ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2026
Access to historic individually identifiable health information: a multi-institutional survey of research institutions.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.