You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 130 No. 3, March 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Law and Medicine
 •Otolaryngology/ Head & Neck Surgery, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Research Subject Privacy Protection in Otolaryngology

Michael C. Noone, MD; K. Christian Walters, BS; M. Boyd Gillespie, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:266-269.

Background  Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations, which took effect on April 14, 2003, placed new constraints on the use of protected health information for research purposes.

Objective  To review practices of research subject privacy protection in otolaryngology in order to determine steps necessary to achieve compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations.

Study Design  Literature review.

Methods  Articles appearing in 2001 in 3 widely circulated otolaryngology journals were classified according to study design. The "Methods" section of each article was reviewed to determine whether the informed consent and institutional review board processes were clearly documented.

Results  Descriptive studies involving case reports and case series were more common than observational studies that include a control group (66% vs 11%). Few case series documented the consent process (18%) and institutional review board process (19%). Observational designs demonstrated better documentation of the consent process (P<.001) and the institutional review board exemption and approval process (P<.001).

Conclusions  Methods used to protect subject privacy are not commonly documented in case series in otolaryngology. More attention needs to be given to research subject privacy concerns in the otolaryngology literature in order to comply with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations.


From the Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.