Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 53 results.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Aligning Forces for Quality Evaluation: Consumer Survey Round 2, 2011-2012 (ICPSR 37220)

Released/updated on: 2019-10-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01
This survey was conducted as part of the evaluation of the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative, which is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's effort to lift the overall quality of health care in 17 targeted communities, reduce racial and ethnic disparities, and provide models of national reform. The survey was administered to adults with one or more of five chronic illnesses, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, asthma and depression, in the AF4Q communities and a national sample residing in non-AF4Q communities to provide a basis for comparison between the AF4Q communities and the rest of the United States. Survey questions focused on patient activation; consumer knowledge of publicly available performance reports that highlight quality differences among physicians, hospitals, and health plans; the ability to be an effective consumer in the context of a physician visit; patient knowledge about her/his illness; skills and willingness to self-manage one's illness; the impact of insurance and payment models; and the relationship between out-of-pocket costs and health care utilization. In 2011 the AF4Q evaluation team contracted with RTI International (RTI) to conduct the Aligning Forces for Quality Consumer Survey 2.0 (AF4Q 2.0).
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

American Health Values Survey, [United States], 2015-2016 (ICPSR 37403)

Released/updated on: 2021-12-07
Geographic coverage: United States
The American Health Values Survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago in order to develop a typology of Americans based on their health values and beliefs. The survey examined values and beliefs related to health at both the individual as well as societal levels. The survey assessed the importance of health in day-to-day personal life (i.e. the amount of effort spent on disease prevention as well as appropriate seeking of medical care); equity, the value placed on the opportunity to succeed generally in life as well as on health equity; social solidarity, the importance of taking into account the needs of others as well as personal needs; health care disparities, views about how easy/hard it is for African Americans, Latinos and low-income Americans to get quality health care; and, the importance of the social determinants of health. In addition, the survey also explored views about how active government should be in health; collective efficacy, the ease of affecting positive community change by working with others; and health-related civic engagement e.g. the support of health charities and organizations working on health issues.
Curated

Assessment of a Program of Public Information on Health Care Reform, 1992-1993: [Wichita, Kansas, and Des Moines, Iowa] (ICPSR 6066)

Released/updated on: 1998-04-20
Geographic coverage: Des Moines, Wichita, Iowa, United States, Kansas
Time period: 1992-10-17--1993-01-28
The purpose of this data collection was to assess the impact on public opinion of an informational program on health care reform in the United States. This educational campaign, designed and carried out by the Public Agenda Foundation with the cooperation of various media and community organizations, was intended to inform the public in targeted communities about the condition of the United States health care system, particularly regarding cost and accessibility of health care, and various reform initiatives being debated by policymakers. A pre- and post-treatment survey design with controls was used. Surveys were conducted in Wichita, Kansas (the treatment community) before and after the program was administered in that city. Parallel surveys were conducted in Des Moines, Iowa (the control community), where the program was not introduced. In both cities, respondents were asked their opinions about the cost of health care, access to health care, and health care reform, including willingness to pay more taxes for health care. In addition, respondents were queried about the status of health insurance coverage for themselves and their families, and how satisfied they were with the health care services that they and their families had received in the last few years. The surveys also solicited opinions concerning other issues, such as crime and drug abuse, the economy and unemployment, race relations, the quality of public school education, pollution and the environment, alcoholism, and homelessness. Background information on respondents includes age, sex, marital status, education, employment, and family income.
Curated
Restricted

Business Leaders' Views on American Health Care, 1990 (ICPSR 6032)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1990-07-05--1990-12-17
This survey interviewed business leaders from Fortune 500 companies (chief executive officers, presidents, and chairmen of the board) on health care issues. Its purpose was to assess their views on the need for change in the health care system, the directions that such changes should take, and the role that business should play in the health care system. In addition, respondents were asked if their companies self-insured for insurance benefits or purchased coverage from a health insurance company, if there was an executive-level effort at their companies to decide where they stood on national health policy issues, and if they believed their companies would be able to bring their health costs under control over the next year or two. For each company, the data include information on the number of employees, the percentage of total payroll used for health care benefits, the percentage of sales in health-related business, and the company type (financial services and insurance, sales and diversified services, utilities and transportation, durable goods, nondurable goods, and forestry/mining/petroleum).
Curated

Chronic Illness and Caregiving, 2000: [United States] (ICPSR 3402)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
The objective of this survey, which interviewed individuals from the general public, chronically ill persons, and informal caregivers, was threefold: (1) to assess public awareness of chronic care issues and the level of support for chronic care policy initiatives, (2) to examine experiences and needs of chronically ill Americans concerning health care and other assistance, and (3) to evaluate experiences and needs of informal caregivers. Questions to the general public addressed awareness of the availability of supportive and housing services for the chronically ill, knowledge about coverage for long-term care, concerns about the future of the chronic care delivery system, support for policy initiatives such as tax credits for the chronically ill and caregivers, and support for a policy that would ensure pharmaceutical coverage in Medicare. Chronically ill interviewees responded to questions about access to and experience with chronic care and other health care services, experiences with and needs for clinical services coordination, experiences with and needs for social supports and interventions, and adjustment skills and knowledge (e.g., what were their needs for learning how to live with chronic conditions). Questions for informal caregivers focused on experiences with caregiving (e.g., for whom they provided care, how many hours they devoted to caregiving per week, and living arrangements), balance between caregiving and other areas of their lives, experiences with and needs for respite care, and availability of social supports for caregivers.
Curated
Restricted

Communities in Charge Survey, 2001-2003 [Alameda County, California, Austin, Texas, and Southern Maine] (ICPSR 4638)

Released/updated on: 2007-03-01
Geographic coverage: Texas, Maine, California, Austin
Time period: 2001-01-01--2003-01-01
This three-wave survey was conducted as part of an evaluation of the Communities in Charge (CIC) initiative, a competitive grants program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). CIC provided funding and technical assistance to help communities design and implement new or expand existing approaches for supplying health care to the uninsured. Three of the 14 CIC sites funded by RWJF in 2001 were selected for the survey: Alameda County, California, Austin, Texas, and southern Maine. With CIC grant support, all three created programs that provided fairly comprehensive health benefits to low-income, uninsured participants, who were interviewed by the survey within three months of enrollment (Wave 1) and again at about six months and 12 months after enrollment (Waves 2 and 3). Conducted in English in southern Maine, English and Spanish in Austin, and English, Spanish, and Cantonese in Alameda County, the survey collected information on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, health status, health insurance coverage, access to health services, and health services utilization. Additional topics covered by the survey include out-of-pocket spending on health care, unmet health care needs, and satisfaction with and opinions about health care. There are two data files for each wave, one with the data from the Cantonese interviews and one with the data from the English and Spanish interviews.
Curated
Restricted

Community Tracking Study Household Survey, 1996-1997, and Followback Survey, 1997-1998: [United States] (ICPSR 2524)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-07-01--1997-07-01, 1997-10-01--1998-08-01
This data collection comprises two components of the Community Tracking Study (CTS), the Household Survey and the 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. Central to the design of the CTS is its community focus. Sixty sites (51 metropolitan areas and 9 nonmetropolitan areas) were randomly selected to form the core of the CTS and to be representative of the nation as a whole. The Household Survey was administered to households in the 60 CTS sites and to a supplemental national sample of households. At the beginning of each interview, a household informant was identified and queried about the composition of the household. With this information, individuals in the household were grouped into family insurance units (FIU). An FIU reflects family groupings typically used by insurance carriers. It includes an adult household member, his or her spouse, if any, and any dependent children 0-17 years of age (or 18-22 years of age if a full-time student). Family informants, selected from each FIU in the household, provided information on health insurance coverage, health care use, usual source of care, and the general health of all persons in the FIU. These informants also provided information on family income and out-of-pocket expenses for health care, as well as employment, race, and Hispanic origin for all adult FIU members. Each adult in the household, including the FIU informants, responded through a self-response module to questions regarding unmet health care needs, patient trust, satisfaction with physician choice, limitations in daily activities, smoking behaviors, and last doctor visit. In FIUs with more than one child under 18, only one child was randomly selected for inclusion in the survey. The family informant responded on behalf of the child regarding unmet needs and satisfaction with physician choice. The adult family member who took this child to his or her last doctor visit responded to questions about the visit. The Followback Survey was designed to obtain detailed information on private health insurance coverage reported in the Household Survey. It was administered to health plans and other organizations that offered or administered the comprehensive private health insurance policies covering Household Survey respondents in the 60 CTS sites. 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
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
Restricted

Community Tracking Study Household Survey, 2000-2001: [United States] (ICPSR 3764)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2001-01-01
This collection comprises the third round of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Household Survey. The CTS, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is a national study designed to track changes in the health care system and the effects of those changes on people. 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 two rounds of the Household Survey (ICPSR 2524 and 3199), the third round 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. A new set of sample design variables was added to the third round data for variance estimation by statistical software packages other than SUDAAN.
Curated
Restricted

Community Tracking Study Household Survey, 2003: [United States] (ICPSR 4216)

Released/updated on: 2007-12-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2004-01-01
This collection contains data and documentation for the fourth round of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Household Survey. Sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the CTS is a national study designed to track changes in the United States' health care system and their effects. The fourth round was administered to households in the 60 CTS sites: 51 metropolitan areas and nine nonmetropolitan areas which were randomly selected to form the core of the CTS and to be representative of the nation as a whole. The first round of the CTS Household Survey was conducted in 1996-1997 (ICPSR 2524), the second round in 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3199), and the third in 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3764). Respondents to the fourth round provided information about health insurance coverage, use of health services, unmet needs for health care, children's special health care needs, out-of-pocket medical costs, patient trust in physicians, sources of health information, attitudes about medical care, and satisfaction with health care and health plans. Health status, chronic conditions, and risk attitudes and smoking behavior were additional topics covered by the fourth round questionnaire. The data include variables on height and weight, employment, income, ethnicity, race, United States citizenship, household composition, and demographic characteristics.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Consumer Healthcare Experience State Surveys, United States, 2022 (ICPSR 38596)

Released/updated on: 2023-05-03
Geographic coverage: United States, Illinois, Missouri, Maryland, New Jersey

Altarum's Consumer Healthcare Experience State Survey (CHESS) and Medical Debt Survey are designed to elicit respondents' unbiased views on a wide range of health system issues, including confidence in using the health system, financial burden, medical debt, and views on fixes that might be needed. The surveys use a web panel from Dynata with a demographically balanced sample of approximately 1,500 respondents who live in a targeted state. The surveys were conducted in English or Spanish and restricted to adults ages 18 and older. Respondents who finished the surveys in less than half the median time were excluded from the final sample.

Curated
Restricted

Creating a Patient Registry to Facilitate Data Sharing and Encourage Patient-Centered Approaches to Improving Health and Lowering Costs, 2013 (ICPSR 35570)

Released/updated on: 2016-10-05
Geographic coverage: United States, Cincinnati, Ohio
Time period: 2013-09-01--2013-12-01

This interventional pilot study was conducted in a primary care clinic to determine if patients would become more engaged in their own health and ask more questions of their physicians if they were provided data about patients similar to themselves. The study was conducted with 150 patients with a diagnosis of hypertension who had scheduled appointments with one of three participating physicians in the clinic. When they arrived at the clinic for their appointment, the patients were shown de-identified clinical data about similar patients with hypertension on a computer screen, given a printout of this information, and then proceeded to visit their physician. After the physician visit the patients completed a short survey. Their answers to the survey questions are recorded in the data file together with additional information about them, such as age, gender, race, smoking status and comorbidities.

The three participating physicians completed a short survey at the end of the study. The results of that survey are summarized in a table provided with the technical documentation.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Developing the PROMIS-Preference Score for Monitoring Population Health Outcomes, United States, 2017 (ICPSR 37516)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-25
Geographic coverage: United States

This is a United States nationally representative survey of 4142 respondents age 18 and older from the National Opinion Research Center Amerispeak panel. The study survey includes self rated health, 4 summary measures of health, questions about chronic conditions, and questions about social determinants of health. Basic demographic information is included in this study regarding age, education, race/ethnicity, gender, household size, housing type, household income, marital status, and employment status.

The National Opinion Research Center also provided the latitude and longitude of the participant's household which were used to get census tract level information and scores from walkscore.com (walkability, transportation, and opportunity scores).

Curated
Restricted

Evaluating the Impact and Effectiveness of New Connections: Increasing Diversity of Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Programming, June 2011 - February 2012 (ICPSR 34311)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-06-01--2012-02-01

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) began its New Connections Program in 2005, motivated by the belief that high-quality research and evaluation that addresses the nation's health demands diverse perspectives. As of December 2011, New Connections has supported the career development of 100 grantees: junior researchers and mid-career professionals from historically disadvantaged and underrepresented communities. In addition, the program has provided overall support to a larger network of over 1,200 scholars from these same communities. This study comprises data from three surveys that were conducted as part of the evaluation of New Connections: the Grantee Process Survey, Grantee Network Survey, and Larger Network Survey.

The Grantee Process Survey interviewed New Connections grantees about their accomplishments and participation in professional activities, confidence in various abilities before and after they became grantees, satisfaction with support from New Connections, the extent to which New Connections improved their knowledge and skills, and the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that the program affected their ability to obtain their current position or made them more influential in their work settings.

The Grantee Network Survey questioned New Connections grantees about the persons from whom they would seek support, guidance, or information; expertise; work with; or communicate with about what they needed to be successful in their current positions and to advance in their careers (e.g., to get tenure, a promotion, or a leadership position).

The Larger Network Survey interviewed members of the larger network about their participation in New Connections activities, their interactions with New Connections grantees and the larger network, the extent to which the program improved their knowledge and skills, the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that New Connections affected their ability to obtain their current position, and their satisfaction with the program.

There is a separate data file for each survey. Together with the survey responses, all three files include information from the program's administrative records, such as the highest degree earned, institution type, field of work, race and Hispanic ethnicity, first generation college student status, and low income status. In addition, the Grantee Process Survey data file contains variables derived from the respondents' curriculum vitae that show the number of grantee presentations and publications before, during, and after the New Connection grants.

Curated

Finding Quality Doctors: How Americans Evaluate Provider Quality in the United States, 2014 (ICPSR 36055)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2014-05-27--2014-06-18
This survey examined perceptions of health care provider quality in the United States. To that end, the survey respondents were asked what they thought was the most important factor that makes a high quality doctor or other health care provider and the most important factor that makes a poor quality one (hereafter "provider" denotes "doctor or other health care provider"). Additionally, respondents were asked about the importance of various provider attributes in their choice of a provider; whether there is a relationship between the quality and cost of health care; exposure to and trust in information about the quality of providers from various sources; and cost versus quality when choosing providers. Other topics covered by the survey include self-reported health, utilization of health care, quality of health care received and health insurance coverage. Background variables collected by the survey include age, sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity, marital status, education, employment status and political identification.
Curated
Restricted

Forces of Change Survey, United States, 2015, Restricted-Use Level 1 Data (ICPSR 37069)

Released/updated on: 2018-09-05
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2014-01-01--2014-12-31

The National Association of County and City Health Officials' (NACCHO) Forces of Change Survey is an evolution of NACCHO's Job Losses and Program Cuts Surveys (also known as the Economic Surveillance Surveys) which measured the impact of the economic recession on local health departments' budgets, staff, and programs. The Forces of Change Survey continues to measure changes in Local Health Department (LHD) budgets, staff, and programs and assess more broadly the impact of forces affecting change in LHDs, such as health reform and accreditation. More specifically, the survey collected information about LHD staffing levels, workforce reductions, and changes in budget sizes; provided services or functions; changes in the level of service delivery; billing for clinical services; efforts to help people enroll in health insurance from exchanges under the Affordable Care Act; awareness of and involvement in the State Innovation Models Initiative; participation in the Public Health Accreditation Board's national accreditation program for LHDs; and whether LHDs were part of a combined health and human services agency.

The collection is comprised of the public-use version (Restricted-Use Level 1) of the Forces of Change 2015 dataset, and includes 101 variables for 690 cases, with demographic variables related to LHD budgets.

Curated
Restricted

Forces of Change Survey, United States, 2015, Restricted-Use Level 2 Data (ICPSR 37140)

Released/updated on: 2018-09-05
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2014-01-01--2014-12-31

The National Association of County and City Health Officials' (NACCHO) Forces of Change Survey is an evolution of NACCHO's Job Losses and Program Cuts Surveys (also known as the Economic Surveillance Surveys) which measured the impact of the economic recession on local health departments' budgets, staff, and programs. The Forces of Change Survey continues to measure changes in Local Health Department (LHD) budgets, staff, and programs and assess more broadly the impact of forces affecting change in LHDs, such as health reform and accreditation. More specifically, the survey collected information about LHD staffing levels, workforce reductions, and changes in budget sizes; provided services or functions; changes in the level of service delivery; billing for clinical services; efforts to help people enroll in health insurance from exchanges under the Affordable Care Act; awareness of and involvement in the State Innovation Models Initiative; participation in the Public Health Accreditation Board's national accreditation program for LHDs; and whether LHDs were part of a combined health and human services agency.

The collection is comprised of the restricted-use version (Restricted-Use Level 2) of the Forces of Change 2015 dataset, which includes 103 variables for 690 cases and demographic variables related to the size of population served and LHD budgets.

Curated
Restricted

Forces of Change Survey, United States, 2017, Restricted-Use Level 1 Data (ICPSR 37103)

Released/updated on: 2018-11-07
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2017-02-21--2017-04-21

The National Association of County and City Health Officials' (NACCHO) Forces of Change Survey is an evolution of NACCHO's Job Losses and Program Cuts Surveys (also known as the Economic Surveillance Surveys) which measured the impact of the economic recession on local health departments' (LHD) budgets, staff, and programs. The Forces of Change Survey continues to measure changes in LHD budgets, staff, and programs and assess more broadly the impact of forces affecting change in local health departments, such as health reform and accreditation. This current iteration of the survey collected information about Zika response; local health departments involvement in multi-sectoral partnerships; and workforce recruitment.

The collection is comprised of the public-use version (Restricted-Use Level 1) of the Forces of Change 2017 dataset, and includes 192 variables for 948 cases, with demographic variables related to LHD budgets.

Curated
Restricted

Forces of Change Survey, United States, 2017, Restricted-Use Level 2 Data (ICPSR 37141)

Released/updated on: 2018-11-07
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2017-02-21--2017-04-21

The National Association of County and City Health Officials' (NACCHO) Forces of Change Survey is an evolution of NACCHO's Job Losses and Program Cuts Surveys (also known as the Economic Surveillance Surveys) which measured the impact of the economic recession on local health departments' (LHD) budgets, staff, and programs. The Forces of Change Survey continues to measure changes in LHD budgets, staff, and programs and assess more broadly the impact of forces affecting change in LHDs, such as health reform and accreditation. This current iteration of the survey collected information about Zika response; LHDs involvement in multi-sectoral partnerships; and workforce recruitment.

The collection is comprised of the restricted-use version (Restricted-Use Level 2) of the Forces of Change 2017 dataset, and includes 195 variables for 948 cases, with demographic variables related to LHD budgets.

Curated

Harvard School of Public Health/WBUR/Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Poll: Sick in Massachusetts, 2012 (ICPSR 38377)

Released/updated on: 2022-03-09
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts

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.

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.

Curated
Restricted

Health Tracking Household Survey, 2010 [United States] (ICPSR 34141)

Released/updated on: 2012-08-09
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2010-04-01--2011-03-01

This is the second survey in the Health Tracking Household Survey (HTHS) series, the successor to the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Household Surveys. The CTS Household Surveys were conducted in 1996-1997 (ICPSR 2524), 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3199), 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3764), and 2003 (ICPSR 4216), and the first HTHS survey was conducted in 2007 (ICPSR 26001). 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 previous surveys, this survey 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, and adult chronic conditions. 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, usual source of care, 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.

Curated
Restricted

Hospitalized Older Persons Evaluation (HOPE) Study, 1991-1993: [California] (ICPSR 6560)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1991-03-01--1993-05-31
The HOPE study was a multi-center randomized clinical trial mounted to determine the effects of hospital inpatient consultative comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) under typical practice conditions on selected patient health and health services utilization outcomes. The main outcome measures were functional status, health status, mortality, rehospitalization, and total use of health care services for hospital patients 65 years of age and older. Functional status was evaluated by questions about limitations in patients' activities of daily living due to health problems. Also included were items covering living arrangements (with whom and where), ethnicity, education, and marital status. Health status questions covered patients' perceptions of mental health and current physical health. The functional and health status of patients was measured prior to CGA treatment and randomization, again at 3 months post-randomization, and at 12 months post-randomization. Functional and health status data are included in Parts 3-8. Health services utilization data (Parts 9-15) cover patient use of medical services such as urgent care, emergency room, radiology, durable medical equipment, and medications (prescribed and over the counter). Mortality information (Part 17) includes date of lost contact or death, and data source of survival status. Hospitalization measures (Part 18) include date of admission and discharge, admittance source diagnoses and procedures, and inpatient/outpatient status.
Curated
Restricted

Massachusetts Health Reform Survey, 2006 (ICPSR 35026)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-24
Geographic coverage: Massachusetts
Time period: 2006-10-16--2007-01-07
This data collection comprises data from the first round of the Massachusetts Health Reform Survey (MHRS), a survey designed to track the impact of Massachusetts health care reform legislation passed in late 2006. Interviews were conducted with non-elderly adults in Massachusetts beginning in fall 2006, just prior to the implementation of the major components of the legislation. The survey collected information on health insurance status; specific types of health insurance coverage held by the survey respondents; insurance premiums and covered services for those with insurance; access to and use of health care; out-of-pocket health care costs and medical debt; health and disability status; and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Respondents were also asked about their impressions of the health care system in Massachusetts and whether they supported or opposed the new Massachusetts universal health insurance law.
Curated
Restricted

Massachusetts Health Reform Survey, 2007 (ICPSR 35027)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts
Time period: 2007-10-01--2007-12-23
This data collection comprises data from the second round of the Massachusetts Health Reform Survey (MHRS), a survey designed to track the impact of Massachusetts health care reform legislation passed in late 2006. Topics covered by the survey include health insurance status; specific types of health insurance coverage held by the survey respondents; insurance premiums and covered services for those with insurance; access to and use of health care; out-of-pocket health care costs and medical debt; health and disability status; and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The survey also gauged support for the legislation and awareness of its individual mandate.
Curated
Restricted

Massachusetts Health Reform Survey, 2008 (ICPSR 35028)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-31
Geographic coverage: Massachusetts
Time period: 2008-10-01--2009-01-27
This data collection comprises data from the third round of the Massachusetts Health Reform Survey (MHRS), a survey designed to track the impact of Massachusetts health care reform legislation passed in late 2006. Topics covered by the survey include health insurance status; specific types of health insurance coverage held by the survey respondents; insurance premiums and covered services for those with insurance; access to and use of health care; out-of-pocket health care costs and medical debt; health and disability status; and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The survey also gauged support for the legislation; awareness of the individual mandate and its impact on coverage decisions; and how easy or difficult it was to obtain information on the different health insurance plans available through the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, a state agency established by the legislation.
Curated
Restricted

Massachusetts Health Reform Survey, 2009 (ICPSR 35029)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-31
Geographic coverage: Massachusetts
Time period: 2009-10-01--2010-01-06
This data collection comprises data from the fourth round of the Massachusetts Health Reform Survey (MHRS), a survey designed to track the impact of Massachusetts health care reform legislation passed in 2006. Topics covered by the survey include health and disability; access to and use of health care; health insurance status and specific types of health insurance coverage held by the survey respondents; health insurance premiums, out-of-pocket health care costs, and medical debt; and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The survey also gauged support for the legislation; awareness of the individual mandate and its impact on coverage decisions; and how easy or difficult it was to obtain information on the different health insurance plans available through the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, a state agency established by the legislation.
Curated
Restricted

Massachusetts Health Reform Survey, 2010 (ICPSR 35030)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-31
Geographic coverage: Massachusetts
Time period: 2010-10-04--2011-01-06
This study contains data from the fifth round of the Massachusetts Health Reform Survey (MHRS), a survey designed to track the impact of Massachusetts health care reform legislation passed in 2006. Topics covered by the survey include health status and work limitation; access to and use of health care; health insurance status and specific types of health insurance coverage held by the survey respondents; health insurance premiums, out-of-pocket health care costs and medical debt; and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The survey also gauged support for the legislation, the impact of the individual mandate on health insurance coverage, and how confident individuals felt they would be able to keep their current health insurance coverage in the coming year.
Curated
Restricted

Massachusetts Health Reform Survey, 2012 (ICPSR 35061)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-24
Geographic coverage: Massachusetts
Time period: 2012-09-27--2013-01-31
This study contains data from the sixth round of the Massachusetts Health Reform Survey (MHRS), a survey designed to track the impact of Massachusetts health care reform legislation passed in 2006. Topics covered by the survey include health status, access to health care, health care utilization, health insurance coverage, health insurance premiums, out-of-pocket health care costs, medical debt, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The survey also questioned the respondents about the burden of their health care spending, asked them to rate various aspects of their health insurance coverage, and asked how confident they felt they would be able to keep their current coverage in the coming year.
Curated
Restricted

Massachusetts Health Reform Survey, 2013 (ICPSR 36037)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-24
Geographic coverage: Massachusetts
Time period: 2013-09-01--2013-12-01
This data collection comprises data from the seventh round of the Massachusetts Health Reform Survey (MHRS), a survey which has been conducted since 2006 to monitor and understand the state's health care system. Topics covered by the survey include health insurance status; specific types of health insurance coverage held by the survey respondents; insurance premiums and covered services for those with insurance; access to and use of health care; out-of-pocket health care costs and medical debt; health and disability status; and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.
Curated
Restricted

Massachusetts Health Reform Survey, 2015 (ICPSR 36419)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-24
Geographic coverage: Massachusetts
Time period: 2015-09-08--2015-11-08
This data collection comprises data from the 2015 round of the Massachusetts Health Reform Survey (MHRS), a survey which has been conducted in most years since 2006 to monitor and understand the state's health care system. Topics covered by the survey include health insurance status; specific types of health insurance coverage held by the survey respondents; insurance premiums and covered services for those with insurance; access to and use of health care; out-of-pocket health care costs and medical debt; health and disability status; and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Massachusetts Health Reform Survey, 2018 (ICPSR 37411)

Released/updated on: 2019-10-24
Geographic coverage: Massachusetts
Time period: 2018-02-05--2018-05-03
In April 2006, Massachusetts passed a comprehensive health care reform bill entitled An Act Providing Access To Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care (Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006), that sought to move the state to near universal coverage. In order to track the impacts of Chapter 58, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation began funding an annual telephone survey of nonelderly adults in the Commonwealth in fall 2006, just prior to the implementation of key elements of the law. That survey, called the Massachusetts Health Reform Survey (MHRS), was fielded in the fall of 2006-2010, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2018. This data collection comprises data from the 2018 round of the Massachusetts Health Reform Survey (MHRS). Topics covered by the survey include health insurance status; specific types of health insurance coverage held by the survey respondents; insurance premiums and covered services for those with insurance; access to and use of health care; out-of-pocket health care costs and medical debt; health and disability status; mental health and substance use disorders. Demographic variables include income, race, and employment status.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

National Profile of Local Health Departments, [United States], 2022 (ICPSR 39351)

Released/updated on: 2025-10-01
Geographic coverage: United States
The National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) conducts the National Profile of Local Health Departments, commonly referred to as the Profile study, every three years as a census of local health departments (LHDs). This study describes the funding, staffing, governance, and activities of LHDs across the United States, developing a description of LHD infrastructure and practice. In the three decades since, NACCHO has conducted an additional nine Profile studies, including in 2022.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

National Study of Physician Organizations (NSPO3), United States, 2012-2013 (ICPSR 38587)

Released/updated on: 2023-01-31
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-11-30
The National Study of Physician Organizations was designed to improve understanding of evidence-based care management processes (CMPs) as they relate to physician organizations (POs), that is, independent practice associations (IPAs) and medical groups. This survey, the third NSPO survey of IPAs and medical groups (NSPO2), examined over 2000 physician organizations of all sizes. As in prior surveys, NSPO3 collected demographic information about the following practices and assesses: (1) use of clinical information technology; (2) use of care management processes to improve the quality of care for four chronic conditions (asthma, congestive heart failure, depression, and diabetes); (3) provision of clinical preventive services and health promotion; (4) exposure to external performance incentives such as pay for performance and public reporting; (5) payer mix, forms of compensation from health plans, and forms of compensation paid by the practice to its physicians; (6) organizational culture. In addition, NSPO3 asked about participation or intended participation in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs).
Curated

National Survey of Access to Health Care, 1986 (ICPSR 8981)

Released/updated on: 1999-02-03
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey, which was sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, assessed Americans' access to health care, use of medical services, and problems encountered in obtaining health care. The data contain variables on the interviewees' personal background, utilization of medical, dental, and mental health services, and experiences in obtaining care.
Curated

National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), 1997 (ICPSR 4581)

Released/updated on: 2007-10-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--1997-11-01

The National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) is a household survey that provides a comprehensive look at quantitative measures of the well-being of children, adults, and their families. While the focus of the survey is at the state level, the scope is national -- with a primary emphasis on low-income families. NSAF information was gathered from interviews conducted with the Most Knowledgeable Adult (MKA), the person in the household who was most knowledgeable about the questions being asked about the respondent, their spouse/partner (if applicable) and the focal child (or children). Data were collected from more than 40,000 families in two stages. First, a screener interview was administered to determine whether a household was eligible to complete the second, extended interview.

Two types of extended interviews were administered. Option A interviews were used in households with children under age 18. Option B interviews were used in childless adult households and also with emancipated minors. The extended interview was divided into several sections and is labeled A through P below:

  • A. Student Status. This section contained two questions that asked whether the respondent was a student and whether that household was the respondent's usual residence.

  • B. Health Status and Satisfaction. These questions asked about the respondent's satisfaction with health care, access to health care, the health status of the focal children, and the health status of the respondent.

  • C. Parent/Child/Family Interaction and Education. This series of questions asked about education for focal children. Questions addressed the focal child's current grade (or the last grade completed) and the child's attitudes toward school and schoolwork, skipping school, suspensions, and changing schools. Questions were also asked about children over 11 years old working for pay and attending summer school.

  • D. Household Roster. In this section, the name, age, and sex of all persons living in the household were recorded, and relationships between all household members were investigated.

  • E. Health Care Coverage. Information was gathered about current health insurance coverage for the respondent, the respondent's spouse/partner, and the focal children. Questions were also asked about characteristics of that coverage and of periods in which family members had no insurance coverage.

  • F. Health Care Use and Access. This section gathered information about health status, health care services received, and necessary health care services that were postponed during the preceding 12 months. Questions on routine care, overnight stays in hospitals, dental care, mental health care, women's health care, well-child care, and prescription medicines were also included.

  • G. Child Care. In this section, respondents were queried as to child care arrangements including Head Start, child care centers, before- or after-school care, and babysitters. Questions were asked about the total number of hours per week in each care situation, the typical number of children cared for, the typical number of adult child care providers, and child care costs.

  • H. Nonresidential Parent/Father. These questions determined whether a focal child had a nonresident parent, how often the child saw his/her nonresident parent, whether the nonresident parent provided financial support, and whether nonresident parents were required by child support orders to provide financial support.

  • I. Employment and Earnings. This section contained a series of questions about the employment and earnings of the respondent and the spouse/partnerfor the current and preceding year. Topics included employment status, occupation, industry, employer-provided health insurance, hours worked, and earnings. Some questions were also asked about the earnings of other family members.

  • J. Family Income. Family income also was identified from a wide variety of sources other than earnings from employment. These sources included public assistance (e.g., Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC], General Assistance, Emergency Assistance, or vouchers), Food Stamps, child support, foster care payments, financial assistance from friends or relatives, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation or veterans' payments, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security, pension or annuity income, interest or dividend income, income from rental property, or any other income source.

  • K. Welfare Program Participation. This section gathered detailed information about AFDC and Food Stamp benefits that the respondent might have received within the preceding two years. For both types of assistance, periods in which the respondent's benefits were reduced or eliminated were identified, as were strategies for coping during such times. Current AFDC or Food Stamp recipients were asked about any requirements they had to fulfill (e.g., job search, training, etc.) in order to receive these benefits. Recipients were also asked questions about awareness of time limits and experiences with diversion. For respondents with children, questions were asked about benefits received in the previous year through the supplemental food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and free or reduced-cost school breakfast and lunch programs.

  • L. Education and Training. This series of questions inquired about the highest grade completed, highest degree earned, participation in job training programs during the previous year, and classes taken for credit during the previous year.

  • M. Housing and Economic Hardship. Questions covered the respondent's living arrangements, the name(s) of the lease- or mortgage- holder(s) in the household, and the amount of rent or mortgage paid monthly. Information was collected about financial contributions by the respondent or his/her spouse or partner to children under 18 years old living outside the household. The effect of economic hardship on the family's food consumption and ability to pay for housing costs was also assessed.

  • N. Issues, Problems, and Social Services. Questions in this section covered the respondent's state of mind, feelings about his or her child (or children), constructive activities the child (or children) might have been involved with, the availability of social services in their community, problems the child (or children) might have had in the preceding year and efforts to obtain help for those problems, and the respondent's involvement in volunteer and religious activities.

  • O. Race, Ethnicity, and Nativity. Race and ethnicity were asked for the respondent, the spouse/partner, and the focal child (or children). For household members who were born outside the United States, country of origin and citizenship questions were asked.

  • P. Closing. At the end of the survey, respondents were asked their opinions about welfare and working and about raising children. Closing questions asked for the respondent's ZIP code and, in households with foreign-born individuals, tracing information for use in a follow-up survey.

The 1997 NSAF data are available in nine parts and are organized into hierarchical, flat household-, family-, person-, adult-, and child-level files. A description of each is provided below:

  1. Focal Child Data. This dataset contains data elements from the extended interview that are specific to focal children (FC1 and FC2). Select data items that were asked only of MKAs are also included. Information in this dataset is primarily from sections N (Issues, Problems, and Social Services) and P (Closing) of the extended interview. The dataset contains one record for each focal child.

  2. Adult Pair Data. Included in this dataset is information collected from the extended interview about both the respondent and the respondent's spouse/partner. There is one observation per respondent and one per spouse (where applicable). Information in this dataset is primarily from sections I (Employment and Earnings) and L (Education and Training) of the extended interview.

  3. Random Adult Data. Information in this person-level dataset is specific to a randomly selected adult, either the respondent or the spouse/partner. This situation occurs only in sections E (Health Insurance Coverage) and F (Health Care Access and Utilization) of the extended interview.

  4. Childless Adult Data. This dataset contains data elements from the extended interview that are asked only of the respondent in Option B interviews. Variables in this dataset come mainly from section N (Issue, Problems, and Social Services) and P (Closing). There is one record per Option B interview in the dataset.

  5. Family-Respondent Data. Information in this dataset centers around information about the family's use of health care and social services. This family-level dataset contains one observation per respondent. Because there could be more than one respondent per family, family-respondent level variables may have different values within a single family.

  6. Household Data. This household-level dataset contains general information about the household such as the demographic characteristics of its members. Also contained in this dataset are administrative and process data such as housing subsidies, public housing, the number of bedrooms in the house, whether the home was owned or rented, and information pertaining to screeners and the completion of interviews.

  7. Person Data. This dataset contains one observation for each person living in the household. Included in this dataset is demographic information as well as information on current health insurance status and income.

  8. Social Family Data. Included in this dataset are items asked about the social family and variables aggregated at the social family level. The social family includes not only married partners and their children, but also unmarried partners, all of their children, and members of the extended family (anyone related by blood to the MKA, the spouse/partner, or their children). Among the survey items included are those variables indicating whether anyone in the social family had a particular type of income and health insurance. Also included are variables summarizing information across all members of a social family, such as the number of family members. There is one record for each social family.

  9. CPS Family Data. Since the social family definition was used in fielding the NSAF, this dataset includes only variables created using the Current Population Survey (CPS) definition of family. A CPS family includes the householder, spouse of family householder, children in the family, and other relatives of the family household respondent. There is one record for each CPS family in this dataset.

Curated

National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), 1999 (ICPSR 3927)

Released/updated on: 2007-10-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-02-01--1999-10-01

The National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) is a household survey that provides a comprehensive look at quantitative measures of the well-being of children, adults, and their families. While the focus of the survey is at the state level, the scope is national -- with a primary emphasis on low-income families. NSAF information was gathered from interviews conducted with the Most Knowledgeable Adult (MKA), the person in the household who was most knowledgeable about the questions being asked about the respondent, their spouse/partner (if applicable) and the focal child (or children). Data were collected from more than 40,000 families in two stages. First, a screener interview was administered to determine whether a household was eligible to complete the second, extended interview.

Two types of extended interviews were administered. Option A interviews were used in households with children under age 18. Option B interviews were used in childless adult households and also with emancipated minors. The extended interview was divided into several sections and is labeled A through P below:

  • A. Student Status. This section contained two questions that asked whether the respondent was a student and whether that household was the respondent's usual residence.

  • B. Health Status and Satisfaction. These questions asked about the respondent's satisfaction with health care, access to health care, the health status of the focal children, and the health status of the respondent. It also covered questions about the respondent's awareness of specific insurance programs such as Medicaid, and those associated with the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

  • C. Parent/Child/Family Interaction and Education. This series of questions asked about education for focal children. Questions addressed the focal child's current grade (or the last grade completed) and the child's attitudes toward school and schoolwork, skipping school, suspensions, and changing schools. Questions were also asked about children over 11 years old working for pay and attending summer school.

  • D. Household Roster. In this section, the name, age, and sex of all persons living in the household were recorded, and relationships between all household members were investigated.

  • E. Health Care Coverage. Information was gathered about current health insurance coverage for the respondent, the respondent's spouse/partner, and the focal children. Questions were also asked about characteristics of that coverage and of periods in which family members had no insurance coverage.

  • F. Health Care Use and Access. This section gathered information about health status, health care services received, and necessary health care services that were postponed during the preceding 12 months. Questions on routine care, overnight stays in hospitals, dental care, mental health care, women's health care, well-child care, and prescription medicines were also included.

  • G. Child Care. In this section, respondents were queried as to child care arrangements including Head Start, child care centers, before- or after-school care, and babysitters. Questions were asked about the total number of hours per week in each care situation, the typical number of children cared for, the typical number of adult child care providers, and child care costs.

  • H. Nonresidential Parent/Father. These questions determined whether a focal child had a nonresident parent, how often the child saw his/her nonresident parent, whether the nonresident parent provided financial support, and whether nonresident parents were required by child support orders to provide financial support.

  • I. Employment and Earnings. This section contained a series of questions about the employment and earnings of the respondent and the spouse/partner for the current and preceding year. Topics included employment status, occupation, industry, employer-provided health insurance, hours worked, and earnings. Some questions were also asked about the earnings of other family members.

  • J. Family Income. Family income also was identified from a wide variety of sources other than earnings from employment. These sources included public assistance (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF], General Assistance, Emergency Assistance, vouchers), Food Stamps, child support, foster care payments, financial assistance from friends or relatives, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation or veterans' payments, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security, pension or annuity income, interest or dividend income, income from rental property, or any other income source.

  • K. Welfare Program Participation. This section gathered detailed information about TANF and Food Stamp benefits that the respondent might have received within the preceding two years. For both types of assistance, periods in which the respondent's benefits were reduced or eliminated were identified, as were strategies for coping during such times. Current TANF or Food Stamp recipients were asked about any requirements they had to fulfill (e.g., job search, training, etc.) in order to receive these benefits. Recipients were also asked questions about awareness of time limits and experiences with diversion. For respondents with children, questions were asked about benefits received in the previous year through the supplemental food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and free or reduced-cost school breakfast and lunch programs. Additional questions were asked about respondent experiences in obtaining government assistance for child care and health insurance through Medicaid and CHIP, and receipt and/or the use of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in 1998.

  • L. Education and Training. This series of questions inquired about the highest grade completed, highest degree earned, participation in job training programs during the previous year, and classes taken for credit during the previous year.

  • M. Housing and Economic Hardship. Questions covered the respondent's living arrangements, the name(s) of the lease- or mortgage- holder(s) in the household, and the amount of rent or mortgage paid monthly. Information was collected about financial contributions by the respondent or his/her spouse or partner to children under 18 years old living outside the household. The effect of economic hardship on the family's food consumption and ability to pay for housing costs was also assessed.

  • N. Issues, Problems, and Social Services. Questions in this section covered the respondent's state of mind, feelings about his or her child (or children), constructive activities the child (or children) might have been involved with, the availability of social services in their community, problems the child (or children) might have had in the preceding year and efforts to obtain help for those problems, and the respondent's involvement in volunteer and religious activities.

  • O. Race, Ethnicity, and Nativity. Race and ethnicity were asked for the respondent, the spouse/partner, and the focal children. For household members who were born outside the United States, country of origin and citizenship questions were asked.

  • P. Closing. At the end of the survey, respondent's were asked their opinions about welfare and working and about raising children.The respondent's ZIP code and address were requested and tracing information was asked of households with families receiving welfare at any time since January 1997, for possible use in a follow-up survey.

The 1999 NSAF data are available in nine parts and are organized into hierarchical, flat household-, family-, person-, adult-, and child-level files. A description of each is provided below:

  1. Focal Child Data. This dataset contains data elements from the extended interview that are specific to focal children (FC1 and FC2). Select data items that were asked only of MKAs are also included. Information in this dataset is primarily from sections N (Issues, Problems, and Social Services) and P (Closing) of the extended interview. The dataset contains one record for each focal child.

  2. Adult Pair Data. Included in this dataset is information collected from the extended interview about both the respondent and the respondent's spouse/partner. There is one observation per respondent and one per spouse (where applicable). Information in this dataset is primarily from sections I (Employment and Earnings) and L (Education and Training) of the extended interview.

  3. Random Adult Data. Information in this person-level dataset is specific to a randomly selected adult, either the respondent or the spouse/partner. This situation occurs only in sections E (Health Insurance Coverage) and F (Health Care Access and Utilization) of the extended interview.

  4. Childless Adult Data. This dataset contains data elements from the extended interview that are asked only of the respondent in Option B interviews. Variables in this dataset come mainly from section N (Issue, Problems, and Social Services) and P (Closing). There is one record per Option B interview in the dataset.

  5. Family-Respondent Data. Information in this dataset centers around information about the family's use of health care and social services. This family-level dataset contains one observation per respondent. Because there could be more than one respondent per family, family-respondent level variables may have different values within a single family.

  6. Household Data. This household-level dataset contains general information about the household such as the demographic characteristics of its members. Also contained in this dataset is administrative and process data such as housing subsidies, public housing, the number of bedrooms in the house, if the home was owned or rented, and information pertaining to screeners and the completion of interviews.

  7. Person Data. This dataset contains one observation for each person living in the household. Included in this dataset is demographic information as well as information on current health insurance status and income.

  8. Social Family Data. Included in this dataset are items asked about the social family and variables aggregated at the social family level. The social family includes not only married partners and their children, but also unmarried partners, all of their children, and members of the extended family (anyone related by blood to the MKA, the spouse/partner, or their children). Among the survey items included are those variables indicating whether anyone in the social family had a particular type of income and health insurance. Also included are variables summarizing information across all members of a social family, such as the number of family members. There is one record for each social family.

  9. CPS Family Data. Since the social family definition was used in fielding the NSAF, this dataset includes only variables created using the Current Population Survey (CPS) definition of family. A CPS family includes the householder, spouse of family householder,children in the family, and other relatives of the family household respondent. There is one record for each CPS family in this dataset.

Curated

National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), 2002 (ICPSR 4582)

Released/updated on: 2007-10-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2002-02-01--2002-10-01

The National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) is a household survey that provides a comprehensive look at quantitative measures of the well-being of children, adults, and their families. While the focus of the survey is at the state level, the scope is national -- with a primary emphasis on low-income families. NSAF information was gathered from interviews conducted with the Most Knowledgeable Adult (MKA), the person in the household who was most knowledgeable about the questions being asked about the respondent, their spouse/partner (if applicable) and the focal child (or children). Data were collected from more than 40,000 families in two stages. First, a screener interview was administered to determine whether a household was eligible to complete the second, extended interview.

Two types of extended interviews were administered. Option A interviews were used in households with children under age 18. Option B interviews were used in childless adult households and also with emancipated minors. The extended interview was divided into several sections and is labeled A through P below:

  • A. Student Status. This section contained two questions that asked whether the respondent was a student and whether that household was the respondent's usual residence.

  • B. Health Status and Satisfaction. These questions asked about the respondent's satisfaction with health care, access to health care, the health status of the focal children, and the health status of the respondent. It also covered questions about the respondent's awareness of specific insurance programs such as Medicaid, and those associated with the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

  • C. Parent/Child/Family Interaction and Education. This series of questions asked about education for focal children. Questions addressed the focal child's current grade (or the last grade completed) and the child's attitudes toward school and schoolwork, skipping school, suspensions, and changing schools. Questions were also asked about children over 11 years old working for pay and attending summer school.

  • D. Household Roster. In this section, the name, age, and sex of all persons living in the household were recorded, and relationships between all household members were investigated.

  • E. Health Care Coverage. Information was gathered about current health insurance coverage for the respondent, the respondent's spouse/partner, and the focal children. Questions were also asked about characteristics of that coverage and of periods in which family members had no insurance coverage.

  • F. Health Care Use and Access. This section gathered information about health status, health care services received, and necessary health care services that were postponed during the preceding 12 months. Questions on routine care, overnight stays in hospitals, dental care, mental health care, women's health care, well-child care, and prescription medicines were also included.

  • G. Child Care. In this section, respondents were queried as to child care arrangements including Head Start, child care centers, before- or after-school care, and babysitters. Questions were asked about the total number of hours per week in each care situation, the typical number of children cared for, the typical number of adult child care providers, and child care costs.

  • H. Nonresidential Parent/Father. These questions determined whether a focal child had a nonresident parent, how often the child saw his/her nonresident parent, whether the nonresident parent provided financial support, and whether nonresident parents were required by child support orders to provide financial support.

  • I. Employment and Earnings. This section contained a series of questions about the employment and earnings of the respondent and the spouse/partner for the current and preceding year. Topics included employment status, occupation, industry, employer-provided health insurance, hours worked, and earnings. Some questions were also asked about the earnings of other family members.

  • J. Family Income. Family income was also identified from a wide variety of sources other than earnings from employment. These sources included public assistance (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF], General Assistance, Emergency Assistance, or vouchers), Food Stamps, child support, foster care payments, financial assistance from friends or relatives, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation or veterans' payments, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security, pension or annuity income, interest or dividend income, income from rental property, or any other income source.

  • K. Welfare Program Participation. This section gathered detailed information about TANF and Food Stamp benefits that the respondent might have received within the preceding two years. For both types of assistance, periods in which the respondent's benefits were reduced or eliminated were identified, as were strategies for coping during such times. Current TANF or Food Stamp recipients were asked about any requirements they had to fulfill (e.g., job search, training, etc.) in order to receive these benefits. Recipients were also asked questions about awareness of time limits and experiences with diversion. For respondents with children, questions were asked about benefits received in the previous year through the supplemental food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and free or reduced-cost school breakfast and lunch programs. Additional questions were asked about respondent experiences in obtaining government assistance for child care and health insurance through Medicaid and CHIP, and receipt and/or the use of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in any year between 1999 and 2002.

  • L. Education and Training. This series of questions inquired about the highest grade completed, highest degree earned, participation in job training programs during the previous year, and classes taken for credit during the previous year.

  • M. Housing and Economic Hardship. Questions covered the respondent's living arrangements, the name(s) of the lease- or mortgage- holder(s) in the household, and the amount of rent or mortgage paid monthly. Information was collected about financial contributions by the respondent or his/her spouse or partner to children under 18 years old living outside the household. The effect of economic hardship on the family's food consumption and ability to pay for housing costs was also assessed.

  • N. Issues, Problems, and Social Services. Questions in this section covered the respondent's state of mind, feelings about his or her child (or children), constructive activities the child (or children) might have been involved with, the availability of social services in their community, problems the child (or children) might have had in the preceding year and efforts to obtain help for those problems, and the respondent's involvement in volunteer and religious activities.

  • O. Race, Ethnicity, and Nativity. Race and ethnicity were asked for the respondent, the spouse/partner, and the focal child (or children). For household members who were born outside the United States, country of origin and citizenship questions were asked.

  • P. Closing. At the end of the survey, respondents were asked their opinions about welfare and working and about raising children. Respondents' ZIP code and address were also requested.

  • The 2002 NSAF data are available in nine parts and are organized into hierarchical, flat household-, family-, person-, adult-, and child-level files. A description of each is provided below:

    1. Focal Child Data. This dataset contains data elements from the extended interview that are specific to focal children (FC1 and FC2). Select data items that were asked only of MKAs are also included. Information in this dataset is primarily from sections N (Issues, Problems, and Social Services) and P (Closing) of the extended interview. The dataset contains one record for each focal child.

    2. Adult Pair Data. Included in this dataset is information collected from the extended interview about both the respondent and the respondent's spouse/partner. There is one observation per respondent and one per spouse (where applicable). Information in this dataset is primarily from sections I (Employment and Earnings) and L (Education and Training) of the extended interview.

    3. Random Adult Data. Information in this person-level dataset is specific to a randomly selected adult, either the respondent or the spouse/partner. This situation occurs only in sections E (Health Insurance Coverage) and F (Health Care Access and Utilization) of the extended interview.

    4. Childless Adult Data. This dataset contains data elements from the extended interview that are asked only of the respondent in Option B interviews. Variables in this dataset come mainly from section N (Issue, Problems, and Social Services) and P (Closing). There is one record per Option B interview in the dataset.

    5. Family-Respondent Data. Information in this dataset centers around information about the family's use of health care and social services. This family-level dataset contains one observation per respondent. Because there could be more than one respondent per family, family-respondent level variables may have different values within a single family.

    6. Household Data. This household-level dataset contains general information about the household such as the demographic characteristics of its members. Also contained in this dataset are administrative and process data such as housing subsidies, public housing, the number of bedrooms in the house, whether the home is owned or rented, and information pertaining to screeners and the completion of interviews.

    7. Person Data. This dataset contains one observation for each person living in the household. Included in this dataset is demographic information as well as information on current health insurance status and income.

    8. Social Family Data. Included in this dataset are items asked about the social family and variables aggregated at the social family level. The social family includes not only married partners and their children, but also unmarried partners, all of their children, and members of the extended family (anyone related by blood to the MKA, the spouse/partner, or their children). Among the survey items included are those variables indicating whether anyone in the social family had a particular type of income and health insurance. Also included are variables summarizing information across all members of a social family, such as the number of family members. There is one record for each social family.

    9. CPS Family Data. Since the social family definition was used in fielding the NSAF, this dataset includes only variables created using the Current Population Survey (CPS) definition of family. A CPS family includes the householder, spouse of family householder, children in the family, and other relatives of the family household respondent. There is one record for each CPS family in this dataset.

Curated
Restricted

National Survey of Primary Care Physicians and Nurse Practitioners, 2012 (ICPSR 36050)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-11-23--2012-04-09
The focus of this survey was the role of nurse practitioners and physicians in primary care and the likely effects on the health care system of expanding the supply of nurse practitioners and their scope of practice. Topics of the survey include satisfaction with career, daily roles and responsibilities, perceived affects of increasing the supply of NPs, attitudes toward NP scope of practice, information on clinical practice services and revenue, and respondent demographics and income.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Newly Licensed Registered Nurse New Cohort 1 Survey, 2009 (ICPSR 36819)

Released/updated on: 2020-02-20
Geographic coverage: United States
The Newly Licensed Registered Nurse Cohort 1 Survey, 2009 is the first wave of a multi-wave panel survey that studied newly licensed registered nurses who obtained their first license to practice between August 1, 2007 and July 31, 2008. It was conducted as part of the RN Work Project, a national study of new nurses funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The survey interviewed the nurses about their jobs, turnover, education, intentions and attitudes--including intent, satisfaction, organizational commitment, and preferences about work.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Newly Licensed Registered Nurse New Cohort 2 Survey, 2012 (ICPSR 36820)

Released/updated on: 2020-02-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2010-08-01--2011-07-31
The Newly Licensed Registered Nurse New Cohort 2 Survey, 2012 is the second wave of a multi-wave panel survey that studied newly licensed registered nurses who obtained their first license to practice between August 1, 2010 and July 31, 2011. It was conducted as part of the RN Work Project, a national study of new nurses funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The survey interviewed the nurses about their jobs, turnover, education, intentions and attitudes--including intent, satisfaction, organizational commitment, and preferences about work.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Newly Licensed Registered Nurse New Cohort 3 Survey, 2016 (ICPSR 36821)

Released/updated on: 2020-02-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2014-08-01--2015-07-31
The Newly Licensed Registered Nurse New Cohort 3 Survey, 2016 is the third wave of a multi-wave panel survey that studied newly licensed registered nurses who obtained their first license to practice between August 1, 2014 and July 31, 2015. It was conducted as part of the RN Work Project, a national study of new nurses funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The survey interviewed the nurses about their jobs, turnover, education, intentions and attitudes--including intent, satisfaction, organizational commitment, and preferences about work.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Newly Licensed Registered Nurse Quality Improvement Survey 1, 2008 (ICPSR 36817)

Released/updated on: 2021-01-27
Geographic coverage: United States

The purpose of this study was to describe what newly licensed registered nurses (NLRN) working in hospitals learned about quality improvement in their education programs and workplaces. The survey was administered to nurses working in a hospital who participated in the second wave (ICPSR 36812) of the Newly Licensed Registered Nurse Survey series. This was part of a ten year panel survey. Quality improvement topics covered by the survey include:

  • patient-centered care
  • evidence-based practice
  • standardized practices for restrain and seclusion, infection control and pain management
  • use of information technology or strategies to reduce reliance on memory
  • participation in analyzing errors and designing system improvements
  • use of national patient safety resources, initiatives or regulations
  • use of specific quality improvement models
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Newly Licensed Registered Nurse Quality Improvement Survey 2, 2010 (ICPSR 36818)

Released/updated on: 2020-02-20
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this study was to describe what newly licensed registered nurses working in hospitals learned about quality improvement in their education programs and workplaces. The survey was administered to nurses working in a hospital who participated in the second wave of the Newly Licensed RN Survey: Newly Licensed Registered Nurse Survey, 2007 (ICPSR 36812). Quality improvement topics covered by the survey include patient-centered care; evidence-based practice; standardized practices for restrain and seclusion, infection control and pain management; use of information technology or strategies to reduce reliance on memory; participation in analyzing errors and designing system improvements; use of national patient safety resources, initiatives or regulations; and use of specific quality improvement models, specifically, FADE (Focus, Analyze, Develop, Execute, and Evaluate), PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act), Six-Sigma-DMAIC/DMADV (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) or (Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Verify), CQI (Continuous Quality Improvement) and TQM (Total Quality Management).
Curated
Restricted

Newly Licensed Registered Nurse Survey, 2006 (ICPSR 36773)

Released/updated on: 2020-01-30
Geographic coverage: United States
This is the first wave of a multi wave panel survey that studied newly licensed registered nurses who obtained their first license to practice between September 1, 2004 and August 31, 2005. It was conducted as part of the RN Work Project, a national study of new nurses funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The survey interviewed the nurses about their jobs, turnover, intentions and attitudes--including intent, satisfaction, organizational commitment, and preferences about work.
Curated
Restricted

Practice Patterns of Young Physicians, 1987: [United States] (ICPSR 9277)

Released/updated on: 2012-01-11
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-04-09--1987-11-21

This study investigated the factors that influenced the career decisions of young physicians and the characteristics of their practices. The collection has five datasets: Public-Use Version of the Young Physicians Survey (Dataset 1), Socioeconomic Monitoring System Study (Dataset 2), ZIP Code Data (Dataset 3), Verbatim Responses to the Open-Ended Questions (Dataset 4), and Restricted-Use Version of the Young Physicians Survey (Dataset 5).

The Public-Use Version of the Young Physicians Survey comprises responses from the Young Physicians Survey (YPS), plus merged data from the American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile and the Association of American Medical Colleges' Student and Applicant Information Management System (SAIMS) database. The YPS interviewed physicians below 40 years of age who recently completed graduate medical training and were in their early years of practice. These physicians were queried about their graduate medical training, perceptions of the medical profession, current practice arrangements, career decisions, family background, patient care activities, and current income and expenses. To obtain information on current practice arrangements, respondents were questioned about the practices they worked in, including who owned the practices, the number of physicians in each practice, specialties or subspecialties practiced, usual fees for selected services, percentages of revenues from HMOs, PPOs, and IPAs, and percentages of patients who were Medicare patients, had no health insurance coverage, or were poor, Black, Hispanic, severely physically disabled, or chronically mentally ill. Questions on career decisions asked respondents about factors that influenced their career choices, such as reasons for working in multiple practices, reasons for leaving past practices, and reasons for deciding in favor of or against self-employment. Information on family background elicited by the survey includes the respondent's race, marital status, and educational debt, parents' income class and education, number of children living in the respondent's home, and whether the respondent's spouse or parents were physicians. Questions on patient care activities included questions on the number of hours spent providing uncompensated health care to the poor, and the number of hours spent with patients in a variety of settings, such as the office, emergency rooms, hospital outpatient clinics, and operating rooms. Information from the AMA Masterfile and the SAIMS database includes board certification status, AMA membership, school and year of graduation, Medical College Admission Test scores, primary undergraduate institution, most recent grade point averages, place of birth, number of acceptances to United States medical schools, parents' occupations, preferred medical specialty, and preferred practice setting.

Dataset 2 comprises responses from the AMA's Socioeconomic Monitoring System (SMS), a semiannual survey of nonfederal physicians that collected data on topics similar to those in the YPS, such as practice ownership, hours spent seeing patients in various settings, income, expenses, and opinions on practice procedures. The SMS data can be used for comparative analyses of young, prime, and senior physicians.

The ZIP Code Data contain estimates for the composition of the population residing in the ZIP code areas of the YPS respondents' main practices. This includes estimates of the size of each ZIP code area population, as well as its components with respect to gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and income. Also included are estimates of the number of physicians and their composition with respect to age, sex, practice type, and specialty.

Dataset 4 contains verbatim responses to open-ended questions asked in the YPS.

The Restricted-Use Version of the Young Physicians Survey is the same as the Public-Use Version of the Young Physicians Survey, except for some variables that were restricted from general dissemination for reasons of confidentiality. The restricted-use version includes the restricted variables, but the public-use version does not.

Curated
Restricted

Practice Patterns of Young Physicians, 1991: [United States] (ICPSR 6145)

Released/updated on: 2009-09-15
Geographic coverage: United States

The purpose of this survey was to obtain information on the characteristics and practice patterns of early career physicians in order to analyze trends in physicians' activities and the supply of physicians. To that end, the survey interviewed early career physicians and re-interviewed physicians who participated in the previous survey of early career physicians PRACTICE PATTERNS OF YOUNG PHYSICIANS, 1987 (ICPSR 9277). With separate samples drawn for allopathic and osteopathic physicians, the respondents were interviewed about their medical training, medical education financing, career choices and satisfaction, practice arrangements and compensation, and patient care activities. They were also questioned about medical care management in their practice(s), perceptions of their freedom to deliver care, medical malpractice claims, and the composition of their patients, such as the percent who were poor, black, Hispanic, uninsured, covered by Medicaid or Medicare, or had severe physical disabilities, chronic mental illness, or problems with substance abuse. Demographic characteristics covered by the survey include race, Hispanic origin, year of birth, marital status, number and ages of children, and parents' education.

In addition to the variables collected by survey, the allopath sample data also comprise variables obtained from the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Student and Applicant Information Management System (SAIMS) of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). The AMA variables include gender, name of medical school, board certification status, physician's specialty, and AMA membership, while the SAIMS variables include dates of application to medical school, graduation dates, Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores, undergraduate grade-point averages, religious preference, career preference, preferred practice setting, educational debt, scholarship information, and participation in courses/clerkships in different subject areas.

The study comprises five data files. Dataset 1 contains the public-use version of the data for the allopath sample and Dataset 2 the public-use version of the data data for the osteopath sample. Both of these files were generated by ICPSR from the original restricted-use allopath and osteopath data files provided by the principal investigator, which are stored as Datasets 3 and 4 respectively. As noted in the ICPSR Processing Note in the codebook, Dataset 5 contains 26 restricted variables which the principal investigator omitted from the original allopath data (Dataset 3) for reasons of confidentiality. ICPSR received the omitted variables in 2009, 14 years after its initial release of the data.

Curated

Privately Insured in America: Opinions on Health Care Costs and Coverage, 2014 (ICPSR 36176)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2014-07-22--2014-09-03
This survey interviewed adults ages 18-64 with private health insurance - health insurance received through an employer or union or purchased directly from an insurance company or through a state or federal marketplace or exchange -- about the characteristics of their health care insurance coverage, their health care utilization and their views on the price of health care, how health costs impact their health care utilization decisions and the extent to which other aspects of their lives are affected by health care costs. Other topics covered by the survey include satisfaction with one's current health insurance plan, problems experienced with health care under the current plan and the importance of various plan attributes in choosing a health plan. The survey also collected information on overall health status and socio-demographic characteristics, such age, sex, marital status, education, employment status, income, race and Hispanic origin.
Curated
Restricted

Project HealthDesign: BreathEasy - A Personal Health Record Application For Adults With Asthma, 2011-2012 (ICPSR 36027)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: Virginia, Richmond
Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01
Asthma is a chronic illness that affects more than 23 million adults in the United States. In addition to respiratory symptoms associated with the disease, individuals with asthma are also more likely to experience depression and anxiety. The BreathEasy team designed a mobile application built on the latest clinical guidelines for treatment and self-monitoring for patients with asthma. Patients with asthma used the application on smartphones to capture and report observations of daily living (ODLs) such as use of controller and rescue medications, asthma symptoms (including peak flow rates), depression and anxiety symptoms, encounters with asthma triggers, physical activity levels (including accelerometer based data), sleeping problems, and smoking. Clinicians used a web based dashboard with simple analysis and visualization tools that allowed them to quickly view the patients' data, evaluate their health statuses, and communicate changes in treatment or monitoring. This data collection contains the ODL data recorded by the patients.
Curated
Restricted

Project HealthDesign: Chronology.MD - Personal Health Record Applications for Patients With Crohn's Disease, 2011-2012 (ICPSR 36028)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: San Francisco, California
Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01
More than 600,000 people in the United States live with Crohn's disease, a chronic and progressive disorder of the digestive system which is most prevalent in young adults ages 18-35. The Chronology.MD team developed two mobile applications to help patients who have Crohn's disease create visually aided narratives of their condition and responses to treatment. Crohn's patients used the Chronology app to enter observations of daily living (e.g., levels of abdominal pain, energy, and stress); enter clinical data (levels of B-12, C-Reactive Protein, HTC and iron in the blood); automatically upload weight data using Withings scales; and automatically uploaded sleep and exercise data from Fitbit body monitors. The Crohnograph app enabled patients to view time trends for tracked ODLs and other data, explore possible associations among them, and show the data visualizations to their health care provider. The providers could document information from the visualization and conversations in clinical notes. This data collection comprises the data collected using the Chronology app from the patients who participated in the Chronology.MD study.