Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30577898›Full record

ArticleJournal of substance abuse treatment2019

Interpretation and integration of the federal substance use privacy protection rule in integrated health systems: A qualitative analysis.

Aimee N C Campbell, Dennis McCarty, Traci Rieckmann, Jennifer McNeely, John Rotrosen, Li-Tzy Wu, Gavin Bart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of substance abuse treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. FHIR Granular Sensitive Data Segmentation.Applied clinical informatics · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Pilot evaluation of sensitive data segmentation technology for privacy.International journal of medical informatics · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Aimee N C CampbellNew York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 120, Room 3719, New York, NY 10032, United States of America. Electronic address: anc2002@cumc.columbia.edu.
Dennis McCartyOHSU-PSU School of Public Health, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239, United States of America. Electronic address: mccartyd@ohsu.edu.
Traci RieckmannGreenfield Health and OHSU School of Medicine, 9450 SW Barnes Road, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97225, United States of America. Electronic address: Traci.rieckmann@greenfieldhealth.com.
Jennifer McNeelyNew York University School of Medicine, Department of Population Health, 550 1st Avenue, 6th Floor, New York 20016, United States of America. Electronic address: Jennifer.mcneely@nyumc.org.
John RotrosenNew York University School of Medicine, One Park Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. Electronic address: John.Rotrosen@nyumc.org.
Li-Tzy WuDuke University Medical Center, PO Box 3903, Durham, NC 27710, United States of America. Electronic address: litzy.wu@duke.edu.
Gavin BartHennepin Healthcare, 701 Park Avenue, G5, Minneapolis, MN 55415, United States of America. Electronic address: bartx005@umn.edu.

Funding

Project-003UG1DA013035 · NIDA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Aimee N Campbell, Jennifer McNeely · 2015 to 2026
$130.3M
Suicide Prediction and Prevention for People at Risk for Opioid Use DisorderUG1DA040316 · NIDA · HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GAVIN BART · 2015 to 2026
$42.2M
Western States Node of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials NetworkU10DA015815 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MCCARTY, DENNIS, SORENSEN, JAMES L · 2002 to 2015
$25.2M
Western States Node of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (TMS for CUD) UG1DA015815 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Keith N. Humphreys, Philip Todd Korthuis · 2015 to 2026
$24.6M
Project-003UG1DA040317 · NIDA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WU, LI-TZY · 2015 to 2019
$9.0M
NIDA NIH HHS U10 DA015815NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA013035NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA015815NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA040316NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA040317
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFederal regulations (42 CFR Part 2) provide special privacy protections for persons seeking treatment for substance use disorders. Primary care providers, hospitals, and health care organizations have struggled to balance best practices for medical care with adherence to 42 CFR Part 2, but little formal research has examined this issue. The aim of this study was to explore institutional variability in the interpretation and implementation of 42 CFR Part 2 regulations related to health systems data privacy practices, policies, and information technology architecture.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional qualitative study using purposive sampling to conduct interviews with privacy/legal officers (n = 17) and information technology specialists (n = 10) from 15 integrated healthcare organizations affiliated with three research nodes of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN). Trained staff completed a short survey and digitally recorded semi-structured qualitative interview with each participant. Interviews were transcribed and coded within Atlas.ti. Framework analysis was used to identify and organize key themes across selected codes.

resultsParticipants voiced concern over balancing patient safety with 42 CFR Part 2 privacy protections. Although similar standards of protection regarding release of information outside of the health system was described, numerous workarounds were used to manage intra-institutional communication and care coordination. To align 42 CFR Part 2 restrictions with electronic health records, health systems used sensitive note designation, "break the glass" technology, limited role-based access for providers, and ad hoc solutions (e.g., provider messaging).

conclusionsIn contemporary integrated care systems, substance-related EHR records (e.g., patient visit history, medication logs) are often accessible internally without specific consent for sharing despite the intent of 42 CFR Part 2. Recent amendments to 42 CFR Part 2 have not addressed information sharing needs within integrated care settings.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedElectronic Health RecordsPatient SafetyPrivacyAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHumansQualitative ResearchSubstance-Related DisordersAddictionHealth information technologyIntegrated carePrivacyQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID30577898
PMCPMC6310476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.