Two low volumes	Three high volumes One medium volume
Funding	One funded by SEER, NPCR, and state Four funded by NPCR and state	One funded by SEER, NPCR, and state Three funded by NPCR and state
Software	Two used NPCR Prep/CRS Plus Two used Rocky Mountain Cancer Data System One used other software and own database	Three used NPCR Prep/CRS Plus One used SEER software
Staffing average FTE
All staff	8.8 FTE	29.3 FTE
Certified tumor registrars	5.6 FTE	17.3 FTE
Computer or IT specialistsb	0.35 FTE	1.6 FTE
Outcomes (meeting registry data quality standards)c	One met 12-month standards Four met 24-month standards One did not meet 24-month standards	Two met 12-month standards All met 24-month standards

Abbreviations: FTE, full-time equivalents; GIS, Geographic Information System; IT, information technology; NPCR, National Program of Cancer Registries.

^aElectronic reporting adoption levels were self-reported by registries.

^bThis category may also include some GIS specialists.

^cOutcomes on the basis of cases diagnosed in 2016.