Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 239

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A proposed architecture and method of operation for improving the protection of privacy and confidentiality in disease registers

Open access
Churches, Tim·2003·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Disease registers aim to collect information about all instances of a disease or condition in a defined population of individuals. Traditionally methods of operating disease registers have required that notifications of cases be identified by unique identifiers such as social security number or national identification number, or by ensembles of non-unique identifying data items, such as name, sex and date of birth. However, growing concern over the privacy and confidentiality aspects of disease registers may hinder their future operation. Technical solutions to these legitimate concerns are needed. DISCUSSION: An alternative method of operation is proposed which involves splitting the personal identifiers from the medical details at the source of notification, and separately encrypting each part using asymmetrical (public key) cryptographic methods. The identifying information is sent to a single Population Register, and the medical details to the relevant disease register. The Population Register uses probabilistic record linkage to assign a unique personal identification (UPI) number to each person notified to it, although not necessarily everyone in the entire population. This UPI is shared only with a single trusted third party whose sole function is to translate between this UPI and separate series of personal identification numbers which are specific to each disease register. SUMMARY: The system proposed would significantly improve the protection of privacy and confidentiality, while still allowing the efficient linkage of records between disease registers, under the control and supervision of the trusted third party and independent ethics committees. The proposed architecture could accommodate genetic databases and tissue banks as well as a wide range of other health and social data collections. It is important that proposals such as this are subject to widespread scrutiny by information security experts, researchers and interested members of the general public, alike.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2288-3-1

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Stroup NE, Zack MM, Wharton M: Sources of Routinely Collected Data for Surveillance. Principles and Practice of Public Health Surveillance. Edited by: SE Teutsch, RE Churchill. 1994, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 51-56.
  2. Anderson RJ: Information technology in medical practice: safety and privacy lessons from the United Kingdom. Med J Aust. 1999, 170: 181-184. · DOI
  3. Kelly G: Patient data, confidentiality, and electronics. BMJ. 1998, 316: 718-719. · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7133.718
  4. Vandenbroucke JP: Maintaining privacy and the health of the public. BMJ. 1998, 316: 1331-1332. · DOI
  5. Al-Shahi R, Warlow C: Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit. BMJ. 2000, 321: 1031-1032. 10.1136/bmj.321.7268.1031. · DOI
  6. Helliwell T, Hinde S, Warren V: Cancer registries fear collapse [letter]. BMJ. 2001, 322: 730-10.1136/bmj.322.7288.730. · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7288.730
  7. Kmietowicz Z: Registries will have to apply for right to collect patients' data without consent. BMJ. 2001, 322: 1199-10.1136/bmj.322.7296.1199. · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7296.1199
  8. Verity C, Nicoll A: Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance. BMJ. 2002, 324: 1210-1213. 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1210. · DOI
  9. Snaedal J: The ethics of health sector databases. eHealth International. 2002, 1: 6-10.1186/1476-3591-1-6. · DOI
  10. Schneier B: Applied Cryptography. New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc. 1996, 31-32. 2nd
  11. Etheridge Y: PKI (public key infrastructure) – how and why it works. Health Manag Technol. 2001, 22: 20-21.
  12. Quantin C, Allaert F-A, Dussere L: Anonymous statistical methods versus cryptographic methods in epidemiology. Int J Med Inf. 2000, 60: 177-183. 10.1016/S1386-5056(00)00118-0. · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(00)00118-0
  13. Sweeney L: Computational Disclosure Control for Medical Microdata: The Datafly System. In: Record Linkage techniques – 1997: Proceedings of an International Workshop and Exposition, Arlington, VA, March 20–21, 1997. Edited by: Alvey W, Jamerson B. 1997, Washington DC, Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Office of Management and Budget, 442-453. [http://www.fcsm.gov/working-papers/RLT97_chap11.html]
  14. Caulfield T, Upshur REG, Daar A: DNA databanks and consent: A suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Medical Ethics. 2003, 4: 1-10.1186/1472-6939-4-1. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Churches T: A method for improving the protection of personal privacy and confidentiality in disease registers [abstract]. Australasian Epidemiologist. 2001, 8: 31-
  16. Boruch R, Cecil J: Assuring the Confidentiality of Social Research Data. Philadelphia, University of Philadelphia Press. 1979
  17. United States General Accounting Office: Record Linkage and Privacy: Issues in Creating New federal Research and Statistical Information (GAO-01-126SP). Washington DC. 2001, 79-82.
  18. Pommerening K, Miller M, Schidtmann I, Michaelis J: Pseudonyms for cancer registries. Methods Inf Med. 1996, 35: 112-121. · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634649
  19. Blobel B: Clinical Record Systems in Oncology: Experiences and Developments on Cancer Registers in Eastern Germany. In: Personal Medical Information. Security, Engineering, and Ethics. Edited by: Anderson R. 1997, Berlin, Springer, 39-56. · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-59023-8_4
  20. United States Patent Office: US Patent 6,148,342: Secure database management system for confidential records using separately encrypted identifier and access request. Washington DC. 2000
  21. Ho AP: A Secret Splitting Method for the Protection of Confidentiality in Computer Records. In: Research Advances in Database and Information Systems Security. Edited by: Atluri V, Hale J. 2000, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers
  22. Quantin C, Kerkri E, Allaert F-A, Bouzelat H, Dusserre L: Security aspects of medical file regrouping for the epidemiological follow-up. In: Medinfo 98. Edited by: McCray AT, Cesnik B, Scherrer J-R. 1999, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 1135-1137.
  23. Borst F, Allaert F-A, Quantin C: The Swiss Solution for Anonymously Chaining Patient Files. In: MedInfo 2001. Edited by: Rogers R, Haux R, Patel V. 2001, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 1239-1241.
  24. United States Patent Office: US Patent 6,449,621: Privacy data escrow system and method. Washington DC. 2002
  25. Szolovits P, Kohane I: Against simple universal health-care identifiers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994, 1: 316-319. · DOI
  26. Kohane I, Dong H, Szolovits P: Health Information Identification and de-Indentification Toolkit. In: Proceedings, Annual Fall Symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association. Edited by: Chute C. 1998, Florida, Hanley and Belfus Inc, 356-360.
  27. deCODE genetics: What is the Icelandic Health Database?. Reykjavik. 2002, [http://www.decodegenetics.com/resources/ihd/?id=3543]
  28. Liberty Alliance Project: Liberty Architecture Overview Version 1.0. Piscataway NJ. 2002, [http://www.projectliberty.org]
  29. Kelman CW, Bass AJ, Holman CD: Research use of linked health data-a best practice protocol. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2002, 26: 251-255. · doi:10.1111/j.1467-842x.2002.tb00682.x · Paper page
  30. Black N, Payne M: Infopoints: Improving the use of clinical databases. BMJ. 2002, 324: 1194-10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1194. · DOI
  31. Gulcher J, Stefansson K: The Icelandic Healthcare Database and Informed Consent. N Engl J Med. 2000, 342: 1827-1830. 10.1056/NEJM200006153422411. · DOI
  32. Kaye J, Martin P: Safeguards for research using large scale DNA collections. BMJ. 2000, 321: 1146-1149. 10.1136/bmj.321.7269.1146. · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7269.1146
  33. Health Level Seven Inc.: An Application Protocol for Electronic Data Exchange In Healthcare Environments, Draft Version 2.3. Ann Arbor. 1996
  34. Object Management Group: CORBAmed: OMG's Healthcare domain task force. Needham, MA. 1999, [http://cgi.omg.org/corbamed]
  35. Object Management Group: Person Identification Service specification (document formal/99-03-05). Needham, MA. 1999, [http://cgi.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/99-03-05]
  36. Carnall D: Medical software's free future. BMJ. 2000, 321: 976-10.1136/bmj.321.7267.976. · DOI
  37. Kerckhoffs A: La cryptographie militaire. Journal des sciences militaires. 1883, IX (5–83): 161-191.
  38. Yernini R, Papakonstantinou Y, Abiteboul S, Garcia-Molina H: Fusion Queries over Internet Databases. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT), Valencia, Spain. Edited by: Schek H-J, Saltor F, Ramos I, Alonso G. 1998, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 57-71.

Cited by

See all 239

Metadata

Authors
Churches, T.
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2003-01-06
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
1-1
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2162853073
Cited by
239
References
0
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A proposed architecture and method of operation for improving the protection of privacy and confidentiality in disease registers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-3-1
The paper
Churches, T. (2003). A proposed architecture and method of operation for improving the protection of privacy and confidentiality in disease registers. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.