Electronic Health Information Laboratory, CHEO Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28071. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028071. Epub 2011 Dec 2.
Privacy legislation in most jurisdictions allows the disclosure of health data for secondary purposes without patient consent if it is de-identified. Some recent articles in the medical, legal, and computer science literature have argued that de-identification methods do not provide sufficient protection because they are easy to reverse. Should this be the case, it would have significant and important implications on how health information is disclosed, including: (a) potentially limiting its availability for secondary purposes such as research, and (b) resulting in more identifiable health information being disclosed. Our objectives in this systematic review were to: (a) characterize known re-identification attacks on health data and contrast that to re-identification attacks on other kinds of data, (b) compute the overall proportion of records that have been correctly re-identified in these attacks, and (c) assess whether these demonstrate weaknesses in current de-identification methods.
Searches were conducted in IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and PubMed. After screening, fourteen eligible articles representing distinct attacks were identified. On average, approximately a quarter of the records were re-identified across all studies (0.26 with 95% CI 0.046-0.478) and 0.34 for attacks on health data (95% CI 0-0.744). There was considerable uncertainty around the proportions as evidenced by the wide confidence intervals, and the mean proportion of records re-identified was sensitive to unpublished studies. Two of fourteen attacks were performed with data that was de-identified using existing standards. Only one of these attacks was on health data, which resulted in a success rate of 0.00013.
The current evidence shows a high re-identification rate but is dominated by small-scale studies on data that was not de-identified according to existing standards. This evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the efficacy of de-identification methods.
大多数司法管辖区的隐私法规允许在未经患者同意的情况下,将健康数据用于二次目的进行披露,如果这些数据已经被去识别化。最近在医学、法律和计算机科学文献中有一些文章认为,去识别化方法并不能提供足够的保护,因为它们很容易被逆转。如果情况确实如此,这将对健康信息的披露方式产生重大而重要的影响,包括:(a)可能限制其用于研究等二次目的的可用性,以及 (b)导致更多可识别的健康信息被披露。我们在这项系统评价中的目标是:(a)描述已知的针对健康数据的重新识别攻击,并将其与针对其他类型数据的重新识别攻击进行对比,(b)计算这些攻击中正确重新识别的记录的总体比例,以及 (c)评估这些攻击是否表明当前去识别方法存在弱点。
在 IEEE Xplore、ACM Digital Library 和 PubMed 中进行了搜索。经过筛选,确定了 14 篇具有不同攻击方式的合格文章。平均而言,所有研究中约有四分之一的记录被重新识别(0.26,95%置信区间为 0.046-0.478),而针对健康数据的攻击为 0.34(95%置信区间为 0-0.744)。由于置信区间较宽,证据表明,这些比例存在很大的不确定性,并且重新识别的记录平均比例对未发表的研究很敏感。在 14 次攻击中有两次是针对使用现有标准进行去识别化的数据进行的。这两次攻击中只有一次是针对健康数据,成功率为 0.00013。
目前的证据表明重新识别率较高,但主要是针对未按照现有标准进行去识别化的数据的小规模研究。这些证据不足以得出关于去识别方法效果的结论。