Evaluating common de-identification heuristics for personal health information

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2006, Pages

  El Emam, Khaled ^a   Jabbouri, Sam ^b   Sams, Scott ^c   Drouet, Youenn ^d   Power, Michael ^e  

^a CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITÉ LUMIÈRE LYON 2   (France)

^e Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP   (Canada)

Author keywords

Confidentiality; Data disclosure; Ethics; HIPAA; Privacy; Security

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CONFIDENTIALITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EVALUATION RESEARCH; HUMAN; LAWYER; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PHYSICIAN; PRIVACY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; EVALUATION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION SYSTEM; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RECORD; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CANADA; CONFIDENTIALITY; HUMANS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL RECORD LINKAGE; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED;

EID: 33846936304     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14388871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e28     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Irving R. 2002 Report on Information Technology in Canadian Hospitals. In: Canadian Healthcare Technology 2003.
2. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society. HIMSS leadership survey. Trends in healthcare information technology. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society Foundation. 2004. URL: http://www.himss.org/ 2004survey/docs/vendor_ceo_key_trends.pdf
3. Andrews JE, Pearce KA, Sydney C, Ireson C, Love M. Current state of information technology use in a US primary care practice-based research network. Inform Prim Care 2004;12(1):11-18.
4. Bower A. The diffusion and value of healthcare information technology. RAND Corporation. 2006. URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/ RAND_MG272-1.pdf
5. Fonkych K, Taylor R. The state and pattern of health information technology adoption. RAND Corporation. 2005. URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/ monographs/2005/RAND_MG409.pdf
6. Powell J, Buchan I. Electronic health records should support clinical research. J Med Internet Res 2005;7(1):e4
7. Harris Interactive. Health information privacy (HIPAA) notices have improved public's confidence that their medical information is being handled properly. 2005. URL: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp? NewsID=894 [accessed 2006 Nov 12]
8. Princeton Survey Research Associates. Medical privacy and confidentiality survey. Oakland, CA: California HealthCare Foundation; 1999. URL: http://www.chcf.org/documents/ihealth/topline.pdf
9. Grimes-Gruczka T, Gratzer C. The Institute for the Future. Ethics survey of consumer attitudes about health web sites. Oakland, CA: California HealthCare Foundation; 2000. URL: http://www.chcf.org/documents/consumer/Ethics2ndEdition. pdf
10. Willison DJ, Keshavjee K, Nair K, Goldsmith C, Holbrook AM, Computerization of Medical Practices for the Enhancement of Therapeutic Effectiveness investigators. Patients' consent preferences for research uses of information in electronic medical records: interview and survey data. BMJ 2003 Feb 15;326(7385):373
11. Mitchell E, Sullivan F. A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97. BMJ 2001 Feb 3;322(7281):279-282
12. Dixon P. Medical identity theft: the information crime that can kill you. The World Privacy Forum. 2006. URL: http://www.worldprivacyforum.org/pdf/ wpf_medicalidtheft2006.pdf [accessed 2006 Nov 20]
13. Melton III L. The threat to medical-records research. New England Journal of Medicine 1997;337(13):1466-1470.
14. Woolf SH, Rothemich SF, Johnson RE, Marsland DW. Selection bias from requiring patients to give consent to examine data for health services research. Arch Fam Med 2000;9(10):1111-1118
15. McKinney PA, Jones S, Parslow R, Davey N, Darowski M, Chaudhry B, et al, PICANet Consent Study Group. A feasibility study of signed consent for the collection of patient identifiable information for a national paediatric clinical audit database. BMJ 2005 Apr 16;330(7496):877-879
16. Tu JV, Willison DJ, Silver FL, Fang J, Richards JA, Laupacis A, et al, Investigators in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. Impracticability of informed consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. N Engl J Med 2004 Apr 1;350(14):1414-1421
17. Armstrong D, Kline-Rogers E, Jani SM, Goldman EB, Fang J, Mukherjee D, et al. Potential impact of the HIPAA privacy rule on data collection in a registry of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Arch Intern Med 2005 May 23;165(10):1125-1129.
18. Baranek P, Black C, Fooks C, Maslove L, McGrail K. Data, data, everywhere...improving access to population health and health services research data in Canada. Centre for Health Services and Policy Research and Canadian Policy Research Networks. 2005 Apr. URL: http://www.cprn.com/documents/36948_en. pdf
19. Jacobsen SJ, Xia Z, Campion ME, Darby CH, Plevak MF, Seltman KD, et al. Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research. Mayo Clin Proc 1999 Apr;74(4):330-338.
20. Nelson K, Garcia RE, Brown J, Mangione CM, Louis TA, Keeler E, et al. Do patient consent procedures affect participation rates in health services research? Med Care 2002 Apr;40(4):283-288.
21. Al-Shahi R, Vousden C, Warlow C, Scottish Intracranial Vascular Malformation Study (SIVMS) Steering Committee. Bias from requiring explicit consent from all participants in observational research: prospective, population based study. BMJ 2005 Oct 22;331(7522):942
22. Junghans C, Feder G, Hemingway H, Timmis A, Jones M. Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies. BMJ 2005 Oct 22;331(7522):940
23. Ward HJT, Cousens SN, Smith-Bathgate B, Leitch M, Everington D, Will RG, et al. Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population. BMJ 2004 Jul 31;329(7460):277-279
24. McCarthy D, et al. What is the effect of state legislation requiring patient consent for use of medical records in research? In: Center for Health Care Policy and Evaluation 1999.
25. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. On the data trail: how detailed information about you gets into the hands of organizations with whom you have no relationship. A report on the Canadian data brokerage industry. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic; 2006. URL: http://www.cippic.ca/en/news/documents/May1-06/DatabrokerReport.pdf [accessed 2006 Nov 18]
26. Academy of Medical Sciences. Personal data for public good using health information in medical research. 2006. p. 1-77. URL: http://acmedsci.ac.uk/ images/project/Personal.pdf
27. Gordis L, Gold E. Privacy, confidentiality, and the use of medical records in research. Science 1980 Jan 11;207(4427):153-156.
28. El Emam K. Data anonymization practices in clinical research: a descriptive study. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada. Access to Information and Privacy Division; 2006. URL: http://www.ehealthinformation.ca/documents/ HealthCanadaAnonymizationReport.pdf
29. Sweeney L. k-anonymity: a model for protecting privacy. International Journal on Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 2002;10(5):557-570.
30. Ochoa S, Rasmussen J, Robson C, Salib M. Reidentification of individuals in Chicago's homicide database a technical and legal study.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2001. URL: http://web.mit.edu/msalib/www/writings/ classes/6.805/reid.pdf
31. Willison D. Academic REBs and governance of privacy, confidentiality and security in database research. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: First Workshop on Electronic Health Information and Privacy Conference; Nov 2005.
32. Willenborg L, de Waal T. Elements of statistical disclosure control: Springer-Verlag; 2001.
33. Beach J. >Health care databases under HIPAA statistical approaches to de-identification of protected health information. DIMACS Working Group on Privacy/Confidentiality of Health Data. 2003. URL: http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/ Workshops/Health/abstracts.html
34. Pabrai U. Getting Started with HIPAA: Premier Press; 2003.
35. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CIHR best practices for protecting privacy in health research. Ottawa, ON: CIHR; 2005 Sep. URL: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/pbp_sept2005_e.pdf
36. Zoutman DE, Ford BD, Bassili AR. The confidentiality of patient and physician information in pharmacy prescription records. CMAJ 2004 Mar 2;170(5):815-816
37. Fefferman NH, O'Neil EA, Naumova EN. Confidentiality and confidence: is data aggregation a means to achieve both? J Public Health Policy 2005 Dec;26(4):430-449.
38. Bow CJ, Waters NM, Faris PD, Seidel JE, Galbraith PD, Knudtson ML, et al, The APPROACH Investigators . Accuracy of city postal code coordinates as a proxy for location of residence. Int J Health Geogr 2004 Mar 18;3(1):5
39. Bonner MR, Han D, Nie J, Rogerson P, Vena JE, Freudenheim JoL. Positional accuracy of geocoded addresses in epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 2003 Jul;14(4):408-412.
40. Sweeney L. AI technologies to defeat identity theft vulnerabilities. AAAI Spring Symposium on AI Technologies for Homeland Security 2005
41. Sweeney L. Protecting job seekers from identity theft. IEEE Internet Computing 2006:74-78
42. Garfinkel S, Shilat A. Remembrance of data passed: a study of disk sanitization practices. IEEE Security and Privacy 2003:17-27.
43. Interagency Confidentiality and Data Access Group. Checklist on Disclosure Potential of Proposed Data Releases. Washington, DC: Statistical Policy Office, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and Office of Management and Budget; 1999. URL: http://www.fcsm.gov/committees/cdac/ checklist_799.doc
44. Elliot M. Disclosure risk assessment. In: Doyle P, Lane J, Theeuwes J, Zayatz L, editors. Confidentiality, disclosure, and data access: theory and practical applications for statistical agencies. Elsevier; 2001.
45. Blien U, Wirth H, Muller M. Disclosure risk for microdata stemming from official statistics. Statistica Neerlandica 1992;46(1):69-82.
46. Elliot M. A new approach to the measurement of statistical disclosure risk. International Journal of Risk Management 2000;2(4):39-48.
47. Skinner G, Elliot M. A measure of disclosure risk for microdata. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B) 2002;64(Part 4):855-867.
48. Chen G, Keller-McNulty S. Estimation of identification disclosure risk in microdata. Journal of Official Statistics 1998;14(1):79-95.
49. Zayatz L. Estimation of the percent of unique population elements on a microdata file using the sample. Bureau of the Census Statistical Research Division Report Series. SRD Research Report Number: RR-91/08. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census; 1991. URL: http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/rr91-08. pdf