Search results

Showing 1 – 13 of 13 results.
Curated

American Community Survey (ACS): Three-Year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), 2005-2007 (ICPSR 25042)

Released/updated on: 2010-02-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2005-11-01--2007-12-01
The American Community Survey (ACS) is a part of the Decennial Census Program, and is designed to produce critical information about the characteristics of local communities. The ACS publishes social, housing, and economic characteristics for demographic groups covering a broad spectrum of geographic areas in the United States and Puerto Rico. Every year the ACS supports the release of single-year estimates for geographic areas with populations of 65,000 or more. Demographic variables include sex, age, relationship, households by type, race, and Hispanic origin. Social characteristics variables include school enrollment, educational attainment, marital status, fertility, grandparents caring for children, veteran status, disability status, residence one year ago, place of birth, United States citizenship status, year of entry, world region of birth of foreign born, language spoken at home, and ancestry. Variables focusing on economic characteristics include employment status, commuting to work, occupation, industry, class of worker, income and benefits, and poverty status. Variables focusing on housing characteristics include occupancy, units in structure, year structure was built, number of rooms, number of bedrooms, housing tenure, year householder moved into unit, vehicles available, house heating fuel, utility costs, occupants per room, housing value, and mortgage status. The American Community Survey is conducted under the authority of Title 13, United States Code, Sections 141 and 193, and response is mandatory.
Curated

Census Tract Data, 1960: Elizabeth Mullen Bogue File (ICPSR 2932)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, Indiana, Kalamazoo, Cincinnati, Austin, Spokane, San Jose, Syracuse, Springfield (Massachusetts), Providence, Seattle, St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, Nashville, California, Laredo, Fresno, Beaumont, Texarkana, Illinois, Newark, Georgia, Little Rock, Maryland, Norfolk, Oklahoma, Louisville, Arkansas, Washington, Albany (New York), Fall River, Pawtucket, Missouri, Winston-Salem, Davenport, Scranton, Dallas, Wisconsin, Nevada, Des Moines, Schenectady, Muskegon, Lawrence, St. Paul, Hawaii, Rochester (New York), Sioux City, Birmingham, Michigan, Baltimore, Paterson, New Mexico, Orlando, Canton, Philadelphia, Steubenville, Atlantic City, Akron, Topeka, Greensboro, Detroit, Charlotte, High Point, Erie, Waterloo, Bakersfield, Odessa, Abilene, Worchester, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Chattanooga, Stamford, Sacramento, Baton Rouge, Clifton, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Texas, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Richmond, Holyoke, Newport News, Alabama, Nebraska, Shreveport, Superior, Omaha, Texas City, West Virginia, Elyria, Minneapolis, Youngstown, Columbia (South Carolina), Colorado, Honolulu, Phoenix, Portland (Maine), Gary, District of Columbia, Wilkes-Barre, Lancaster, Monroe, Minnesota, New Jersey, Miami, Brockton, San Francisco, Charleston (South Carolina), Lowell, Ohio, South Bend, Waco, North Carolina, Johnstown, Fort Worth, San Diego, Lincoln, Arizona, Springfield (Ohio), Boston, San Bernardino, Savannah, Macon, Montgomery, Kentucky, Florida, Hampton, Delaware, Troy, New Haven, Connecticut, Rockford, Virginia, Duluth, Flint, United States, Grand Rapids, South Carolina, Muncie, Rome (New York), Wichita, New Britain, Massachusetts, New Orleans, Denver, Salt Lake City, Harrisburg, St. Louis, Saginaw, Lubbock, Corpus Christi, Augusta, San Angelo, Allentown, Raleigh, San Antonio, Passaic, Chicopee, Pittsfield, Mobile, Gadsden, Louisiana, Toledo, Colorado Springs, Evansville, Oklahoma City, Tucson, Albuquerque, Columbus (Georgia), Utica, Tyler, Lexington, Bridgeport, Wichita Falls, Peoria, Memphis, Ogden, Pittsburgh, El Paso, Pueblo, Greenville, Haverhill, Lansing, Tulsa, Green Bay, Lorain, Hazleton, Tampa, Durham, Portsmouth, Oregon, Madison, Jackson (Michigan), York, Ann Arbor, Tennessee, Maine, Weirton, Altoona, Cleveland, Dayton, Decatur, Tacoma, Atlanta, Lima, Hamilton, Fort Smith, Middletown, Wilmington (Delaware), Rhode Island, Chicago, Waterbury, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Wheeling, Santa Barbara, Galveston, Reading, Jersey City, Springfield (Missouri), Norwalk, Long Beach, New Hampshire, Easton, Manchester, Binghamton, Los Angeles, Hartford, Trenton, Stockton, Houston, New Bedford
The 1960 Census Tract files were originally created by keypunching the data from the printed publications prepared by the Bureau of the Census. The work was done under the direction of Dr. Donald Bogue, whose wife, Elizabeth Mullen Bogue, completed much of the data work. Subsequently, the punchcards were converted to data files and transferred to the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA). ICPSR received copies of these files from NARA and converted the binary block-length records to ASCII format.
Curated

Census Tract Data, 1970: Elizabeth Mullen Bogue File (ICPSR 2933)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, Biloxi, Indiana, Kalamazoo, Austin, Spokane, Lewiston, Columbus (Ohio), Syracuse, Colonial Heights, Racine, Kenosha, Bryan, Danbury, Providence, Bethlehem, Nashville, Laredo, Knoxville, Mississippi, Beaumont, Midland, Texarkana, Illinois, Denison, Georgia, Little Rock, Maryland, Idaho, Port Arthur, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Washington, Albany (New York), Pawtucket, Bay City, Missouri, Winston-Salem, Scranton, Dallas, Wisconsin, Sioux Falls, Nevada, Des Moines, Muskegon, Lawrence, Bloomington, Hawaii, Normal, Michigan, Baltimore, New Mexico, Orlando, Lacrosse, Canton, Rochester (Minnesota), Atlantic City, Akron, Topeka, Greensboro, Charlotte, High Point, Harlingen, Erie, Waterloo, Charleston (West Virginia), Odessa, Abilene, Bristol, Worchester, Terre Haute, Provo, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Chattanooga, Baton Rouge, Oshkosh, Kansas, Great Falls, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Texas, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Richmond, Newport News, St. Joseph, Lafayette (Indiana), Lynchburg, Roanoke, Columbia (Missouri), Nebraska, Shreveport, Superior, Texas City, Warren, West Virginia, Amarillo, Youngstown, Columbia (South Carolina), Colorado, Honolulu, Phoenix, Cedar Rapids, Portland (Maine), District of Columbia, Fayetteville, Boise City, Wilkes-Barre, Salem (Oregon), South Dakota, Lancaster, Monroe, Minnesota, New Jersey, Brockton, Charleston (South Carolina), Lowell, Ohio, South Bend, Waco, North Carolina, Johnstown, Fort Worth, Orange, Utah, San Benito, Lincoln, Arizona, Las Vegas, Springfield (Ohio), Montana, Savannah, Macon, Kentucky, Florida, Hampton, Delaware, Gainesville, Connecticut, Rockford, Virginia, Gulfport, Duluth, Flint, United States, Grand Rapids, Kansas City (Kansas), South Carolina, Muncie, Rome (New York), Tallahassee, Wichita, Nashua, New Britain, Massachusetts, New Orleans, Denver, Salt Lake City, Harrisburg, St. Louis, Saginaw, Lubbock, Corpus Christi, Augusta, San Angelo, Allentown, Raleigh, San Antonio, Springfield (Illinois), Pittsfield, Reno, Louisiana, Toledo, Colorado Springs, Pensacola, Leominster, Albuquerque, Brownsville, Champaign-Urbana, College Station, Utica, Tyler, Lexington, Bridgeport, Billings, Petersburg, Peoria, Memphis, Ogden, Pittsburgh, El Paso, Pueblo, Greenville, Auburn, Haverhill, Lansing, Meriden, Lawton, Tulsa, Green Bay, Pine Bluff, West Palm Beach, Hazleton, Eugene, Tampa, Durham, Hollywood (Florida), Oregon, Madison, Mansfield, Jackson (Michigan), York, Ann Arbor, Tennessee, Maine, Altoona, Cleveland, Dayton, Orem, Decatur, Tacoma, Atlanta, Lima, Hamilton, Fort Smith, Middletown, Sherman, Wilmington (Delaware), Rhode Island, Fitchburg, Fort Lauderdale, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Anderson, Galveston, Lake Charles, Reading, Springfield (Missouri), New Hampshire, Easton, Manchester, Hartford, Trenton, Asheville, Houston, Appleton
The 1970 Census Tract files were originally created by keypunching the data from the printed publications prepared by the Bureau of the Census. The work was done under the direction of Dr. Donald Bogue, whose wife, Elizabeth Mullen Bogue, completed much of the data work. Subsequently, the punchcards were converted to data files and transferred to the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA). ICPSR received copies of these files from NARA and converted the binary block-length records to ASCII format.
Curated
Restricted

Charleston Heart Study, Charleston, South Carolina, 1960-2000 (ICPSR 4050)

Released/updated on: 2021-06-03
Geographic coverage: Charleston (South Carolina), United States, South Carolina
Time period: 1960-01-01--2000-01-01
The Charleston Heart Study (CHS) represents data collected over a 41-year period (1960-2000) in order to provide an understanding of the natural progression of aging in a community-based cohort. In 1960 the CHS began enrolling a random selection of community residents who were 35 years of age and older -- including men and women, Black and White. The primary hypothesis of the original study was to investigate racial differences in the manifestation and risk factors for coronary disease. Over the ensuing 40+ years, a variety of outcome measurements were incorporated into the re-examination of the participants, including psychosocial, behavioral, aging, and functional measures. As a longitudinal study, the CHS allows for the study of the risk factors, correlates, and consequences of aging, while simultaneously allowing for exploration of racial disparity in the manifestation of putative risk factors and outcomes. The CHS began with baseline data and added a special cohort of Black men. In subsequent years three separate follow-ups were conducted. The data include death information for respondents and background characteristics (age, race, sex, occupation, education, and marital status).
Curated
Restricted

Medical University of South Carolina Stroke Data (ARRA) (ICPSR 37122)

Released/updated on: 2018-11-20
Geographic coverage: United States, South Carolina
Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01

To access this data collection, please click on the Restricted Data button above. You will need to download and complete the data use agreement and then email it to [email protected]. The instructions are in the form.

This study was conducted at the Medical University of South Carolina over the span of one year to delineate the cause/effect relationship between neural output and the biomechanical functions being executed in walking in post-stroke patients. Kinematic, kinetic, and electromyography (EMG) data were collected from 27 post-stroke subjects and from 17 healthy control subjects. Each subject walked on a treadmill at their self-selected walking speed in addition to a randomized block design of four steady-state mobility capability tasks: walking at maximum speed, and walking at self-selected speed with maximum cadence, maximum step length, and maximum step height.

Curated

Mortality Detail and Multiple Cause of Death, 1981 (ICPSR 3874)

Released/updated on: 2007-07-12
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, American Samoa, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, New York, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This data collection presents information about the causes of deaths occurring during 1981. Part 1, the Mortality Detail file, describes every death or fetal death registered in the United States for 1981. Part 2, Multiple Cause of Death, provides information about the causes of all recorded deaths occurring in the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa during 1981. Data are provided concerning underlying causes of death, multiple conditions that caused the death, place of death, residence of the deceased (e.g., region, division, state, county), whether an autopsy was performed, and the month and day of death. In addition, data are supplied on the sex, race, age, marital status, education, usual occupation, and origin or descent of the deceased. The multiple cause of death fields were coded from the MANUAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL STATISTICAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES, INJURIES, AND CAUSE-OF-DEATH, NINTH REVISION (ICD-9), VOLUMES 1 AND 2.
Curated

Mortality in the South, 1850 (ICPSR 7424)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina
This study recorded information on deaths that occurred in 1850 in seven states of the southern United States: Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The data were obtained from the manuscript mortality schedules of the 1850 United States Census. Variables identify the state and county in which each death occurred, and provide information on the age, sex, race, legal status (free or slave), place of birth, and occupation of the deceased. The month and cause of death as well as the number of days of illness before death are also documented.
Curated
Restricted

Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE), United States, 2012-2019 (ICPSR 37848)

Released/updated on: 2023-12-06
Geographic coverage: United States, California, Kansas, New Jersey, Washington, South Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada
Time period: 2012-01-01--2019-01-01

In 2010, the United States Congress authorized the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program, which started a major expansion of evidence-based home visiting programs for families living in at-risk communities. MIECHV is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in collaboration with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The authorizing legislation required an evaluation of the program, which became the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE). The evaluation is being conducted for HHS by MDRC with James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, the University of Georgia, and Columbia University.

MIHOPE was designed to learn whether families benefit from MIECHV-funded early childhood home visiting programs, and if so, how. The study included the four evidence-based models that 10 or more states chose in their initial MIECHV plans in fiscal year 2010-2011: Early Head Start - Home-based option, Healthy Families America, Nurse-Family Partnership, and Parents as Teachers. MIHOPE was the first study to include all of these four evidence-based models.

To provide rigorous evidence on the MIECHV-funded programs' effects, the study randomly assigned more than 4,200 families to receive either MIECHV-funded home visiting or information on community services. As is the standard method in studies that use random assignment, the primary analytical strategy in MIHOPE was to compare the outcomes of the entire program group with those of the entire control group.

As per the authorizing legislation, the study measured early effects on family and child outcomes in the areas listed below, with the exception of school readiness and academic achievement (which were not included at this point because children were too young to measure those outcomes):

  • Prenatal, maternal, and newborn health
  • Child health and development, including child maltreatment
  • Parenting skills
  • School readiness and child academic achievement
  • Crime and domestic violence
  • Family economic self-sufficiency
  • Referrals and service coordination

Videos and Video Metadata: Two sets of videos are included in the MIHOPE restricted access files. They include:

  • Mother-home visitor interactions at 387 home visits and
  • Interactions between child and mother using the "Three Bags" and "Clean-Up" tasks with 2,832 families.

The mother-home visitor interaction videos were recorded only for treatment group families at two points in time: the first was, on average, about eight weeks after the family's first home visit and the second was about eight months after the family's first home visit. Overall, 264 families are included in the mother-home visitor interaction videos in total, with 123 of these families recorded at both points in time.

The mother-child interaction videos, during which the child and mother play with toys contained in three bags and place the toys back in the bags (the "Three Bags" and "Clean-Up" tasks), were recorded when the 15-month in-home assessments were conducted and are available for 2,832 families in the treatment and control groups.

The videos are only linkable to a few pieces of metadata (home visiting model, video ID, treatment status, and variables indicating whether the family appears in the home visit videos, the three-bag task videos, or both). The videos in the restricted access data are not linkable to any other data included in the restricted access files. Additionally, the videos may only be viewed at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research's on-site Physical Data Enclave in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Curated
Restricted

Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation-Strong Start (MIHOPE-Strong Start), United States, 2012-2017 (ICPSR 37847)

Released/updated on: 2021-12-07
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, California, Kansas, New York (state), New Jersey, Washington, South Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada
Time period: 2011-01-01--2017-05-01

Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation-Strong Start (MIHOPE-Strong Start) was a large-scale evaluation that rigorously tested the effectiveness of evidence-based home visiting in improving birth and health outcomes during pregnancy and in the year after birth. Local programs included in the study's analysis implemented one of two evidence-based models: Healthy Families America (HFA) or Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP). These models were chosen because earlier evaluations found some evidence of their having positive impacts on birth outcomes.

The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) partnered with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to sponsor the study. MIHOPE-Strong Start was part of the CMMI's Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Initiative, which evaluated whether enhanced, nonmedical prenatal interventions, when provided in addition to routine medical care, have the potential to improve birth outcomes and reduce health care costs for women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Under contract with OPRE, MDRC conducted MIHOPE-Strong Start in collaboration with James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, and New York University.

The analysis for MIHOPE-Strong Start included 2,899 women and 66 local programs (37 HFA and 29 NFP programs) operating across 17 states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. Women were eligible for MIHOPE-Strong Start if they were pregnant and at least 8 weeks from their due date.

The MIHOPE-Strong Start analysis included a subset of families and local programs that were recruited for MIHOPE, the national evaluation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program. Specifically, the MIHOPE-Strong Start impact analysis included information on 46 local home visiting programs and 1,845 families that were initially recruited for MIHOPE but met the MIHOPE-Strong Start eligibility criteria. An important distinction between MIHOPE-Strong Start and MIHOPE is that MIHOPE included only programs receiving MIECHV funding, while MIHOPE-Strong Start included both MIECHV and non-MIECHV-funded programs.

In both studies, families were randomly assigned either to an evidence-based home visiting program or to a control group who was given information on other services available in the community. The random assignment design was intended to create program and control groups that were similar when women entered the study, so that systematic differences in the outcomes of interest observed between the two groups can be attributed to the home visiting services rather than to the preexisting characteristics of the women.

Curated

Natality Detail File, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 24941)

Released/updated on: 2009-08-19
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, American Samoa, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection provides information on live births in the United States during calendar year 2006. The natality data in these files are a component of the vital statistics collection effort maintained by the federal government. Birth data is limited to births occurring in the United States to United States residents and nonresidents. Births occurring to United States citizens outside of the United States are not included in this data collection. Part 1 contains data on births occurring within the United States, while Part 2 contains data on births occurring in the United States territories of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Beginning in 2005, the United States file no longer includes geographic detail (e.g., mother's state of residence). Geographic variables for the United States Territories file include the territory and county in which the birth occurred and in which the mother resided. Other variables describe the place of delivery, who was in attendance, and medical and health data such as the method of delivery, prenatal care, tobacco and alcohol use during pregnancy, pregnancy history, medical risk factors, and infant health characteristics. Birth and fertility rates and other statistics related to this study can be found in the National Vital Statistics Report in the codebook documentation. Demographic variables include the child's sex and month and year of birth, the parent's age, race, and ethnicity, as well as the mother's marital status, education level, and residency status.
Curated

Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the United States: Population Data, 1870-1960 (ICPSR 7753)

Released/updated on: 2011-08-31
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 1870-01-01--1960-01-01
Detailed demographic characteristics of the population of the United States from 1870 to 1960 are contained in this data collection. Included are state-level estimates of the nation's inhabitants by sex, race, nativity and age, as well as intercensal migration calculated by age, race, and sex. The basic information recorded in this collection was obtained from the decennial censuses of the United States or estimated by the principal investigators from material collected by the decennial censuses. The collection is comprised of thirteen separate data files. Each contains information for every state in the nation. All parts have a rectangular file structure with one record per case, with the number of cases ranging from 50 to 2,891, and the record length from 203 to 2,930 per part. Standard geographic identifying codes used in all of the files permit the combination of two or more of the files as research interests dictate.
Curated

RAND Health Insurance Experiment [in Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Areas of the United States], 1974-1982 (ICPSR 6439)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Charleston (South Carolina), Seattle, United States, Massachusetts, Ohio, Washington, South Carolina, Dayton
Time period: 1974-01-01--1982-01-01
The Health Insurance Experiment (HIE) was conducted from 1974 to 1982 in six sites across the country: Dayton, Ohio, Seattle, Washington, Fitchburg-Leominster and Franklin County, Massachusetts, and Charleston and Georgetown County, South Carolina. These sites represent four census regions (Midwest, West, Northeast, and South), as well as urban and rural areas. The HIE attempted to determine what effects alternative cost-sharing plans and a staff-model Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) had on the use of medical services and individual health outcomes. The main purpose of the experiment was to assess how the cost of health services affected individuals' use of services, their satisfaction with health care, the quality of their care, and the state of their health. To study the effects of health insurance coverage, a comprehensive method for measuring health and monitoring changes in health over time was developed. Health status was seen as having four dimensions: physical, mental, social, and physiological. Physical health focused on five categories of activities: self-care, mobility, exertion, role fulfillment, and leisure pursuits. Mental health focused on mood and anxiety disorders along with loss of control over feelings, thoughts, and behavior. Social health was assessed by the frequency of several kinds of participation, interaction, and resources, covering family and home, social life, and community involvement. Physiologic health was determined by looking at a number of physical disorders both in adults (aged 14 to 61) and children (aged 0 to 13) that would be easily traced over time and would be responsive to changes in the level and quality of medical care. For adults, acne, congestive heart failure, and sleeping pill and tranquilizer use were considered. For children, variables included allergic conditions (asthma, eczema, hay fever), anemia, middle ear disease, hearing impairment, and vision impairment. Also included were general health measures based on single questions about health-related pain and worry, and a rating of health (excellent, good, fair, poor). Health habits described aspects of smoking, consumption of alcohol, weight, height, and exercise.
Curated

United States Southern Cities in 1870 and 1880: A Study of Individuals and Families (ICPSR 7568)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Charleston (South Carolina), Savannah, United States, Atlanta, Louisiana, New Orleans, Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, Mobile, South Carolina, Norfolk
This data collection contains individual-level and family-level information collected from the 1870 and 1880 manuscript schedules of the United States Population Census for seven Southern cities: Charleston, South Carolina, Richmond, Virginia, Atlanta, Georgia, Savannah, Georgia, Mobile, Alabama, Norfolk, Virginia, and New Orleans, Louisiana. Approximately 5,000 individuals and 1,500 families are represented for each of the two census years studied. Part 1 contains data for 1870, and Part 2 contains data for 1880. The data gathered for sampled individuals include age, sex, race, marital status, presence of health defect, school attendance, ability to read, ability to write, occupational classification (female and male), nationality, and real and personal wealth (for 1870 only). Both datasets include a variable that uniquely identifies each family in the sample to facilitate the aggregation of the data for the creation of family-level data for each member, e.g., sex, race, age, marital status, school attendance, member status in the family, occupation, health, unemployment, city of residence, nationality and parents' nationality, and real and personal wealth.