Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32867839›Full record

ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2020

Participation in patient support forums may put rare disease patient data at risk of re-identification.

James Gow, Colin Moffatt, Jamie Blackport

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Opportunities and pitfalls of social media research in rare genetic diseases: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Social Media Use for Health Purposes: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

James GowDartmouth College, Hanover, 03755, New Hampshire, USA. jamesgow@miradoranalytics.com.
Colin MoffattFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, de Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester, UK.
Jamie BlackportMirador Analytics Ltd. Priorwood House, Melrose, TD6 9EF, UK.
Dartmouth College · USDe Montfort University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRare disease patients often struggle to find both medical advice and emotional support for their diagnosis. Consequently, many rare disease patient support forums have appeared on hospital webpages, social media sites, and on rare disease foundation sites. However, we argue that engagement in these groups may pose a healthcare data privacy threat to many participants, since it makes a series of patient indirect identifiers 'readily available' in combination with rare disease conditions. This information produces a risk of re-identification because it may allow a motivated attacker to use the unique combination of a patient's identifiers and disease condition to re-identify them in anonymized data.

resultsTo assess this risk of re-identification, patient direct and indirect identifiers were mined from patient support forums for 80 patients across eight rare diseases. This data mining consisted of scanning patient testimonials, social media sites, and public records for the collection of identifiers linked to a rare disease patient. The number of people in the United States that may share each patient's combination of marital status, 3-digit ZIP code, age, and sex, as well as their rare disease condition, was then estimated, as such information is commonly found in health records which have undergone de-identification by HIPAA's 'Safe Harbor.' The study showed that by these estimations, nearly 75% of patients could be at high risk for re-identification in healthcare datasets in which they appear, due to their unique combination of identifiers.

conclusionsThe results of this study show that these rare disease patients, due to their choice to provide support for their community, are putting all their healthcare data at risk of re-identification. This paper demonstrates how simple adjustments to participation guidelines in such support forums, in combination with improved privacy measures at the organizational level, could mitigate this risk of re-identification. Additionally, this paper suggests the potential for future investigation into consideration of certain 'risky' International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes as quasi-identifiers in de-identified datasets to further protect patients' privacy, while maintaining the utility of such rare disease support groups.

Indexed as

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability ActRare DiseasesConfidentialityDelivery of Health CareHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesUnited StatesHealthcareHIPAAPrivacyRare diseaseSupport forums

Identifiers

PMID32867839
PMCPMC7457524
OpenAlexW3081562482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.