Potential Effect of Authorization Bias on Medical Record Research

https://doi.org/10.4065/74.4.330Get rights and content

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.

Section snippets

Study Setting

Mayo Clinic is best known as a major tertiary referral center, but Mayo Clinic Rochester also provides comprehensive care for the region in every clinical discipline, including a major portion of the primary care received by the residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota. The two Mayo Clinic-affiliated hospitals in Rochester—Saint Marys Hospital and Methodist Hospital—have a combined total of 1,900 beds. In 1995, there were almost 250,000 patient registrations at Mayo Clinic Rochester-67,100

RESULTS

Altogether, 2,023 of 2,463 potential subjects (82.6% with sampling weights) responded to our request for the research authorization. Of these, 1,408 subjects (57.9%) responded to the initial request, whereas 330 responded to the second letter (30.6% of the 1,055 subjects remaining) and 285 responded to the third letter (40.3% of the 725 subjects remaining). The refusal (nonauthorization) rate increased from 2.7% of those returning the first letter to 5.2% of patients responding to the second

DISCUSSION

In this study, only 3.2%.—of patients explicitly exercised their right to privacy and refused to.—provide a broad authorization that would permit use of medical record data for research purposes. This authorization covers any study approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board in perpetuity, although patients have the right to withdraw the authorization at a later date if they wish. This finding corresponds to the general Mayo Clinic experience as of October 1998, in which only 3.8% of

CONCLUSION

The data from this study suggest that the Minnesota law could have had an influence on the characteristics of medical records made available for research purposes. The effect on the conclusions of any study, however, probably cannot be deduced. Legislation requiring active written consent in each instance before review of medical records could be devastating and could result in an effective authorization refusal rate of 20 to 30%. The only assurance of valid results is a complete and unbiased

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank Sondra L. Buehler for assistance in the preparation of the submitted manuscript. John La Forgia and Karel M. Weigel helped develop the cover letter, educational brochure, and authorization form based on input from the focus groups, which were critical in the development of this study protocol. The insightful comments of the masked reviewers were greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES (34)

  • EA Codman et al.

    Report of the Committee on Standardization of Hospitals

    Surg Gynecol Obstet

    (1914)
  • HM Connolly et al.

    Valvular heart disease associated with fenfluramine-phentermine. N

    Engl J Med

    (1997)
  • SS Coughlin et al.

    Ethics, scientific validity, and the design of epidemiologic studies

    Epidemiology

    (1992)
  • EG Krtox

    Confidential medical records and epidemiological research

    BMJ

    (1992)
  • RL Berkelman et al.

    Public health surveillance of non-infectious chronic diseases: the potential to detect rapid changes in disease burden

    Int J Epidemiol

    (1990)
  • Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995

    Official J Eur Communities

    (1995)
  • U Cordier

    The directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, and medical epidemiological research

    Eur Union Biomed Health Res

    (1995)
  • Cited by (113)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This study was supported in part by Grant AR 30582 from the National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service.

    View full text