↓ Skip to main content

Impact of HIPAA’s minimum necessary standard on genomic data sharing

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Impact of HIPAA’s minimum necessary standard on genomic data sharing
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1038/gim.2017.141
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara J Evans, Gail P Jarvik

Abstract

This article provides a brief introduction to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule's minimum necessary standard, which applies to sharing of genomic data, particularly clinical data, following 2013 Privacy Rule revisions. This research used the Thomson Reuters Westlaw database and law library resources in its legal analysis of the HIPAA privacy tiers and the impact of the minimum necessary standard on genomic data sharing. We considered relevant example cases of genomic data-sharing needs. In a climate of stepped-up HIPAA enforcement, this standard is of concern to laboratories that generate, use, and share genomic information. How data-sharing activities are characterized-whether for research, public health, or clinical interpretation and medical practice support-affects how the minimum necessary standard applies and its overall impact on data access and use. There is no clear regulatory guidance on how to apply HIPAA's minimum necessary standard when considering the sharing of information in the data-rich environment of genomic testing. Laboratories that perform genomic testing should engage with policy makers to foster sound, well-informed policies and appropriate characterization of data-sharing activities to minimize adverse impacts on day-to-day workflows.GENETICS in MEDICINE advance online publication, 14 September 2017; doi:10.1038/gim.2017.141.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Researcher 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 12%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Computer Science 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 11 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,627,858
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#916
of 2,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,866
of 323,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#27
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.