Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPFOA) Program Survey of Older Adults, 2008 [United States] (ICPSR 27181)
Principal Investigator(s): Kim, Jung, Mathematica Policy Research; Cannon, Judy, Mathematica Policy Research; Cheh, Valerie, Mathematica Policy Research; Duda, Nancy, Mathematica Policy Research; Hall, John, Mathematica Policy Research
This is the second round of the Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPFOA) Program Survey of Older Adults. Like the first round, which was fielded in 2002 and released as ICPSR 4301 (Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPOA) Program Survey of Older Adults, 2002), the second round was conducted as part of the evaluation of the CPFOA Program, an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) aimed at promoting improvements in the organization and delivery of long-term care and supportive services for older adults through local public-private partnerships. The 2002 survey was conducted in the 13 communities in which partnerships received development grants from RWJF, and, in 2008, the survey was repeated in the eight of them in which partnerships received implementation grants from the Foundation. The goal of the survey was to improve understanding of the characteristics of older adults, their knowledge and perceptions about issues related to long-term care, and their use of long-term care services and support. In addition, the data collected by the survey enabled the communities to target the partnership's activities in the most effective way.
The second round was based on the 2002 survey instrument. Changes to the instrument were minimized so that the data from the 2002 and 2008 rounds would be comparable. The instrument was modified to delete questions that had low item response in 2002, to add questions requested by the partnerships, to add questions for decision-makers, or to modify questions that were outdated. As in 2002, the 2008 survey interviewed respondents about supportive and long-term care services for older adults in their communities, including the availability, use of, and quality of the services and sources of information about them. Respondents were asked if they expected to stay in their community, if their homes needed repairs or modifications to improve their ability to live in them, how important it was to be able to live in their own home as they grew older, the age at which they thought they would need help to continue living in their own home, and the age at which they thought they could no longer live at home because of health problems. The survey also collected information on health status, problems with activities of everyday life, health insurance coverage and long-term care insurance, hospital stays, living arrangements, social activities, support from family and friends, access to transportation, and demographic characteristics.
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions ; consult the restrictions note to learn more. You can apply online for access to the data. A login is required to apply for access. (How to apply.)As explained in the ICPSR Processing Note in the codebook, variable csid (case identifier) is restricted from general dissemination for reasons of confidentiality. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete an Agreement for the Use of Confidential Data, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research. Apply for access to these data through the ICPSR restricted data contract portal, which can be accessed via the study home page.
Kim, Jung, Judy Cannon, Valerie Cheh, Nancy Duda, and John Hall. Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPFOA) Program Survey of Older Adults, 2008 [United States]. ICPSR27181-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2010-08-17. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27181.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27181.v1
This study was funded by:
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (051243)
Scope of Study
Subject Terms: adult care services, aging population, assisted living, communities, health care services, health insurance, living arrangements, long term care, long term care insurance, meal programs, older adults, supportive services
Adults aged 50 years and over in the 8 communities in which partnerships received CPFOA implementation grants:
Data Types: survey data
Data Collection Notes:
To learn more about the project, visit the CPFOA Web site.
Sample: Random-digit-dialing (RDD) was used to sample the respondents. Respondents who were classified as "vulnerable" or "decision-makers" were oversampled. To qualify as vulnerable, a person had to be (1) aged 75 years or older, or (2) aged 60 years or older and had to meet at least one of the following criteria: (a) needed help bathing; (b) used a cane, walker, or wheelchair; (c) rated their health as fair or poor; (d) was afraid to be alone for more than two hours; or (e) had a chronic illness, such as diabetes, heart or lung problems, stroke, or kidney failure. A decision-maker was identified as someone aged 50 years or older who made decisions about the living arrangements or assistance with personal care for a vulnerable person in the grantee community. Approximately 370 residents were interviewed in each site.
Mode of Data Collection: computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI)
Response Rates: The weighted response rate averaged 49.1 percent across the 8 sites.
Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Original ICPSR Release: 2010-08-17
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)
If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.