Search results

Showing 1 – 2 of 2 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

Prescription for Health Evaluation: Practice Information Form Data, 2005-2007 [United States] (ICPSR 27041)

Released/updated on: 2010-06-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2007-01-01

Prescription for Health was an initiative funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in collaboration with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Under this initiative, primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) -- groups of ambulatory practices devoted principally to the primary care of patients -- developed, tested, and evaluated innovative strategies to improve the delivery and effectiveness of health behavior change services in primary care practice. The strategies targeted four health risk behaviors: tobacco use, unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity, and risky alcohol use. Prescription for Health was conducted in two rounds. Round one awarded grants to 17 PBRNs to test the feasibility of implementing the strategies, while round two awarded grants to ten PBRNs to measure the strategies' effectiveness and the expenses associated with them. More than a 100 primary care practices from the ten PBRNs participated in the evaluation.

This data collection comprises the data from one of the data collection efforts carried out by the second round: the responses to the Practice Information Form (PIF), a Web-based instrument which captured key organizational attributes of the participating practices. The PIF data were collected at two time points. Baseline data were collected from each practice before the intervention was implemented and follow-up data were collected approximately one year after the start of the intervention.

Information about the practices collected by the PIF include practice type and ownership; characteristics of each clinician and non-clinician staff person; number of vacancies for clinicians and non clinicians; number of exam rooms and volume of office visits; average number of new patients per month; percentages of patients in various age, race, Hispanic origin, and payer categories; and the predominant type of payment arrangement with health plans. In addition, the PIF asked whether a specific health plan controlled over half of the practice's total business; whether the practice had a pay-for-performance program; whether any payers or organizations publicly reported practice level performance information, such as patient satisfaction, chronic care/disease management, and/or preventive service delivery; and whether practices had a formal process for routinely measuring satisfaction among patients, clinicians, and other staff. The PIF also investigated how practices motivated their clinicians and staff; the level of competition among practices in local markets; the use of computers, electronic medical record systems, and patient registries; major changes that affected each practice's ability to make improvements in patient care; factors that prevented practices from translating the results of research into changes in medical practice; and the use of health risk assessment protocols or questionnaires to identify patients who may benefit from counseling or interventions. Questions about the four Prescription for Health behaviors -- physical activity, healthy eating, smoking cessation, and addressing risky drinking -- asked how practices linked patients to outside resources for each of the four behaviors; how practices used evidence-based guidelines and informed patients about recommendations for the behaviors; and which approaches practices used to support patients ready to engage in a behavior change for each of the behaviors.