Enabling qualitative research data sharing using a natural language processing pipeline for deidentification: moving beyond HIPAA Safe Harbor identifiers

Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data

In January 2023, a new NIH policy on data sharing went into effect. The policy applies to both quantitative and qualitative research (QR) data such as data from interviews or focus groups. QR data are often sensitive and difficult to deidentify, and thus have rarely been shared in the United States. Over the past 5 y, our research team has engaged stakeholders on QR data sharing, developed software to support data deidentification, produced guidance, and collaborated with the ICPSR data repository to pilot the deposit of 30 QR datasets. In this perspective article, we share important lessons learned by addressing eight clusters of questions on issues such as where, when, and what to share; how to deidentify data and support high-quality secondary use; budgeting for data sharing; and the permissions needed to share data. We also offer a brief assessment of the state of preparedness of data repositories, QR journals, and QR textbooks to support data sharing. While QR data sharing could yield important benefits to the research community, we quickly need to develop enforceable standards, expertise, and resources to support responsible QR data sharing. Absent these resources, we risk violating participant confidentiality and wasting a significant amount of time and funding on data that are not useful for either secondary use or data transparency and verification.

Development of an Open-Source Annotated Glaucoma Medication Dataset From Clinical Notes in the Electronic Health Record

Purpose

To describe the methods involved in processing and characteristics of an open dataset of annotated clinical notes from the electronic health record (EHR) annotated for glaucoma medications.

Methods

In this study, 480 clinical notes from office visits, medical record numbers (MRNs), visit identification numbers, provider names, and billing codes were extracted for 480 patients seen for glaucoma by a comprehensive or glaucoma ophthalmologist from January 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. MRNs and all visit data were de-identified using a hash function with salt from the deidentifyr package. All progress notes were annotated for glaucoma medication name, route, frequency, dosage, and drug use using an open-source annotation tool, Doccano. Annotations were saved separately. All protected health information (PHI) in progress notes and annotated files were de-identified using the published de-identifying algorithm Philter. All progress notes and annotations were manually validated by two ophthalmologists to ensure complete de-identification.

Results

The final dataset contained 5520 annotated sentences, including those with and without medications, for 480 clinical notes. Manual validation revealed 10 instances of remaining PHI which were manually corrected.

Conclusions

Annotated free-text clinical notes can be de-identified for upload as an open dataset. As data availability increases with the adoption of EHRs, free-text open datasets will become increasingly valuable for "big data" research and artificial intelligence development. This dataset is published online and publicly available at https://github.com/jche253/Glaucoma_Med_Dataset.

Translational Relevance

This open access medication dataset may be a source of raw data for future research involving big data and artificial intelligence research using free-text.

Applications of natural language processing in ophthalmology: present and future

Advances in technology, including novel ophthalmic imaging devices and adoption of the electronic health record (EHR), have resulted in significantly increased data available for both clinical use and research in ophthalmology. While artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have the potential to utilize these data to transform clinical care, current applications of AI in ophthalmology have focused mostly on image-based deep learning. Unstructured free-text in the EHR represents a tremendous amount of underutilized data in big data analyses and predictive AI. Natural language processing (NLP) is a type of AI involved in processing human language that can be used to develop automated algorithms using these vast quantities of available text data. The purpose of this review was to introduce ophthalmologists to NLP by (1) reviewing current applications of NLP in ophthalmology and (2) exploring potential applications of NLP. We reviewed current literature published in Pubmed and Google Scholar for articles related to NLP and ophthalmology, and used ancestor search to expand our references. Overall, we found 19 published studies of NLP in ophthalmology. The majority of these publications (16) focused on extracting specific text such as visual acuity from free-text notes for the purposes of quantitative analysis. Other applications included: domain embedding, predictive modeling, and topic modeling. Future ophthalmic applications of NLP may also focus on developing search engines for data within free-text notes, cleaning notes, automated question-answering, and translating ophthalmology notes for other specialties or for patients, especially with a growing interest in open notes. As medicine becomes more data-oriented, NLP offers increasing opportunities to augment our ability to harness free-text data and drive innovations in healthcare delivery and treatment of ophthalmic conditions.

Twenty Years of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Safe Harbor Provision: Unsolved Challenges and Ways Forward

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was an important milestone in protecting the privacy of patient data; however, the HIPAA provisions specific to geographic data remain vague and hinder the ways in which epidemiologists and geographers use and share spatial health data. The literature on spatial health and select legal and official guidance documents present scholars with ambiguous guidelines that have led to the use and propagation of multiple interpretations of a single HIPAA safe harbor provision specific to geographic data. Misinterpretation of this standard has resulted in many entities sharing data at overly conservative levels, whereas others offer definitions of safe harbors that potentially put patient data at risk. To promote understanding of, and adherence to, the safe harbor rule, this paper reviews the HIPAA law from its creation to the present day, elucidating common misconceptions and presenting straightforward guidance to scholars. We focus on the 20,000-person population threshold and the 3-digit zip code stipulation of safe harbors, which are central to the confusion surrounding how patient location data can be shared. A comprehensive examination of these 2 stipulations, which integrates various expert perspectives and relevant studies, reveals how alternative methods for safe harbors can offer researchers better data and better data protection. Much has changed in the 20 years since the introduction of the safe harbor provision; however, it continues to be the primary source of guidance (and frustration) for researchers trying to share maps, leaving many waiting for these rules to be revised in accordance with the times.

Barriers and facilitators to qualitative data sharing in the United States: A survey of qualitative researchers

Qualitative health data are rarely shared in the United States (U.S.). This is unfortunate because gathering qualitative data is labor and time-intensive, and data sharing enables secondary research, training, and transparency. A new U.S. federal policy mandates data sharing by 2023, and is agnostic to data type. We surveyed U.S. qualitative researchers (N = 425) on the barriers and facilitators of sharing qualitative health or sensitive research data. Most researchers (96%) have never shared qualitative data in a repository. Primary concerns were lack of participant permission to share data, data sensitivity, and breaching trust. Researcher willingness to share would increase if participants agreed and if sharing increased the societal impact of their research. Key resources to increase willingness to share were funding, guidance, and de-identification assistance. Public health and biomedical researchers were most willing to share. Qualitative researchers need to prepare for this new reality as sharing qualitative data requires unique considerations.