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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Timothy J Beebe; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah M Jenkins; Lindsey R Haas; Michael E Davern Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2011-04-16 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Beverly B Green; Andy Bogart; Jessica Chubak; Sally W Vernon; Leo S Morales; Richard T Meenan; Sharon S Laing; Sharon Fuller; Cynthia Ko; Ching-Yun Wang Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Timothy J Beebe; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Jennifer L St Sauver; Sarah M Jenkins; Lindsey Haas; Michael E Davern; Nicholas J Talley Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Timothy J Beebe; Donna D McAlpine; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah Jenkins; Lindsey Haas; Michael E Davern Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Matthew C Walsh; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Ronald E Gangnon; F Javier Nieto; Polly A Newcomb; Mari Palta Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: F Cremonini; M Camilleri; A R Zinsmeister; L M Herrick; T Beebe; N J Talley Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 3.598