Search results

Showing 1 – 19 of 19 results.
Curated

United States Hospital AIDS/HIV and Pediatric AIDS/HIV Care Survey, 1988, 1989, AND 1991 (ICPSR 6455)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this study was to obtain information on hospital-based treatment of persons with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and other Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-related illnesses. Aggregate data were obtained from each surveyed hospital, with the hospital as the unit of observation. Topics covered included patient demographics, service volume and structure, sources of payment, and types of services and treatments rendered. Information was also solicited on inpatient and outpatient AIDS/HIV hospital utilization, patient discharge disposition and likely mode of exposure, hospital community AIDS/HIV education programs, and policies for the treatment of AIDS/HIV patients, for employees with AIDS/HIV, and for the confidentiality of AIDS/HIV patients. Additionally, hospital administrators were queried about monitoring and tracking of outpatient services and the existence of special hospital-operated AIDS/HIV outpatient clinics. Financial characteristics covered included net revenues, costs, and charges for inpatient and outpatient AIDS/HIV services, payer source, and methods used to determine costs. In 1989 and 1991, separate data were obtained for pediatric AIDS/HIV patients.
The following results may be significantly less relevant compared to results above.
Curated

Creating Data Visualizations to Understand the Impact of Structural Racism on Anti-Asian Hate Crime During COVID-19 and to Mitigate Its Effects, United States, 2023-2025 (ICPSR 39503)

Released/updated on: 2025-09-17
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2023-09-01--2025-02-28

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the scapegoating of Asians, leading to a rise in hate crimes against them and adversely affecting their mental health and well-being. This project seeks to visualize the connection between structural racism, health, and anti-Asian Hate Crime (AHC) incidents reported in both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and news and social media collected by the the Asian American Foundation (TAAF) during the period of 2020-2021. The project will first visualize the pattern of AHC incidents reported in FBI and media data, considering variations by states, counties, and months. This project will then identify state- or county-factors associated with AHC incidents and visualize them. The project will further examine changes in mental health and coping behaviors, following AHC incidents. The project will finally explore whether community-level AAPI organizations availability can mitigate the adverse effects of AHC incidents on mental health and coping behaviors.

The project's target audience includes social change networks, media outlets, academic society, federal/state legislators, and national-level professional organizations. The resulting visualizations will facilitate policy debates surrounding various aspects, such as addressing underlying risk factors related to AHC, improving data collection and reporting methods within law enforcement agencies to accurately document AHC incidences in Federal/State archives, implementing policies and interventions to mitigate adverse effects on people's health, promoting understanding of cultural differences and inclusivity.

Curated

Bridging the Gap/National Wellness Policy Study State Wellness Policy-Related Dataset, School Years 2006-2007 through 2013-2014 (ICPSR 36527)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-17
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2006-01-01--2014-01-01
This data set contains Bridging the Gap (BTG) (school years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013) and National Wellness Policy Study (2013-2014) coded data for all state laws (statutory and administrative) that relate to areas included in the congressionally-mandated school district wellness policies. Topics include nutrition education, school meals, competitive foods, physical activity, and implementation/evaluation, as well as other topics of relevance related to physical education, communications and marketing, staff wellness, and marketing and promotion. Although the states were not required to develop laws on this topic, many do have them and many districts embed these state laws by reference in their district policies. This study was intended to provide detailed insight into the contents of state laws that overlay the congressionally-mandated district wellness policies. There is a separate record in the data file for each state, grade level (elementary, middle and high school) and school year combination.
Curated

Bridging the Gap/National Wellness Policy Study District Wellness Policy-Related Dataset, School Years 2006-2007 through 2013-2014 (ICPSR 36528)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2006-01-01--2014-01-01
Beginning with the school year 2006-07, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 required school districts participating in the National School Lunch Program or other child nutrition programs to adopt and implement a wellness policy. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 continued and strengthened this requirement. This study was intended to provide detailed insight into the contents of the congressionally-mandated district wellness policies for school years 2006-07 (first year of the mandate) through 2013-14 (last year of funding-supported data collection). The data file contains coded information about the required wellness policy components, along with other components that are known to contribute to student health and wellness: nutrition education; standards for USDA child nutrition programs and school meals; nutrition standards for competitive and other foods and beverages; physical education; physical activity; staff wellness and modelling; stakeholder involvement; messaging, marketing and promotion; evaluation; and reporting. There is a separate record in the data file for each district, grade level (elementary, middle and high school) and school year combination.
Curated

State Risk Pool Utilization and Cost Data, 1988-1991: [Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Nebraska, Washington, and Wisconsin] (ICPSR 6794)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: Connecticut, Minnesota, Florida, Wisconsin, Washington, Nebraska
Time period: 1988-01-01--1991-12-31
This study comprises enrollment, utilization, and cost data for a number of state-sponsored high-risk health insurance plans. These plans, known as state risk pools, were primarily established for persons who wanted to buy health insurance but either were medically uninsurable or unable to find a policy at a reasonable cost. Enrollment variables in the data collection include reason for eligibility, preexisting conditions, Medicaid status, and month and year of enrollment and disenrollment. Utilization and cost variables include person's age and gender, coinsurance and deductible payments, and allowed charges by type of disease and type of service (outpatient, inpatient, pharmacy, or physician). The utilization and cost data are aggregated by person and month, with each observation representing a single month of enrollment for an individual.
Curated

Evaluating the Dental Pipeline Program: Recruiting Minorities and Promoting Community-Based Dental Education, 2003-2007 [United States] (ICPSR 25581)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2002-01-01--2007-01-01

The Pipeline, Profession, and Practice: Community-Based Dental Education (Dental Pipeline) program was a national initiative created by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in 2001 to address the critical shortage of oral health care for underserved and disadvantaged populations in the United States. By 2003, RWJF selected 11 dental schools to receive Dental Pipeline funding for 5 years through a competitive application process, and The California Endowment (TCE) joined the program in July 2003, funding 4 additional dental schools in California. The initiative focused on recruitment and retention of underrepresented minority dental students, curriculum revisions to stress community-based dental education (CBDE), and increased extramural clinical rotations for students in the community, with the expectation that these changes in dental education would lead to improved access for underserved populations. The Dental Pipeline program sought not only to increase underrepresented minority recruitment but also to build cultural competence for all dental students so that they are better prepared to treat a diverse group of patients. Based in the Department of Health Services at the UCLA School of Public Health, the National Evaluation Team (NET) was chosen by the foundations to be the national evaluator of the Pipeline program. The NET employed a multidisciplinary team using qualitative and quantitative methods and multiple data sources to conduct a comprehensive 5-year evaluation. This ICPSR study contains data from five of the evaluation's data collection efforts: two faculty surveys, a survey of deans, curriculum checklists, clinical information system, and site-visit interviews.

Conducted at two time points during the Pipeline program implementation, the faculty surveys interviewed faculty members in the Dental Pipeline schools about their perceptions of extramural clinical rotations; competence of senior students; support for and effectiveness of recruitment programs intended to increase the number of underrepresented minority and low-income (URM/LI) dental students; impact of diversity on education experience; barriers to sustainability of the extramural programs, cultural competency dental education curricula, and URM/LI recruitment; and barriers for graduating seniors to practice in settings that provide care to underserved populations.

The survey of deans from Pipeline schools inquired about the importance of public policy issues related to dental education and expanding access to oral health care, level of activity and effectiveness of efforts to influence goals, and factors that facilitate or serve as barriers to influencing policy development.

The purpose of the curriculum checklists was to document the Pipeline schools' efforts to develop/revise their CBDE curricula and to characterize the key parameters of all their CBDE courses.

The clinical information system collected information about the Pipeline schools' predoctoral clinical rotations for each of the five academic years covered by the evaluation: total number of days in core community rotations, number of days in extramural rotations by type of extramural site (e.g., urban/rural, Federally Qualified Health Center, community health center, Veterans Administration hospital/clinic, Indian Health Service, and public/parochial school), and average distance of extramural facilities from school.

Multiple rounds of qualitative site visit interview data were collected from different stakeholder groups at the Pipeline schools: faculty, administrators, community representatives, first year students, and fourth year students. The site visit interviews, which were taped and transcribed, were conducted for several reasons: to describe Pipeline program components including baseline status, program structures, and implementation processes; to validate and clarify information gathered from other data sources; to collect information not available from other data sources; and to identify evidence-based best practices in the schools. Altogether, there are 522 discrete transcripts which ICPSR bundled in a single ZIP archive.

Curated

Trends in Hospital and Health Personnel in the United States and Canada, 1968-1991 (ICPSR 6243)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: Canada, United States, Global
Time period: 1968-01-01--1991-01-01
The major objective of this study was to develop a new data resource for crossnational comparisons of health care systems. To that end, the project compiled data from the United States and Canada to compare the number of health personnel per capita in these two countries. The collection comprises three data files: one file with data from the United States and two files with Canadian data. Part 1, the United States file (named the HWKXTRCT file by the principal investigators), contains records of respondents employed in health industries and occupations extracted from the United States Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey Annual Demographic (March) Files for 1968 through 1992. Variables in Part 1 include age, educational attainment, race, sex, ethnic origin, wage or salary income, self-employment income, health industry group and occupation, and labor force status during the last week. This file also includes recoded variables generated by the principal investigators, such as annualized hours worked in principal employment, and wages adjusted to 1991 United States dollars. The two Canadian files, Parts 4 and 7, contain custom tabulations generated from the 1971 and 1986 Censuses of Canada. These tabulations give the number of persons in Canada employed for 1-19, 20-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, and 50+ hours per week by sex, occupation, industry, and the number of weeks worked during the previous year.
Curated

Active for Life: Translation of Physical Activity Programs for Mid-Life and Older Adults, 2003-2007 [United States] (ICPSR 24723)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, District of Columbia, United States, Tennessee, California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland
Time period: 2003-01-01--2007-01-01

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.

Curated

State Foodborne Illness Reporting Laws, 2011-2013 (ICPSR 34935)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-01-01--2013-01-01

The primary goal of this project was to create a comprehensive database of all state regulations and legislation that can be used by food safety stakeholders to efficiently analyze relevant foodborne illness-related legislation. To that end, project staff compiled state statutes and regulations pertaining to foodborne illness reporting requirements and coded many of their features in a database. The coded information covers reporting requirements for establishments and healthcare providers; investigation authority over establishments and individuals; enforcement regarding suspected/confirmed foods; protection of patient and business confidentiality; and reporting requirements for illness caused by specific pathogens such as Campylobacter, Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium perfringens, Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, Listeria monocytogenes, Norovirus, Salmonella (nontyphoidal), Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157:H7, Shigella, Staphylococcus aureus, Toxoplasma gondii, Vibrio, and Yersinia. Additional information recorded in the data include state population size; state per capita income; state participation in the Foodborne Diseases Surveillance Network (FoodNet), Environmental Health Specialist Network (EHS-Net), and Food Emergency Response Network (FERN); and whether or not the state has a FDA FoodCORE regional program, Food Safety Integrated Center for Excellence (FSICE), or FDA Rapid Response Team (RRT) grant.

This data collection comprises a Microsoft Access database with 44 data tables and the Final Exported Dataset which was derived from the database. The Access database contains a draft of the information in the Final Exported Dataset and some information not included in it. The Final Exported Dataset describes the laws and regulations that were current in 2013. The Access database covers the period 2011-2013.

To facilitate the use of this data collection, every data table in the Access database is also provided as a separate data file (Datasets 3-46). In addition, the codebook includes copies of the data entry forms in the Access database .

Curated

Helping Young Smokers Quit: Identifying Best Practices for Tobacco Cessation, Phase II National Program Evaluation, 2003-2006 (ICPSR 33161)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: Oregon, New York, United States, Kentucky, Minnesota, California, Utah, Washington, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Missouri, Louisiana, Ohio, Maryland, Wisconsin, Nevada
Time period: 2003-01-01--2006-01-01

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.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Primary Care Audit Study for 10 States in the United States, 2012-2013, 2014 & 2016 (ICPSR 36785)

Released/updated on: 2018-10-10
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Montana, Iowa, United States, Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, Georgia, Arkansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-01-01, 2014-01-01--2014-01-01, 2016-01-01--2016-01-01

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.

Curated

State Health Policy Research Dataset (SHEPRD): 1980-2010 (ICPSR 34789)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1980-01-01--2010-01-01
This dataset was developed to study trends in the adoption of state public health laws during 1980-2010. Specifically, the dataset covers annual trends in seatbelt laws, speed limits for passenger vehicles on rural interstates, minimum legal drinking ages, drunk driving laws, laws prohibiting the purchase of alcohol on Sundays, regulations for registering purchased kegs and/or prohibitions against selling kegs, beer taxes and total alcohol tax revenues, motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws, cigarette taxes, cigarette advertising bans, bans on workplace smoking, bans on smoking in restaurants and bars, and tobacco taxes (total revenue). The dataset contains information about these laws for each year between 1980 and 2010, inclusive. In addition, it contains variables that describe the social, economic, demographic, health care, political, and crime chacteristics of the states in each of these years.
Curated

National Preventive Dentistry Demonstration Program, 1977-1981 (ICPSR 8494)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1977-01-01--1981-01-01
Data in this collection document the National Preventive Dentistry Demonstration Program. The program provided dental examinations and preventive treatment of school children. Information such as sex, age, race, grade, and program site are given for each child, as well as data on the specific treatment regimen for the child. Data on dental habits and condition are provided by a survey of parents (which also includes demographic data on participants and non-participants), radiographic examinations, and clinical examinations. Also included are data on the costs, personnel resources, and materiel required by the program, plus results from periodic surveys of participating school principals and teachers.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Multi-Network Practice and Outcome Variation Examination Study (MPROVE) in 6 United States, 2012-2013 (ICPSR 36447)

Released/updated on: 2020-01-27
Geographic coverage: United States
Local health departments (LHDs) have essential roles in promoting physical activities intended to reduce obesity. The resulting array of community interventions includes activities such as community education, school-based programs, individual services, and healthy built environments. Little research exists, however, regarding how these interventions impact community health. Our objective was to explore associations between physical activity (PA) program approaches with local prevalence rates of obesity and PA engagement. Unique public health services data on obesity prevention were obtained from 218 LHDs from six states in 2012. This subset of the MPROVE study investigated the reach, volume, and scope of public health delivery in the area of chronic disease prevention of obesity. The Public Health Activities and Services Tracking (PHAST) team continues to refine the MPROVE measures in consultation with public health practitioners and researchers, with hopes of standardizing a nationwide system for reporting public health activities and services. The Multi-Network Public Health Practice and Outcome Variation Examination (MPROVE) study supports six established public health practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in implementing a collaborative research study of local public health delivery using the collective infrastructure of multiple PBRNs. Each PBRN comprises multiple local and state public health agencies that operate within the state, along with a university-based research center located in the state. The research project will involve creation of a multi-network registry of local public health delivery measures and analysis of the measures to investigate geographic variation in service delivery across a large and diverse collection of public health settings represented within the networks of the participating PBRNs. The study will focus on public health delivery measures in three domains of activity: communicable disease control, chronic disease prevention, and environmental health protection. While not comprehensive, these three domains are representative of the breadth of activities carried out by public health systems across the U.S. and are designed to address priority population health outcomes. These domains also represent areas where significant measurement development activities are already underway within one or more public health PBRNs that can be expanded and replicated across networks.
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), 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

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
Simple Crosstabs

National Lawful Use of Guns Survey (NLUGS), [United States], 2019 (ICPSR 37834)

Released/updated on: 2022-09-14
Geographic coverage: United States
The National Lawful Use of Guns Survey is a baseline internet-based survey of 2,086 gun owners who were surveyed in 2019 and will be surveyed again one year later. The survey measured a wide range of variables, including: (a) psychographics; (b) firearm-related knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, practices, and norms; (c) a wide range of personal values; (d) level of engagement with guns (emotional and moral attachment to guns); (e) association between firearms and personal values; (f) mindset towards firearm and other public health policies; (g) level of inclusion in or alienation from the gun control movement; and (h) level of civic engagement with gun violence prevention.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

National Lawful Use of Guns Survey (NLUGS), [United States], 2020 (ICPSR 38045)

Released/updated on: 2023-01-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2020-11-23--2020-12-03

The National Lawful Use of Guns Survey is a baseline internet-based survey of 2,086 gun owners who were surveyed in 2019 and again one year later. The survey measured a wide range of variables, including: (a) psychographics; (b) firearm-related knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, practices, and norms; (c) a wide range of personal values; (d) level of engagement with guns (emotional and moral attachment to guns); (e) association between firearms and personal values; (f) mindset towards firearm and other public health policies; (g) level of inclusion in or alienation from the gun control movement; and (h) level of civic engagement with gun violence prevention.

The National Lawful Use of Guns Follow-Up Survey was conducted in 2020 and sampled the same 2,086 gun owners who responded to the baseline survey. This survey tested several communication messages intended to try to increase the willingness of gun owners to participate in gun violence prevention activities.

Back to top