The Hipaa Authorization Form and Effects on Survey Response Rates, Nonresponse Bias, and Data Quality

A Randomized Community Study

Bibliographic Data

ID9099443
AuthorsTimothy J Beebe (0000-0003-4700-2436, Mayo Clinic, corresponding author), Nicholas J Talley (Center for Digestive and Liver Diseases), Michael Camilleri (0000-0001-6472-7514, Center for Digestive and Liver Diseases), Sarah M Jenkins (0000-0002-4157-8066, Department of Medical Sciences, corresponding author), Kari J Anderson (Department of Medical Sciences, corresponding author), G Richard Locke (Center for Digestive and Liver Diseases)
Year2007
Volume45
Issue10
Pages959-965
Publication date2007-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueMedical Care (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948
PublisherOvid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1097/mlr.0b013e31805468b0
PMID17890993
OpenAlexW2011658050
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited22

BACKGROUND: There has been speculation that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has muted participation in research but little direct evidence to substantiate those claims exists. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of including a HIPAA authorization form (HAF) on multiple measures of survey performance. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS: A community survey of Olmsted County, Minnesota residents conducted between September 2005 and April 2006. A total of 6939 cases were randomly assigned to 2 experimental conditions where half of the subjects received a 1-page HAF (n = 3469) and the other half did not (n = 3470). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response rate, nonresponse bias, and data quality. RESULTS: At the end of data collection, a response rate of 39.8% was observed in the HAF condition and 55.0% in the No HAF condition (P < 0.0001). There was a negligible but statistically significant (P < or = 0.001) over-representation of males in the No HAF condition but no difference in the amount of missing data between the 2 groups. However, reports of general health and the percentage of respondents indicating that they were nonsmokers were both significantly (P < or = 0.01) lower in the No HAF condition than in the HAF condition. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of a minimally burdensome version of the HAF reduced survey response rates by up to 15 percentage points. This could have implications for a study's statistical power. There was little evidence that the form affected nonresponse bias or data quality

Authorization · Business · Computer security · Confidentiality · Data collection · Data quality · Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act · Non-response bias · Quality (philosophy) · Response bias · Statistics · Survey data collection · Computer Science · Ethics in Clinical Research · Global Cancer Incidence and Screening · Mathematics · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology · Survey Methodology and Nonresponse