Access to historic individually identifiable health information: a multi-institutional survey of research institutions.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Journal of the Medical Library Association Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-14 DOI:10.5195/jmla.2026.2259
Amanda Garfunkel
{"title":"Access to historic individually identifiable health information: a multi-institutional survey of research institutions.","authors":"Amanda Garfunkel","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Access to historic individually identifiable health information has been studied from a researcher perspective, but there has not been a comprehensive review of access policies at an institutional level to see if there is any consistency across institutions. The objective of this study is to gather preliminary information on these access policies and potentially identify similarities and gaps to inform future research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employs an online survey for data collection about respondents' access policies and procedures at their institution. The final survey instrument consisted of 29 questions with a mix of multiple choice and free-text questions. The survey was distributed through listservs and posted in forums that targeted qualified participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey received 36 responses, 21 of which met the criteria for inclusion in analysis. Some notable results are that covered entities are nearly equally split on when to open research collections, non-covered entities have a wide range of access policies, and all respondents were nearly equally split on how long it has been since they last updated their access policy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While the number of responses was low for this study, the results identified areas that would benefit from further research and more robust study methods to potentially achieve a more standardized approach to access policies at research institutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 3","pages":"238-245"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13367304/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2259","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Access to historic individually identifiable health information has been studied from a researcher perspective, but there has not been a comprehensive review of access policies at an institutional level to see if there is any consistency across institutions. The objective of this study is to gather preliminary information on these access policies and potentially identify similarities and gaps to inform future research.

Methods: This study employs an online survey for data collection about respondents' access policies and procedures at their institution. The final survey instrument consisted of 29 questions with a mix of multiple choice and free-text questions. The survey was distributed through listservs and posted in forums that targeted qualified participants.

Results: The survey received 36 responses, 21 of which met the criteria for inclusion in analysis. Some notable results are that covered entities are nearly equally split on when to open research collections, non-covered entities have a wide range of access policies, and all respondents were nearly equally split on how long it has been since they last updated their access policy.

Conclusion: While the number of responses was low for this study, the results identified areas that would benefit from further research and more robust study methods to potentially achieve a more standardized approach to access policies at research institutions.

获取历史上可识别的个人健康信息:对研究机构的多机构调查。
目的:从研究人员的角度研究了获取历史上可识别的个人健康信息,但尚未对机构一级的获取政策进行全面审查,以确定各机构之间是否存在一致性。本研究的目的是收集这些获取政策的初步信息,并可能确定相似性和差距,为未来的研究提供信息。方法:本研究采用在线调查方式收集受访者所在机构的访问政策和程序的数据。最后的调查工具包括29个问题,其中包括多项选择题和自由文本题。该调查通过列表服务器分发,并发布在针对合格参与者的论坛上。结果:共收到36份反馈,其中21份符合纳入分析标准。一些值得注意的结果是,被调查的实体在何时开放研究收藏方面几乎平分,未被调查的实体有广泛的访问策略,所有的受访者在他们上次更新访问策略的时间上几乎平分。结论:虽然本研究的回复数量较少,但结果确定了一些领域,这些领域将受益于进一步的研究和更强大的研究方法,从而有可能实现研究机构获取政策的更标准化方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书