This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Law and Medicine  • Medical Ethics  • Alert me on articles by topic

Roberta B. Ness, MD, MPH; for the Joint Policy Committee, Societies of Epidemiology

JAMA. 2007;298(18):2164-2170.

Context  Anecdotal reports suggest that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule (HIPAA Privacy Rule) may be affecting health research in the United States.

Objective  To survey epidemiologists about their experiences with the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Thirteen societies of epidemiology distributed a national Web-based survey; 2805 respondents accessed the survey Web site and 1527 eligible professionals anonymously answered questions.

Main Outcome Measures  Responses related influences such as research delays and added cost after Privacy Rule implementation, frequency and type of Privacy Rule–related institutional review board modifications, level of difficulty obtaining deidentified data and waivers, experiences with multisite studies, and perceived participant privacy benefits under the rule. Respondents ranked their perceptions of Privacy Rule influence on 5-point Likert scales.

Results  A total of 875 (67.8%) respondents reported that the HIPAA Privacy Rule has made research more difficult at a level of 4 to 5 on a Likert scale, in which 5 indicates a great deal of added cost and time to study completion. A total of 684 (52.1%) of respondents identified a "most affected" protocol. Respondents indicated that the proportion of institutional review board applications in which the Privacy Rule had a negative influence on human subjects (participants) protection was significantly greater than the proportion in which it had a positive influence (P < .001).

Conclusion  In this national survey of clinical scientists, only a quarter perceived that the rule has enhanced participants' confidentiality and privacy, whereas the HIPAA Privacy Rule was perceived to have a substantial, negative influence on the conduct of human subjects health research, often adding uncertainty, cost, and delay.

Author Affiliation: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

RELATED LETTERS

Health Research and the HIPAA Privacy Rule
Samuel J. Tilden
JAMA. 2008;299(11):1259.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Health Research and the HIPAA Privacy Rule
Ruth R. Faden, Anna C. Mastroianni, and Jeffrey P. Kahn
JAMA. 2008;299(11):1259-1260.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Health Research and the HIPAA Privacy Rule—Reply
Roberta B. Ness
JAMA. 2008;299(11):1260.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Health Research and the HIPAA Privacy Rule—Reply
Robert J. Levine and Norman Fost
JAMA. 2008;299(11):1260.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

The Dysregulation of Human Subjects Research
Norman Fost and Robert J. Levine
JAMA. 2007;298(18):2196-2198.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Health Research and the HIPAA Privacy Rule
Tilden
JAMA 2008;299:1259-1259.
FULL TEXT  

The Dysregulation of Human Subjects Research
Fost and Levine
JAMA 2007;298:2196-2198.
FULL TEXT