• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

医疗记录与隐私:立法的实证效果

Medical records and privacy: empirical effects of legislation.

作者信息

McCarthy D B, Shatin D, Drinkard C R, Kleinman J H, Gardner J S

机构信息

Center for Health Care Policy and Evaluation, United HealthCare, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1459, USA.

出版信息

Health Serv Res. 1999 Apr;34(1 Pt 2):417-25.

PMID:10199685
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1089011/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of state legislation requiring patient informed consent prior to medical record abstraction by external researchers for a specific study.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Informed consent responses obtained from November 1997 through April 1998 from members of a Minnesota-based IPA model health plan.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive case study of consent to gain access to medical records for a pharmaco-epidemiologic study of seizures associated with use of a pain medication that was conducted as part of the FDA's post-marketing safety surveillance program to evaluate adverse events associated with approved drugs.

DATA COLLECTION

The informed consent process approved by an institutional review board consisted of three phases: (1) a letter from the health plan's medical director requesting participation, (2) a second mailing to nonrespondents, and (3) a follow-up telephone call to nonrespondents.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Of 140 Minnesota health plan members asked to participate in the medical records study, 52 percent (73) responded and 19 percent (26) returned a signed consent form authorizing access to their records for the study. For 132 study subjects enrolled in five other health plans in states where study-specific consent was not required, health care providers granted access to patient medical records for 93 percent (123) of the members.

CONCLUSION

Legislation requiring patient informed consent to gain access to medical records for a specific research study was associated with low participation and increased time to complete that observational study. Efforts to protect patient privacy may come into conflict with the ability to produce timely and valid research to safeguard and improve public health.

摘要

目的

确定一项州立法的影响,该立法要求外部研究人员在进行特定研究抽取医疗记录之前获得患者的知情同意。

数据来源/研究背景:1997年11月至1998年4月从明尼苏达州一家基于独立执业协会(IPA)模式的健康计划成员处获得的知情同意回复。

研究设计

关于同意获取医疗记录以进行一项药物流行病学研究的描述性案例研究,该研究是关于与一种止痛药使用相关的癫痫发作,作为美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)上市后安全监测计划的一部分,以评估与已批准药物相关的不良事件。

数据收集

由机构审查委员会批准的知情同意过程包括三个阶段:(1)健康计划医疗主任发出的邀请参与的信件,(2)给未回复者的第二次邮件,以及(3)给未回复者的跟进电话。

主要发现

在被邀请参与医疗记录研究的140名明尼苏达州健康计划成员中,52%(73人)做出了回复,19%(26人)返回了签署的同意书,授权为该研究获取他们的记录。对于在其他五个州的健康计划中登记的132名研究对象,在这些州不需要针对该研究的特定同意,医疗服务提供者为93%(123人)的成员提供了患者医疗记录的访问权限。

结论

要求患者知情同意以获取特定研究的医疗记录的立法与低参与率以及完成该观察性研究的时间增加相关。保护患者隐私的努力可能与及时开展有效研究以保障和改善公众健康的能力产生冲突。

相似文献

1
Medical records and privacy: empirical effects of legislation.医疗记录与隐私:立法的实证效果
Health Serv Res. 1999 Apr;34(1 Pt 2):417-25.
2
Requiring consent vs. waiving consent for medical records research: a Minnesota law vs. the U.S. (HIPAA) privacy rule.医疗记录研究中的同意要求与同意豁免:明尼苏达州法律与美国(《健康保险流通与责任法案》)隐私规则的对比
Health Care Anal. 2003 Sep;11(3):207-18. doi: 10.1023/B:HCAN.0000005493.21521.42.
3
Medical records and your privacy: developing federal legislation to protect patient privacy rights.医疗记录与您的隐私:制定保护患者隐私权的联邦立法。
Am J Law Med. 2000;26(4):453-74.
4
No privacy for all? Serious failings in the HHS medical records regulations.所有人都没有隐私可言?美国卫生与公众服务部医疗记录法规存在严重缺陷。
J Biolaw Bus. 2002;5(2):45-8.
5
Maintaining informed consent for doctor-patient confidentiality: more serious failings in the HHS medical regulations.维持对医患保密的知情同意:美国卫生与公众服务部医疗法规中更严重的缺陷。
J Biolaw Bus. 2003;6(2):61-5.
6
Access to medical records for research purposes: varying perceptions across research ethics boards.用于研究目的的病历获取:各研究伦理委员会的不同看法
J Med Ethics. 2008 Apr;34(4):308-14. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.020032.
7
Privacy protection and population-based health research.隐私保护与基于人群的健康研究。
Soc Sci Med. 1986;23(3):293-5. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(86)90350-3.
8
Legal considerations of consent and privacy in the context of clinical photography in Australian medical practice.澳大利亚医疗实践中临床摄影的同意和隐私的法律问题。
Med J Aust. 2013 Jan 21;198(1):48-9. doi: 10.5694/mja12.11086.
9
FDA's expanding postmarket authority to monitor and publicize food and consumer health product risks: the need for procedural safeguards to reduce "transparency" policy harms in the post-9/11 regulatory environment.美国食品药品监督管理局扩大上市后监管权限以监测并公布食品及消费品健康风险:在9·11后的监管环境中,需要程序保障措施来减少“透明度”政策带来的危害
Food Drug Law J. 2009;64(3):577-98.
10
Personal privacy and common goods: a framework for balancing under the national health information privacy rule.个人隐私与公共利益:国家健康信息隐私规则下的平衡框架
Minn Law Rev. 2002 Jun;86(6):1439-79.

引用本文的文献

1
Opt-In and Opt-Out Consent Procedures for the Reuse of Routinely Recorded Health Data in Scientific Research and Their Consequences for Consent Rate and Consent Bias: Systematic Review.知情选择同意和退出同意程序在科研中对常规记录健康数据的再利用及其对同意率和同意偏倚的影响:系统综述。
J Med Internet Res. 2023 Feb 28;25:e42131. doi: 10.2196/42131.
2
Linking Survey and Twitter Data: Informed Consent, Disclosure, Security, and Archiving.将调查数据和 Twitter 数据关联:知情同意、披露、安全和归档。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Feb-Apr;15(1-2):63-76. doi: 10.1177/1556264619853447. Epub 2019 Jun 21.
3
The Importance of Relevance: Willingness to Share eHealth Data for Family Medicine Research.相关性的重要性:为家庭医学研究共享电子健康数据的意愿。
Front Public Health. 2018 Sep 4;6:255. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00255. eCollection 2018.
4
Legal Barriers to the Growth of Health Information Exchange-Boulders or Pebbles?健康信息交换增长的法律障碍——巨石还是卵石?
Milbank Q. 2018 Mar;96(1):110-143. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12313.
5
LINKING SURVEY AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS: MECHANISMS OF CONSENT.关联调查与行政记录:同意机制
Sociol Methods Res. 2012 Nov;41(4):535-569. doi: 10.1177/0049124112460381.
6
Joint replacement recipients' views about health information privacy.关节置换手术患者对健康信息隐私的看法。
Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1519-29. doi: 10.1111/hex.12142. Epub 2013 Oct 1.
7
The risks of absolute medical confidentiality.绝对医学保密的风险。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Mar;19(1):107-22. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9283-1. Epub 2011 May 25.
8
Randomized trial showed that an "embedded" survey strategy optimized authorization rates compared with two "after survey" strategies in veterans with PTSD.随机试验表明,与 PTSD 退伍军人的两种“调查后”策略相比,“嵌入式”调查策略优化了授权率。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;63(6):665-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.006. Epub 2010 Mar 21.
9
Personal privacy and public health: potential impacts of privacy legislation on health research in Canada.个人隐私与公共卫生:隐私立法对加拿大健康研究的潜在影响。
Can J Public Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;99(4):293-6. doi: 10.1007/BF03403758.
10
The effect of privacy legislation on observational research.隐私立法对观察性研究的影响。
CMAJ. 2008 Mar 25;178(7):871-3. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.061353.

本文引用的文献

1
The threat to medical-records research.对医疗记录研究的威胁。
N Engl J Med. 1997 Nov 13;337(20):1466-70. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199711133372012.
2
Protection of research subjects: do special rules apply in epidemiology?研究对象的保护:流行病学中是否适用特殊规则?
J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44 Suppl 1:81S-89S. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90180-h.