Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series - Paper 9: anonymization and ethics considerations for capturing and sharing patient reported outcomes

Use and Understanding of Anonymization and De-Identification in the Biomedical Literature: Scoping Review

Background

The secondary use of health data is central to biomedical research in the era of data science and precision medicine. National and international initiatives, such as the Global Open Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (GO FAIR) initiative, are supporting this approach in different ways (eg, making the sharing of research data mandatory or improving the legal and ethical frameworks). Preserving patients’ privacy is crucial in this context. De-identification and anonymization are the two most common terms used to refer to the technical approaches that protect privacy and facilitate the secondary use of health data. However, it is difficult to find a consensus on the definitions of the concepts or on the reliability of the techniques used to apply them. A comprehensive review is needed to better understand the domain, its capabilities, its challenges, and the ratio of risk between the data subjects’ privacy on one side, and the benefit of scientific advances on the other.

Objective

This work aims at better understanding how the research community comprehends and defines the concepts of de-identification and anonymization. A rich overview should also provide insights into the use and reliability of the methods. Six aspects will be studied: (1) terminology and definitions, (2) backgrounds and places of work of the researchers, (3) reasons for anonymizing or de-identifying health data, (4) limitations of the techniques, (5) legal and ethical aspects, and (6) recommendations of the researchers.

Methods

Based on a scoping review protocol designed a priori, MEDLINE was searched for publications discussing de-identification or anonymization and published between 2007 and 2017. The search was restricted to MEDLINE to focus on the life sciences community. The screening process was performed by two reviewers independently.

Results

After searching 7972 records that matched at least one search term, 135 publications were screened and 60 full-text articles were included. (1) Terminology: Definitions of the terms de-identification and anonymization were provided in less than half of the articles (29/60, 48%). When both terms were used (41/60, 68%), their meanings divided the authors into two equal groups (19/60, 32%, each) with opposed views. The remaining articles (3/60, 5%) were equivocal. (2) Backgrounds and locations: Research groups were based predominantly in North America (31/60, 52%) and in the European Union (22/60, 37%). The authors came from 19 different domains; computer science (91/248, 36.7%), biomedical informatics (47/248, 19.0%), and medicine (38/248, 15.3%) were the most prevalent ones. (3) Purpose: The main reason declared for applying these techniques is to facilitate biomedical research. (4) Limitations: Progress is made on specific techniques but, overall, limitations remain numerous. (5) Legal and ethical aspects: Differences exist between nations in the definitions, approaches, and legal practices. (6) Recommendations: The combination of organizational, legal, ethical, and technical approaches is necessary to protect health data.

Conclusions

Interest is growing for privacy-enhancing techniques in the life sciences community. This interest crosses scientific boundaries, involving primarily computer science, biomedical informatics, and medicine. The variability observed in the use of the terms de-identification and anonymization emphasizes the need for clearer definitions as well as for better education and dissemination of information on the subject. The same observation applies to the methods. Several legislations, such as the American Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), regulate the domain. Using the definitions they provide could help address the variable use of these two concepts in the research community.

Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series - Paper 1: introduction

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered health care, where we design and deliver care to address the needs and preferences of patients, represents an important paradigm shift. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical to capture the patient voice, understand how illness and treatments affect people, and establish how well services and treatments address what matters most to patients.

OBJECTIVE

Originally developed for use in research, PROs are now used to monitor individuals and populations, manage care, evaluate services and providers, and inform policy. However, moving PROs beyond research settings incurs considerable methodological, organizational, technological, and ethical considerations. National collaborative networks of researchers, clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders can address these challenges by coordinating development, creating standards for use, sharing costs and delivery platforms, and improving widespread uptake of core sets of measures to better inform health care decisions and improve outcomes.

DISCUSSION

We introduce eight papers from researchers, clinicians, patients, and decision makers who participated in deliberations around creating a national network to accelerate the application and harmonized use of PROs in Canada. They offer a snap shot of the strategies that pioneers and innovative thinkers are using to integrate the patient voice into comprehensive care, research, and health policy planning of chronic diseases.

Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series - Paper 4: patient-reported outcomes can inform clinical decision making in chronic care

BACKGROUND

Providing patient-centered health care requires that patient needs, preferences, and valued outcomes are more fully integrated into all decisions. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures provide unique information from the patient perspective on overall health, symptoms, burden, and treatment response.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to describe applications of PROs in clinical settings and considerations for implementation from the perspectives of PRO researchers, clinicians, administrators, policy makers, and patients attending a multidisciplinary meeting.

DISCUSSION

Clinical applications of PROs include individual level use for medical decision making and aggregate use for comparative effectiveness research, program evaluation, quality improvement, and performance assessments. Considerations of feasibility on workflow impact and patient burden, display of results, and administration frequency are important. PROs with strong psychometric properties, actionable thresholds, and interpretable results should be selected. We provide current exemplars of PRO use in various clinical applications, initial lessons learned, and highlight conceptual, logistical, and consequential considerations of PRO data collection. A research agenda is proposed to address critical knowledge gaps. In conclusion, PROs can be used in clinical settings to support patient-centered care. This requires an assessment of feasibility in the intended setting of use, measurement considerations, and process measures to optimize integration and use.