Search results

Showing 1 – 4 of 4 results.
Curated

Community Hospital Program (CHP) Access Impact Evaluation Surveys, 1978-1979, 1981 (ICPSR 8245)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1978-01-01--1979-01-01
This data collection evaluates group medical practices and the ways in which they affect both access to and use of medical services. Group practices, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Community Hospital Program (CHP), were selected for use in this assessment. The data were collected by the Center for Health Administration Studies at the University of Chicago, with the assistance of Chilton Research Services. Two surveys were conducted for the study: a baseline survey in 1978-1979 and a follow-up in 1981. Community residents and CHP patients in 12 communities were interviewed. Demographic and medical care data were collected for selected individuals and families in the survey areas. Data on regular sources of medical care for individuals include the type of organization used, type of practice, accessibility, frequency of visits, types of health care professionals seen, cost, and satisfaction. Also in the collection are data on perceived health, episodes of illness (including symptoms, duration, disability days, and doctors consulted), use of preventive health care services, and insurance coverage. Demographic data for individuals and families include age, sex, race, educational attainment, employment, and income. Of the 198 files in this collection, 88 are "raw" data files and 110 are frequencies. The data files consist of four types. The first type are Sample Person files. These contain the responses of group practice patients and community members. The second type are Doctor Episode files, which record doctors and episodes of illness. Family files make up the third type of file, and consist of family members' responses to the survey. Analysis files, linking patient and doctor data, are the fourth type of file. The SPSS frequency files correspond to the data files: two per file for the Sample Person files, and one per file for the remaining three types of files.
Curated
Restricted

Community Tracking Study Household Survey, 1998-1999, and Followback Survey, 1998-2000: [United States] (ICPSR 3199)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--2000-01-01
This collection comprises the second round of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Household Survey and the second round of the CTS Followback Survey. The CTS, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is a national study designed to track changes in the health care system and their effects on care delivery and individuals. Fifty-one metropolitan areas and nine nonmetropolitan areas were randomly selected to form the core of the CTS and to be representative of the nation as a whole. As in the first round of the Household Survey (COMMUNITY TRACKING STUDY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, 1996-1997, AND FOLLOWBACK SURVEY, 1997-1998: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 2524)), the second round of the Household Survey was administered to households in the 60 CTS sites and to a supplemental national sample of households. Respondents provided information about household composition and demographic characteristics, health insurance coverage, use of health services, unmet health care needs, out-of-pocket expenses for health care, usual source of care, patient trust and satisfaction, last visit to a medical provider, health status and presence of chronic health conditions, risk behaviors and smoking, and employment, earnings, and income. The purpose of the Followback Survey was to obtain detailed information on private health insurance coverage reported in the Household Survey. It was administered to the health plans and other organizations (managed care organizations, third-party administrators, employer or union plans, and employers) that offered or administered the respondents' comprehensive private health insurance policies. Information on private health insurance policies collected by the Followback Survey includes product type, gatekeeping, consumer cost sharing, provider payment methods, and coverage of mental health and/or substance abuse services.
Curated

Do Older Adults Know Their Spouses' End-of-Life Treatment Preferences? (ICPSR 25701)

Released/updated on: 2009-06-23
Geographic coverage: United States
When terminally ill patients become mentally incapacitated, their surrogates often make treatment decisions in collaboration with health care providers. The authors examined how surrogates' errors in reporting their spouses' preferences are affected by their gender, status as durable power of attorney for health care (DPAHC), whether they and their spouses discussed end-of-life preferences, and their spouses' health status. Structural equation models were applied to data from married couples in their mid-60s from the 2004 wave of the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. Surrogates reported their spouses' preferences incorrectly 13 percent and 26 percent of the time in end-of-life scenarios involving cognitive impairment and physical pain, respectively. Surrogates projected their own preferences onto their spouses'. Similar patterns emerged regardless of surrogate gender and status as DPAHC, marital discussions about end-of-life preferences, or spousal health status. Implications for the process of surrogate decision-making and for future research are discussed.
Curated
Restricted

Health Tracking Household Survey, 2007 [United States] (ICPSR 26001)

Released/updated on: 2011-04-15
Geographic coverage: United States

The 2007 Health Tracking Household Survey (HTHS) is the successor to the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Household Surveys which were conducted in 1996-1997 (ICPSR 2524), 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3199), 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3764), and 2003 (ICPSR 4216). Although the HTHS questionnaires are similar to the CTS Household Survey questionnaires, the HTHS sampling design does not have the community focus intrinsic to CTS. Whereas the CTS design focused on 60 nationally representative communities with sample sizes large enough to draw conclusions about health system change in 12 communities, the HTHS design is a national sample not aimed at measuring change within communities. Hence, "Community" was dropped from the study title. Like the CTS Household Surveys, HTHS collected information on health insurance coverage, use of health services, health expenses, satisfaction with health care and physician choice, unmet health care needs, usual source of care and patient trust, health status, adult chronic conditions, height and weight, and smoking behavior. In addition, the survey inquired about perceptions of care delivery and quality, problems with paying medical bills, use of in-store retail and onsite workplace health clinics, patient engagement with health care, sources of health information, and shopping for health care.

At the beginning of the interview, a household informant provided information about the composition of the household which was used to group the household members into family insurance units (FIU). Each FIU comprised an adult household member, his or her spouse or domestic partner (same sex and other unmarried partners), if any, and any dependent children 0-17 years of age or 18-22 years of age if a full-time student (even if living outside the household). In each FIU in the household, a FIU informant provided information on insurance coverage, health care use, usual source of care, and general health status of all FIU members. This informant also provided information on family income as well as employment, earnings, employer-offered insurance plans, and race/ethnicity for all adult FIU members. Moreover, every adult in each FIU (including the FIU informant) responded through a self-response module to questions that could not be answered reliably by proxy respondents, such as questions about unmet needs, assessments of the quality of care, consumer engagement, satisfaction with physician choice, use of health information, health care shopping, and detailed health questions. The FIU informants responded on behalf of children regarding unmet needs, satisfaction with physician choice, and use of health care information.

Back to top