Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29136182›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2018

Assessing privacy risks in population health publications using a checklist-based approach.

Christine M O'Keefe, Adrien Ickowicz, Tim Churches, Mark Westcott, Maree O'Sullivan, Atikur Khan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Christine M O'KeefeCSIRO, Canberra, Australia.
Adrien IckowiczCSIRO, Hobart, Australia.
Tim ChurchesSax Institute, Sydney, Australia.
Mark WestcottCSIRO, Canberra, Australia.
Maree O'SullivanCSIRO, Sydney, Australia.
Atikur KhanCSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRecent growth in the number of population health researchers accessing detailed datasets, either on their own computers or through virtual data centers, has the potential to increase privacy risks. In response, a checklist for identifying and reducing privacy risks in population health analysis outputs has been proposed for use by researchers themselves. In this study we explore the usability and reliability of such an approach by investigating whether different users identify the same privacy risks on applying the checklist to a sample of publications.

methodsThe checklist was applied to a sample of 100 academic population health publications distributed among 5 readers. Cohen's κ was used to measure interrater agreement.

resultsOf the 566 instances of statistical output types found in the 100 publications, the most frequently occurring were counts, summary statistics, plots, and model outputs. Application of the checklist identified 128 outputs (22.6%) with potential privacy concerns. Most of these were associated with the reporting of small counts. Among these identified outputs, the readers found no substantial actual privacy concerns when context was taken into account. Interrater agreement for identifying potential privacy concerns was generally good.

conclusionThis study has demonstrated that a checklist can be a reliable tool to assist researchers with anonymizing analysis outputs in population health research. This further suggests that such an approach may have the potential to be developed into a broadly applicable standard providing consistent confidentiality protection across multiple analyses of the same data.

Indexed as

biomedical researchconfidentialitydata anonymizationhealth services researchprivacy

Identifiers

PMID29136182
PMCPMC7651911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.