Search results

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to add questions requested by the partnerships, to add questions for decision-makers, or to modify questions that were outdated.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.

This randomized controlled trial evaluated a culturally appropriate intervention to improve the recognition and treatment of depression among Asian and Latino American primary care patients at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), using a culturally focused psychiatric (CFP) consultation with a team of mental health providers who were bilingual/bicultural, trained in culturally competent techniques, and familiar with the cultures and languages of the patients served. Targeted minority patients who screened positive for clinical depression were eligible to participate in the trial. The intervention patients were offered the CFP consultation at baseline and, if eligible, received the CFP patient toolkit as part of their treatment. The toolkit provided psychoeducation and tools for managing depression as well as information on community resources. The usual care patients were offered standard referrals to MGH mental health resources.

Questionnaires were administered to the patients at screening, baseline, two-week follow-up, and six month follow-up. The screening questionnaires included the two-item Public Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) and demographic questions. Assessment measures administered to the intervention patients at baseline included the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Rated Scale (QIDS-SR 16), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Schwartz Outcome Scale (SOS-10), and a demographic questionnaire and resource utilization questionnaire. At six month follow-up, the intervention arm was administered a resource utilization questionnaire, patient satisfaction questionnaire (Treatment Satisfaction Scale), qualitative interview, and the QIDS-SR 16 and SOS-10. The SOS-10 was also administered to the intervention patients at two-week follow-up. In the usual care arm, the QIDS-SR 16 and resource utilization questionnaire was administered at baseline and six months, the qualitative interview at six months, and the demographic questionnaire at baseline or six-months. There was no two-week assessment for the usual care patients. Electronic medical record review was used for both arms at baseline and six months, as needed. In addition, qualitative interviews were conducted with project and practice staff at the end of the study.

The data file includes the responses to the questionnaires and variables describing the CFP consultation assessment (DSM-IV Axis I, II, III, IV, and V diagnoses), treatment recommendations made to the patients' primary care physicians (PCPs) after the CFP consultation, and study staff contacts with the patients' PCPs and mental health providers. ICPSR did not receive the data from the qualitative interviews or electronic medical record reviews.

This catalog record includes detailed variable-level descriptions, enabling data discovery and comparison. The data are not archived at ICPSR. Users should consult the data owners (via the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research) directly for details on obtaining the data.

This collection includes variable-level metadata of Sick in Massachusetts, a survey from the Harvard School of Public Health, WBUR Boston National Public Radio, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Massachusetts, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, conducted by Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS). Topics covered in this survey include:

• Quality of health care
• Health insurance, insurance status, and care costs
• Reasons for health care quality problems
• Focus of doctor visits
• Reasons for rising health care costs
• Health care as good value
• Agreement with doctor statements
• Amount of doctors
• Attending routine check-ups
• Overnight stays in hospitals
• Satisfaction with hospital care
• Medical costs as reasonable
• Description of hospital stay
• Recent serious illness
• Satisfaction with medical care
• Interactions with health care professionals
• Impact of medical costs on family
• Receiving care every time it's needed
• Being turned away for health care
• Insurance premiums as financial problem
• Out-of-pocket medical costs
• Negotiating lower charges
• Problems paying for insurance
• Changing regular doctor
• Personal financial situation

The data and documentation files for this survey are available through the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [Roper #31092353]. Frequencies and summary statistics for the 162 variables from this survey are available through the ICPSR social science variable database and can be accessed from the Variables tab.

Coverage expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has important implications for access, and the value of coverage is dependent on the ability to access care. Most information about access to care comes from household or physician surveys.

The current data collection was gathered as a part of the Primary Care Audit Study for 10 States in the United States, 2012-2013, 2014 and 2016 to assess variation in access to primary care using a methodology that was applied across different types of states (Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas) at baseline and over-time. The project was broken up into three phases: before the ACA (2012-2013), during the launch of ACA coverage provisions such as the Medicaid fee bump and ACA marketplaces (2014), and after the full ACA implementation (2016). Insurance types in the study included commercial coverage, Medicaid, uninsured, and, in 2014 and 2016, plans purchased on the ACA market place.

The audit-level file, featured in part one of the collection, includes all completed calls and provides information from multiple dimensions (appointment availability, wait times, simulated patients' demographics, cost information, etc.).

The office-level file, featured in part two of the collection, covers all eligible offices and their characteristics (e.g., size, insurance acceptability, cost information, etc.) collected from the screening phase.

Demographic variables include simulated caller number, race, gender, and age.