Search results

The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) is a program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment to help substance abuse treatment facilities improve the effectiveness and efficiency of care offered to clients. A total of 38 facilities from across the country were awarded funding to implement the NIATx program between the years of 2003 to 2007. Data were extracted from administrative records from 82,274 clients. The data file covers the dates of contact and treatment with the facility, the number of follow-up units of care received, the primary substance of abuse, and basic demographic information.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654), and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

The official arrests records of all 1,354 youth were obtained from multiple sources. For arrest/petitions under the age of 18, this information is based on petitions appearing in the juvenile and adult court records in each site. In Philadelphia, this information was gathered based on a hand review of juvenile and adult court documents; in Phoenix, the information is based on reports from two computerized court tracking systems (JOLTS--Juvenile On-Line Tracking System for juvenile court information, ICIS--Maricopa County Superior Court database for adult court information). For arrests/petitions over 18, FBI arrest records are the source of information. There is no self-reported information contained in this set of data.

Information from these different data sources is consolidated into the following categories:

1. Information regarding petitions with a date that falls prior to the baseline interview date ("prior petitions").
2. Information regarding the study index petition (also called the "initial referring petition"; this is the adjudication that prompted study enrollment). Information regarding the study index petition can be found by accessing the "type" variable associated with the prior petitions (specific variable name: Official Record Prior PetitionXX: Petition type). Depending on the investigator's needs, this petition can remain combined with the "priors" or be used as a stand-alone petition.
3. Information regarding arrests and court petitions with a date which falls after the baseline interview date in the Pathways study ("rearrests").

This data collection contains the TrainingFinder Real-time Affiliate Integrated Network (TRAIN) database dictionary and three data files derived from the TRAIN database. A project of the Public Health Foundation, TRAIN (www.train.org) is a comprehensive learning resource for public health professionals, such as epidemiologists, public health officials, health educators, environmental health professionals, social workers, nurses, physicians, emergency responders, and mental health providers. Learners can use TRAIN to search for on-site and distance learning courses, register on-line for courses, provide and view feedback about courses, and create a personal training record of competency-based training and continuing education requirements. Course providers can use TRAIN to publicize courses, manage online registration and student rosters, collect feedback from learners, and post course materials and discussion topics.

Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals is a set of skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary for the broad practice of public health. Adopted by the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice, this list of competencies was incorporated into TRAIN.

Comprising a small subset of the information in the TRAIN database, the three data files were tailored to facilitate public health systems and services research. The first data file contains demographic information about every registered TRAIN learner: street address, county, city, state, ZIP code, country, education level, gender, race, Hispanic origin, birth date, primary language, and secondary language. The second data file is a tabulation which shows the core competencies covered by each course offered through TRAIN, together with the course titles, expiration dates, and the organizations offering the courses. The last data file is a tabulation which shows the number of TRAIN courses and learners by core competency and professional role.

The TRAIN database dictionary describes all of the variables in the TRAIN database, including those not provided with this data collection.

These data were collected for the initial phase of the evaluation of the Children's Futures initiative, a comprehensive set of interventions aimed at improving child health and development outcomes from prenatal to age three in Trenton, New Jersey. To that end, the initiative worked to (1) improve access to prenatal care and strengthen effective parenting, (2) improve the quality of child care, and (3) strengthen and sustain positive involvement of fathers in their children's lives. As part of the evaluation, a baseline community survey and surveys of childcare providers were conducted and births records were obtained from the New Jersey State Department of Health.

Extracted from New Jersey vital events public-use data files, Datasets 1-3 contain information on births during 2001-2004 to women in Trenton and, for comparison, two New Jersey cities not covered by the intervention, Camden and Newark. The birth records data include sex, birth order, birth weight, gestational age, one-minute and five-minute APGAR scores, month of pregnancy when prenatal care began, number of prenatal visits, weight gained during pregnancy, medical risk factors for the pregnancy, obstetric procedures performed, delivery complications, congenital anomalies and abnormalities, mother's marital status and number of live births now living, and the parents' age, race, Hispanic origin, state/country of birth, and education.

Dataset 4 contains data from the baseline community survey, which in 2002 interviewed the primary caregivers of children aged 0-5 in Trenton households. The survey collected information about child and parental health, parenting practices, fathers' involvement in their children's lives, health insurance and health care utilization, attendance at parenting groups or classes, and utilization of child care. Additional information collected by the baseline survey includes United States nativity, year of immigration, race, Hispanic origin, education, employment status, alcohol use, illicit drug use, earnings, and household income.

Datasets 5-7 contain data from the childcare provider surveys conducted in 2003, 2004, and 2005, which collected information about the teachers and childcare providers in the Trenton childcare centers that were participating in Children's Futures. Respondents were questioned about their work experience, age, race, place of residence (ZIP code), education, credentials, position held and hours worked, languages spoken, salary/hourly rate for the job at the center, childcare training and practices, opinions about center staffing levels, and beliefs about how to help infants and toddlers learn and grow. In addition, the respondents were asked how prepared they were to work with infants or toddlers with certain conditions such as emotional disturbances, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), fetal alcohol syndrome, asthma, severe allergies, and developmental delays.

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.

In 2008, a group of uninsured low-income adults in Oregon was selected by lottery to be given the chance to apply for Medicaid. This lottery provides an opportunity to gauge the effects of expanding access to public health insurance on the health care use, financial strain, and health of low-income adults using a randomized controlled design. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment follows and compares those selected in the lottery (treatment group) with those not selected (control group). The data collected and provided here include data from in-person interviews, three mail surveys, emergency department records, and administrative records on Medicaid enrollment, the initial lottery sign-up list, welfare benefits, and mortality.

This data collection has seven data files:

Dataset 1 contains administrative data on the lottery from the state of Oregon. These data include demographic characteristics that were recorded when individuals signed up for the lottery, date of lottery draw, and information on who was selected for the lottery, applied for the lotteried Medicaid plan if selected, and whose application for the lotteried plan was approved. Also included are Oregon mortality data for 2008 and 2009.

Dataset 2 contains information from the state of Oregon on the individuals' participation in Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

Datasets 3-5 contain the data from the initial, six month, and 12 month mail surveys, respectively. Topics covered by the surveys include demographic characteristics; health insurance, access to health care and health care utilization; health care needs, experiences, and costs; overall health status and changes in health; and depression and medical conditions and use of medications to treat them.

Dataset 6 contains an analysis subset of the variables from the in-person interviews. Topics covered by the survey questionnaire include overall health, health insurance coverage, health care access, health care utilization, conditions and treatments, health behaviors, medical and dental costs, and demographic characteristics. The interviewers also obtained blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and collected dried blood spots to measure levels of cholesterol, glycated hemoglobin and C-reactive protein.

Dataset 7 contains an analysis subset of the variables the study obtained for all emergency department (ED) visits to twelve hospitals in the Portland area during 2007-2009. These variables capture total hospital costs, ED costs, and the number of ED visits categorized by time of the visit (daytime weekday or nighttime and weekends), necessity of the visit (emergent, ED care needed, non-preventable; emergent, ED care needed, preventable; emergent, primary care treatable), ambulatory case sensitive status, whether or not the patient was hospitalized, and the reason for the visit (e.g., injury, abdominal pain, chest pain, headache, and mental disorders).

The collection also includes a ZIP archive (Dataset 8) with Stata programs that replicate analyses reported in three articles by the principal investigators and others:

Finkelstein, Amy et al "The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. August 2012. Vol 127(3).

Baicker, Katherine et al "The Oregon Experiment - Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes". New England Journal of Medicine. 2 May 2013. Vol 368(18).

Taubman, Sarah et al "Medicaid Increases Emergency Department Use: Evidence from Oregon's Health Insurance Experiment". Science. 2 Jan 2014.

The Helping Young Smokers Quit (HYSQ) initiative was a multi-phase project that addressed the critical need to disseminate effective, developmentally appropriate cessation programs for young smokers. Phase I identified and described tobacco treatment programs available for youth in the United States, Phase II evaluated smoking secession programs tailored for youth to help understand what works, and Phase III identified factors associated with program sustainability. Phase II collected data from five sources: (1) program participants, (2) program providers, (3) program curricula, (4) organizational leaders, and (5) community leaders and community ordinances.

Program participants were interviewed at baseline, end-of program, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up. Topics covered by the interviews include age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, language spoken at home, employment, income, religiosity, school enrollment, education level, school grades, height, weight, extracurricular activities, recreation, sports, exercise, aspirations after high school, psychological well-being, alcohol consumption, cigarette use and use of other tobacco products, attitudes about smoking, plans to stop/continue smoking, attempts to quit smoking, reasons for participating in the program, topics/issues covered by the program, opinions about the program, and smoking experience since the beginning of the program. In addition, for each follow-up survey, the participants provided a breath sample for carbon monoxide analysis to validate self-reported quit status.

After the last session of each program delivery, the program providers, such as program leaders and cessation counselors, were interviewed about the content and delivery of the program and the reactions of the participants and themselves to the program as delivered. The program providers also kept attendance records.

Curriculum content was abstracted from program manuals and other materials used in each program.

Organizational leaders of the organizations that offered the programs were surveyed about various aspects of each organization, including the organization's smoking cessation program and the organization's mission, general operations, and smoking-related policies and practices.

Community-level information was collected in two ways: (1) interviews of community leaders representing local health departments, school boards, and juvenile justice offices, and (2) archival research of public ordinances relevant to tobacco and control policies.

Nine data files/datasets constitute the data. Datasets 1-4 contain the participant questionnaire data, carbon monoxide measurement data, and program attendance data. Dataset 5 comprises information about each program and its curriculum, some information about the community in which the program was located, and summary data about enforcement of tobacco-related ordinances. Dataset 6 contains information about about the program providers and each program delivery, including recruitment, logistics, content, and the reactions of providers and participants. Dataset 7 covers administrative aspects of the smoking cessation programs and each offering organization's mission, general operations, and smoking-related policies and norms. Dataset 8 contains information about local and state-level tobacco-related ordinances for every state and local jurisdiction where each program was located, and Dataset 9 condenses the information in Dataset 8 into one summary record for each community. The unit of observation for Datasets 1-4 is the participant, for Datasets 5 and 7 the smoking cessation program/offering organization, for Dataset 6 the program delivery/program cohort, for Dataset 8 the ordinance, and for Dataset 9 the community.

These data were collected as part of the evaluation of the Healthy School Program (HSP), a program that provides support to elementary, middle, and high schools in the United States as they work to create healthy school environments that promote physical activity and healthy eating for students and staff. HSP was created in 2006 by the Alliance for a Healthier Generation with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The HSP evaluation addressed both process and impact outcomes:

1. Is the HSP technical assistance and training model effective in increasing the implementation of policies and programs that promote and provide access to healthier foods and more physical activity before, during and after school?

2. Are there distinctive or common school-level characteristics that hasten or hinder school-level implementation of policies and programs that promote and provide access to healthy foods and physical activity in the school setting in HSP schools?

3. Does participation in HSP contribute to an increase in healthy eating behaviors and physical activity participation among students? Does participation in HSP contribute to a decrease in body mass index (BMI) among students?

The evaluation used a mixed-method design incorporating both quantitative and qualitative components. The quantitative component of the evaluation was a longitudinal design that measured student changes in eating and physical activity behaviors and BMI and schools' implementation of policies and practices promoted by HSP. For the qualitative component the evaluation team conducted site visits in a sample of HSP schools.

Nine data files constitute this data collection:

1. HSP Participation and Inventory Data File, 2006-2011 (originally called the Inventory Data File)

2. Pilot Student Survey Data File

3. Pilot Student Height and Weight Measurements Data File

4. Survey of Students in Boston and Miami-Dade Public Schools Data File

5. HSP Participation and Inventory Data File, 2006-2014

6. Arizona, Prince George's County and Nevada Healthy Schools Youth Survey Data File

7. Arizona and Prince George's County Youth Height and Weight Measurements Data File

8. Arizona Academic Achievement Data File

9. Prince George's County School Wellness Coordinator Survey Data File

Dataset 1 contains data on school characteristics, HSP engagement indicators, baseline and follow-up responses to the Healthy Schools Inventory, and indices derived from the Inventory for all HSP schools as of August 2011. The Inventory collected information about each school's adherence to the Healthy Schools Program Framework, a set of best practice guidelines that promote physical activity and healthy eating among students and staff.

Datasets 2, 4 and 6 contain data from baseline and follow-up administrations of the Healthy Schools Youth Survey questionnaire in three samples of HSP schools: students in grades 5-12 in the initial pilot cohort of HSP schools; students in grades 5, 8 and 10 in the 2007-2008 cohort of HSP schools in Boston, Massachusetts and Miami-Dade County, Florida; and students in grades 5, 8 and 10 or 11 in HSP schools in Arizona, Nevada and Prince George's County, Maryland. Topics covered by the Healthy Schools Youth Survey questionnaire include eating and physical activity habits, attitudes about healthy eating and physical activity, health knowledge, and school food environments.

Datasets 3 and 7 contain baseline and follow-up height and weight measurements and derived BMIs, the former for students in grades 4-12 in schools sampled by the Pilot Student Survey and the latter for students in grades 5, 8, and 10 in Arizona and grades 1-12 in Prince George's County in schools sampled by the Arizona, Prince George's County and Nevada Healthy Schools Youth Survey.

Dataset 5 is an update to Dataset 1. Like Dataset 1 it contains data on HSP participation and engagement and school characteristics. Dataset 5 covers 8,500 schools that participated in HSP through fall 2014. It includes 4,028 of the 4,542 schools in Dataset 1.

Dataset 8 contains average math, reading and language scores for grades in HSP and comparable non-HSP schools in Arizona. Every record in the data file represents a grade (one or more of the grades 2-9) within a school (150 schools) for a given school year (up to seven years 2007-2008 to 2013-2014).

Dataset 9 contains data from a survey of HSP school coordinators in Prince Georges County. The coordinators were interviewed about the implementation of HSP in their schools.

ICPSR did not receive the site visit data.

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

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

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

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

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

The primary objective of this project was to prepare a complete and comprehensive database of state laws pertaining to immunization requirements and exemptions. To that end, the LexisNexis Academic search engine was used to search statutory and administrative materials for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, using the search term "immunization" together with other relevant terms. That search retrieved 1,991 laws whose characteristics were coded in the database by project staff. This data collection comprises a data file with the coded information and a ZIP archive which contains 1,991 PDF files with the full text of the laws.

After an initial review, the project staff categorized the retrieved laws into three groups. Group 1 consists of laws not applicable to human immunization, such as laws related to immunity from prosecution, vaccination of animals, and state sovereign immunity. Group 2 comprises laws with provisions related to specific vaccination requirements and exemptions as to which vaccines should be given to whom. Lastly, Group 3 covers vaccination laws without provisions related to specific vaccination requirements or exemptions as to which vaccines should be given to whom, for example, laws with provisions for immunization registries, annual reporting requirements, and access to and financing of vaccines.

The amount and type of information recorded about a law in the data file depends on its group classification. For every law in all three groups, the data file identifies the group, names the PDF file with the text of the law, and names the state to which the law applies. For Group 2 and Group 3, the data file also describes the topics covered by the law, the year it came into effect, and whether or not the law is current or repealed. Additional information for Group 2 describes target populations, target institutions, applicable vaccines, and exemption characteristics. The data file also includes brief textual descriptions of the Group 2 laws.

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.

Sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Active for Life (AFL) initiative investigated how two physical activity programs for adults aged 50 and older, Active Choices (AC) and Active Living Every Day (ALED), worked in community settings. Created by researchers at Stanford University, Active Choices used lifestyle counseling and personalized telephone support to encourage older adults to be physically active. In AFL, this was a 6-month program delivered through one face-to-face meeting followed by up to eight one-on-one telephone counseling calls. Active Living Every Day, which was created by the Cooper Institute and Human Kinetics Inc., also provided lifestyle counseling to promote physical activity, but in a classroom and workbook format. During the first three years of the four-year AFL initiative, ALED was delivered as a 20-week program where participants attended weekly small group meetings, but in the last year it was shortened to 12 weekly meetings. Nine organizations received AFL grants to implement the programs during 2003-2006. Four grantees implemented the one-on-one AC model, while five implemented the group-based ALED model.

Data were collected from the AC and ALED sites for both a process and outcomes evaluation. The primary aims of the process evaluation were to (1) monitor the extent to which the grantees demonstrated fidelity to the AC and ALED models in their program implementation, (2) assess staff experiences implementing the programs, and (3) assess participants' impressions of the programs. A quasi-experimental, pre-post study design was used to assess outcomes. Primary aims of the outcomes evaluation were to evaluate the impact of AC and ALED on self-reported physical activity, and to evaluate the impact of the programs on self-reported stress, depressive symptoms, and satisfaction with body function and appearance. Secondary aims of the outcome evaluation were to (1) evaluate the impact of the programs on measures of functional fitness, (2) examine whether changes in self-reported physical activity and functional fitness were moderated by participant characteristics, including age, gender, race, baseline physical activity self-efficacy, and baseline physical activity social support, and (3) examine whether changes in self-reported physical activity were consistent with a mediation model for physical activity self-efficacy and physical activity social support.

The collection has 14 data files (datasets). Datasets 1-7 constitute the process evaluation data, and Datasets 8-14 the outcomes evaluation data:

Dataset 1 (AC Initial Face-to-Face Sessions Data) contains information about the initial face-to-face AC session: the format, date, and length of the session, whether the 8 steps required in the face-to-face session were completed, what was discussed between the health educator and the participant related to physical activity plans, interests, benefits, and barriers, and the health educator's progress notes. The file contains one record for each AC participant.

Dataset 2 (AC Completed Calls Data) comprises information about the completed AC calls, but does not cover the topics discussed on the calls. Recorded information about each call includes the date and length of the call, the health educator's progress notes, and whether the participant was assessed for injury, light activity, moderate activity, exercise goals, or exercise intentions. Each call is represented by a separate record in the data file and, typically, there are multiple records per participant.

Dataset 3 (AC Topics Discussed on Completed Calls ) contains information about the topics discussed on each completed AC call, e.g., exercise barriers/benefits, previous exercise experiences, goal setting, long term goals, injury prevention, rewards/reinforcement, social support, progress tracking, and relapse prevention. Each record in the file represents one topic and there are often multiple records per call for each participant.

Dataset 4 (AC Aggregate Call Data) aggregates the call data across calls for each AC participant. For example, for a given participant, this dataset shows the total number of calls completed, the number of calls where injury/health problems were assessed, etc. The file contains one record per participant.

Dataset 5 (ALED Sessions Data) contains information about each class session for every ALED group, including the session date, start time, and end time, learning activities covered in the session, participant evaluations of the session and the facilitator, facilitator progress notes, the number of participants who were in various stages of readiness for moderate exercise, and the number of participants who tracked physical activity and thoughts about physical activity. This file has one record for each session of every ALED group.

Dataset 6 (ALED Attendance and Tracking Data (Years 2-4)) consists of participant-level attendance and tracking data for every ALED session during the second to fourth years of the evaluation, including the participant's attendance at the session, whether the participant's stage of readiness was assessed, and whether the participant tracked thoughts about physical activity or actual physical activity. There is no participant-level ALED data for the first year. Each participant has a separate record for each session. Thus, the file contains 20 records per participant in the years 2-3, and 12 records per participant in year 4.

Dataset 7 (ALED Aggregate Attendance and Tracking Data (Years 2-4)) contains ALED attendance and tracking data for each participant in years 2-4, aggregated across the sessions. The data file has one record for each participant.

Dataset 8 (Demographics) comprises program information (e.g., program status, start date, end date, site, etc.), demographic information (e.g., age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, employment status, income, and the participant's state and ZIP code of residence), and responses to the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q), a screening tool that was used to assess possible risks of exercising based on answers to specific health history questions. The file contains one record for each AFL participant, except for those with a status of "nonstarter" or "repeater."

Datasets 9 (Pretest Survey Data) and 10 (Posttest Survey Data) contain data from the Pretest and Posttest Surveys. The Pretest Survey was administered at the beginning of the AC and ALED programs, while the Posttest Survey was administered at their end. Topics covered by the surveys include social and recreational activities, activities undertaken for exercise, perceived stress, depressive symptoms, satisfaction with body appearance and function, social support for physical activity, self-efficacy for physical activity, neighborhood environment, health conditions, health-related quality of life, caregiving, and self-reported height and weight. Both surveys included items from the Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors Physical Activity Questionnaire (CHAMPS), the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Questionnaire (CES-D), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Questionnaires (BRFSS), and the International Physical Activity Prevalence Study Environmental Module. These data files each have one record for each participant who submitted a questionnaire.

Dataset 11 (ALED Week 12 Survey Data (Year 4)) contains responses to the ALED Week 12 Posttest Survey, which was used to evaluate the 12-week adaptation of ALED in Year 4. (In Year 4, ALED participants completed both a 12- and 20-week posttest survey). There is one record for each participant who returned this survey.

Dataset 12 (Six-Month Posttest Follow-Up Survey Data (Years 3-4)) comprises data from a special 6-month follow-up survey which was administered in years 3-4 in six of the ALED sites and one of the AC sites. Participants were questioned about their current physical activities, weight, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with bodily function, and other topics. As with Datasets 9-11, the data file contains one record for each participant who returned a questionnaire.

Dataset 13 (Functional Fitness Tests Data) contains the results of pretest and posttest functional fitness tests which were administered by one ALED grantee. Four tests were adminstered: (1) the 30-Foot Walk Test, (2) the 30-Second Chair Stand, (3) 8-Foot Up and Go, and (4) the Chair Sit and Reach Test. This participant-level data file also includes pretest height measurements plus pretest and posttest weight measurements.

Dataset 14 (Participants' Impressions of the Programs (Years 1, 3, and 4)) contains data collected by the last sections of the Posttest Survey, ALED Week 12 survey, and 6-Month Follow-up Survey. The topics it covers include the participants' impressions of the programs, participation in physical activities, and changes (compared to before they started the AFL program) in motivation to be physically active, actual level of physical activity, medical and health conditions, overall pain, flexibility/limberness, level of stress, happiness, and enjoyment of life. The file has a separate record for each survey completed by the participants. Thus, there are 1-3 records per participant.

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.

This collection comprises a single data file which was produced as part of the data harmonization efforts of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The file contains merged data from five sources:

1. 2010 National Profile of Local Health Departments, a survey of local health departments conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO).

2. 2011 National Profile Survey of Local Boards of Health, a survey of local boards of health conducted by the National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH).

3. 2010 State and Territorial Public Health Survey, a survey of state and United States territory health departments conducted by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO).

4. 2011 County Health Rankings, a compilation of county-level health measures and within-state county health rankings produced by the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.

5. 2010 Census Demographic Profile Summary File, a series of tables with housing and population data from the 2010 Census.

Produced by matching data from the last four sources to the NACCHO data, the data file contains one case for each of the 2,107 local health departments (LHD) that responded to the NACCHO survey. Each LHD's record in the file includes the ASTHO data for its state health department and the NALBOH data for its local board of health (LBH), if it had a LBH and the LBH responded to the NALBOH survey. (If a LHD had multiple LBHs, then the first one in the NALBOH data was matched to the LHD). In addition, county (or county equivalent)-level data from the County Health Rankings and Census Demographic Profile Summary File were matched to the records of the 1,535 LHDs represented in the data file with a jurisdiction covering a single county or county equivalent.

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 the 2017 Discrimination in the United States Survey, a survey from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/National Public Radio conducted by Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS). Topics covered in this survey include:

• Belief in discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities
• Discrimination against men/women
• Discrimination against lesbian/gay/bisexual people
• Discrimination against transgender people
• Biggest problem with discrimination against lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/queer (LGBTQ) people
• Live on tribal lands
• Local/tribal government
• Discrimination based on race
• Discrimination based on gender
• Discrimination based on being part of the LGBTQ community
• Reasons for avoiding seeking health care
• Experiences with discrimination
• Discrimination resulting in fewer employment opportunities
• Discrimination resulting in unequal pay
• Discrimination resulting in fewer chances for quality education
• Encouraged to/discouraged from applying to college
• Predominant groups living in respondent's area
• Not feeling/being welcomed in neighborhood due to race
• Not feeling/being welcomed in neighborhood due to being part of LGBTQ community
• Considered moving to another area because of discrimination
• Comparing respondent's area to others
• Police using unnecessary force based on race/ethnicity
• Avoiding activities to avoid discrimination from police
• Experiences caused by racial discrimination
• Experiences caused by gender discrimination
• Experiences caused by discrimination against LGBTQ community
• Local police force does/does not reflect racial/ethnic background of community
• Contacted by political representatives about voting/supporting cause
• Registered to vote
• Vote in 2016 presidential election
• Physical health status
• Mental health status
• Disability
• Chronic illness
• Veterans Administration
• Indian Health Services
• Seeking health care
• Insurance coverage

The data and documentation files for this survey are available through the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [Roper #31114655]. Frequencies and summary statistics for the 235 variables from this survey are available through the ICPSR social science variable database and can be accessed from the Variables tab.

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 Public Health Priorities, a survey by Harvard School of Public Health/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation conducted by ICR Survey Research Group. Topics covered in this survey include:

• Goals of health professionals

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 Public Health Survey, a survey by Harvard School of Public Health/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation conducted by ICR Survey Research Group. Topics covered in this survey include:

• Goals of health professionals

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 Health Care Priorities, a survey by Harvard School of Public Health/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation conducted by ICR Survey Research Group. Topics covered in this survey include:

• Important health issues
• Laws

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 Health Care Issues, a survey by Harvard School of Public Health/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation conducted by ICR Survey Research Group. Topics covered in this survey include:

• Important health issues

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 Health Care Priorities, a survey by Harvard School of Public Health/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation conducted by ICR Survey Research Group. Topics covered in this survey include:

• Goals of health professionals

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 Health Issues Survey, a survey by Harvard School of Public Health/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation conducted by ICR Survey Research Group. Topics covered in this survey include:

• Important health issues

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 Poll: Health Issues Survey, a survey from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation conducted by ICR-International Communications Research. Topics covered in this survey include:

• Important health issues