Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research

Steven J. Jacobsen, Zhisen Xia, Mary E. Campion, Charles H. Darby, Matthew F. Plevak, Kent D. Seltman, L. Joseph Melton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

98 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the influence of recent changes in Minnesota statutes that generally require prior authorization for use of medical records for research from patients who received medical care after Jan. 1, 1997. Material and Methods: In this Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board- approved study, we obtained a stratified random sample of patients encountered at Mayo Clinic Rochester during the period 1994 through 1996 and estimated the proportion willing to provide the general authorization. On the basis of data from administrative files, we then compared demographic, diagnostic, and utilization characteristics for patients who provided authorization and those who did not. Results: Overall, 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.4 to 4.0%) of the study subjects declined authorization. If patients not responding to requests for authorization were also considered to have refused, the overall refusal rate would be 20.7% (95% confidence interval, 18.5 to 22.9%). Women were somewhat more likely to refuse authorization than were men (4.0% versus 2.4%; P = 0.067), and patients younger than 60 years were more likely to refuse than were older patients (5.4% versus 1.2%; P<0.001). Patients residing more than 120 miles from Rochester were much less likely to decline authorization than were local residents (2.1% versus 5.8%; P = 0.001). Patients with prior diagnoses that might be considered more sensitive such as mental disorders, infectious diseases, and reproductive problems also were more likely to refuse authorization. Conclusion: These data demonstrate that laws requiring written authorization for research use of the medical record could result in substantial biases in etiologic and outcome studies, the direction and magnitude of which may vary from topic to topic. Clinicians should be prepared to enter the discussion to help inform patients and legislators of the potential hazards of laws that restrict access to medical records for research purposes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)330-338
Number of pages9
JournalMayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume74
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

Medical Records
Biomedical Research
Confidence Intervals
Information Storage and Retrieval
Research Ethics Committees
Mental Disorders
Communicable Diseases
Demography
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Jacobsen, S. J., Xia, Z., Campion, M. E., Darby, C. H., Plevak, M. F., Seltman, K. D., & Joseph Melton, L. (1999). Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 74(4), 330-338.

Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research. / Jacobsen, Steven J.; Xia, Zhisen; Campion, Mary E.; Darby, Charles H.; Plevak, Matthew F.; Seltman, Kent D.; Joseph Melton, L.

In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 74, No. 4, 1999, p. 330-338.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jacobsen, SJ, Xia, Z, Campion, ME, Darby, CH, Plevak, MF, Seltman, KD & Joseph Melton, L 1999, 'Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research', Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 330-338.
Jacobsen SJ, Xia Z, Campion ME, Darby CH, Plevak MF, Seltman KD et al. Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1999;74(4):330-338.
Jacobsen, Steven J. ; Xia, Zhisen ; Campion, Mary E. ; Darby, Charles H. ; Plevak, Matthew F. ; Seltman, Kent D. ; Joseph Melton, L. / Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1999 ; Vol. 74, No. 4. pp. 330-338.
@article{2f221c85318d4640a7abeba94e594d53,
title = "Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research",
abstract = "Objective: To analyze the influence of recent changes in Minnesota statutes that generally require prior authorization for use of medical records for research from patients who received medical care after Jan. 1, 1997. Material and Methods: In this Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board- approved study, we obtained a stratified random sample of patients encountered at Mayo Clinic Rochester during the period 1994 through 1996 and estimated the proportion willing to provide the general authorization. On the basis of data from administrative files, we then compared demographic, diagnostic, and utilization characteristics for patients who provided authorization and those who did not. Results: Overall, 3.2{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval, 2.4 to 4.0{\%}) of the study subjects declined authorization. If patients not responding to requests for authorization were also considered to have refused, the overall refusal rate would be 20.7{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval, 18.5 to 22.9{\%}). Women were somewhat more likely to refuse authorization than were men (4.0{\%} versus 2.4{\%}; P = 0.067), and patients younger than 60 years were more likely to refuse than were older patients (5.4{\%} versus 1.2{\%}; P<0.001). Patients residing more than 120 miles from Rochester were much less likely to decline authorization than were local residents (2.1{\%} versus 5.8{\%}; P = 0.001). Patients with prior diagnoses that might be considered more sensitive such as mental disorders, infectious diseases, and reproductive problems also were more likely to refuse authorization. Conclusion: These data demonstrate that laws requiring written authorization for research use of the medical record could result in substantial biases in etiologic and outcome studies, the direction and magnitude of which may vary from topic to topic. Clinicians should be prepared to enter the discussion to help inform patients and legislators of the potential hazards of laws that restrict access to medical records for research purposes.",
author = "Jacobsen, {Steven J.} and Zhisen Xia and Campion, {Mary E.} and Darby, {Charles H.} and Plevak, {Matthew F.} and Seltman, {Kent D.} and {Joseph Melton}, L.",
year = "1999",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "74",
pages = "330--338",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research

AU - Jacobsen, Steven J.

AU - Xia, Zhisen

AU - Campion, Mary E.

AU - Darby, Charles H.

AU - Plevak, Matthew F.

AU - Seltman, Kent D.

AU - Joseph Melton, L.

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - Objective: To analyze the influence of recent changes in Minnesota statutes that generally require prior authorization for use of medical records for research from patients who received medical care after Jan. 1, 1997. Material and Methods: In this Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board- approved study, we obtained a stratified random sample of patients encountered at Mayo Clinic Rochester during the period 1994 through 1996 and estimated the proportion willing to provide the general authorization. On the basis of data from administrative files, we then compared demographic, diagnostic, and utilization characteristics for patients who provided authorization and those who did not. Results: Overall, 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.4 to 4.0%) of the study subjects declined authorization. If patients not responding to requests for authorization were also considered to have refused, the overall refusal rate would be 20.7% (95% confidence interval, 18.5 to 22.9%). Women were somewhat more likely to refuse authorization than were men (4.0% versus 2.4%; P = 0.067), and patients younger than 60 years were more likely to refuse than were older patients (5.4% versus 1.2%; P<0.001). Patients residing more than 120 miles from Rochester were much less likely to decline authorization than were local residents (2.1% versus 5.8%; P = 0.001). Patients with prior diagnoses that might be considered more sensitive such as mental disorders, infectious diseases, and reproductive problems also were more likely to refuse authorization. Conclusion: These data demonstrate that laws requiring written authorization for research use of the medical record could result in substantial biases in etiologic and outcome studies, the direction and magnitude of which may vary from topic to topic. Clinicians should be prepared to enter the discussion to help inform patients and legislators of the potential hazards of laws that restrict access to medical records for research purposes.

AB - Objective: To analyze the influence of recent changes in Minnesota statutes that generally require prior authorization for use of medical records for research from patients who received medical care after Jan. 1, 1997. Material and Methods: In this Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board- approved study, we obtained a stratified random sample of patients encountered at Mayo Clinic Rochester during the period 1994 through 1996 and estimated the proportion willing to provide the general authorization. On the basis of data from administrative files, we then compared demographic, diagnostic, and utilization characteristics for patients who provided authorization and those who did not. Results: Overall, 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.4 to 4.0%) of the study subjects declined authorization. If patients not responding to requests for authorization were also considered to have refused, the overall refusal rate would be 20.7% (95% confidence interval, 18.5 to 22.9%). Women were somewhat more likely to refuse authorization than were men (4.0% versus 2.4%; P = 0.067), and patients younger than 60 years were more likely to refuse than were older patients (5.4% versus 1.2%; P<0.001). Patients residing more than 120 miles from Rochester were much less likely to decline authorization than were local residents (2.1% versus 5.8%; P = 0.001). Patients with prior diagnoses that might be considered more sensitive such as mental disorders, infectious diseases, and reproductive problems also were more likely to refuse authorization. Conclusion: These data demonstrate that laws requiring written authorization for research use of the medical record could result in substantial biases in etiologic and outcome studies, the direction and magnitude of which may vary from topic to topic. Clinicians should be prepared to enter the discussion to help inform patients and legislators of the potential hazards of laws that restrict access to medical records for research purposes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032962011&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032962011&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10221460

AN - SCOPUS:0032962011

VL - 74

SP - 330

EP - 338

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

IS - 4

ER -