Search results

Obtaining a better understanding of the organizational and operational attributes of public health delivery systems is a critical step in elucidating pathways for improving public health services. This survey of local governmental public health agencies was conducted to that end, as part of a larger study designed to classify the structural characteristics of local public health delivery systems and to examine variation and change in these characteristics over time. In 1998 and again in 2006, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2023 local governmental public health agencies serving populations of 100,000 residents or more were surveyed about 20 core public health activities devoted to public health assessment, policy development, and assurance.

For each activity, the survey instrument asked agency directors to report whether the activity was performed at all in the agency's jurisdiction and if so, which types of organizations were involved in performing the activity. Response options for the second item consisted of a pre-defined list of organization types, including hospitals, physician practices, health insurers, community health centers, educational institutions, community-based and faith-based organizations, state and local government agencies, and private businesses/employers. The instrument also asked what proportion of the total community effort for each activity was contributed by the local public health agency and asked how effectively the activity was performed.

The BRITE study (Brain Injury Rehabilitation: Improving the Transition Experience) was a six-center, 1:1 randomized controlled pragmatic trial with masked outcome assessment that compared the effectiveness of two established approaches to managing transition from inpatient rehabilitation facility discharge to the next phase of care for individuals with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The two established transition methods were (1) a standardized version of existing discharge procedures used at all six sites and (2) a standardized remotely-delivered case management approach that extended beyond the point of discharge, based on the protocol used within the Veteran's Health Administration and enhanced with input from patient and family stakeholders. The sample was stratified by site and discharge location (skilled nursing facility vs. discharge to home/community) based on the relatively lower frequency of discharge to facility (22 percent across all six study sites in 2015) and the expectation of high impact of discharge destination on outcomes. When a caregiver was available for an enrolled patient, they were also approached for consent to be surveyed, with some patients having up to two caregivers enrolled to account for changes in primary caregiver.

The following key outcome domains were assessed: (1) ability of patients to participate in the home and community as independently as possible, (2) health-related quality of life, (3) access to appropriate healthcare and reduced emergent or urgent healthcare, and (4) caregiver outcomes. These outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after discharge from inpatient care. Participants were also given the standard TBI Model Systems follow-up assessment one-year post-injury. Types of medical insurance coverage and satisfaction with healthcare were examined at 6 and 12 months post-discharge.

For people with serious chronic conditions, healthcare that defaults to all available treatments without considering patient preferences risks harms that may exceed benefits. Advance care planning (ACP) has the potential to align healthcare with what is important to patients and maximize quality of life. While primary care is where most people receive most of their care, engaging patients in ACP is not routine in primary care given competing demands and limited resources. Primary care clinicians, patients, and families agree that it is preferred to make plans before there is a medical crisis. The research team's goal was to make ACP routine in primary care and to "move it upstream" so that it included improving the quality of the last years of life as well as respecting wishes for end of life care.

This study included a comparative effectiveness trial of team-based versus individual clinician-focused ACP in primary care practices. The research team adapted Ariadne Labs' Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) and aimed to determine if a team approach produces better patient outcomes and explore factors influencing implementation of ACP across practices.

Seven practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in the United States and Canada randomized their primary care practices to team-based or individual clinician-focused versions of SICP. Team members and clinicians completed training, and implementation was supported through practice facilitation. Consented patient participants completed a baseline survey after initial conversations and follow-up surveys at 6 and 12 months later. Forty practices (21 team, 19 clinician) completed training and referred patients to the study. Half of the practices were rural, 80 percent were family medicine, and 33 percent were medical residency training sites. 535 healthcare staff completed training. Both arms trained primary care providers; the team arm also trained nurses, medical assistants, and other roles. 1,321 patients and care partners were referred; and 917 consented and were enrolled (455 from team practices, 462 from clinician). Data from 802 patients were included in the primary analyses. Qualitative implementation data was collected during practice facilitation and from practice interviews.

This collection includes quantitative data collected from primary care practices (DS1) and team members and clinicians (DS2) from study sites located in the United States.

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.

Conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), the purpose of this survey of local health departments (LHDs) was to advance and support the development of a database for LHDs to describe and understand their structure, function, and capacities. A core set of questions was submitted to every LHD. In addition, some LHDs received one of two randomly assigned modules of supplemental questions.

Data from the National Profile of Local Health Departments survey are used by:

1. LHD staff members to compare their LHD or those within their states to others nationwide;
2. Policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels to inform public health policy and support projects to improve local public health practice;
3. Universities to educate future public health workforce members about LHDs;
4. Researchers to address questions about public health practice; and
5. NACCHO staff to develop programs and resources that meet the needs of LHDs and to advocate effectively for LHDs.

Data included as part of this collection includes the Public-Use (Restricted-Use Level 1) data of the National Profile of Local Health Departments 2016 study. The dataset includes 1930 cases for 1112 variables.

Conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), the purpose of this survey of local health departments (LHDs) was to advance and support the development of a database for LHDs to describe and understand their structure, function, and capacities. A core set of questions was submitted to every LHD. In addition, some LHDs received one of two randomly assigned modules of supplemental questions.

Data from the National Profile of Local Health Departments survey are used by:

1. LHD staff members to compare their LHD or those within their states to others nationwide;
2. Policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels to inform public health policy and support projects to improve local public health practice;
3. Universities to educate future public health workforce members about LHDs;
4. Researchers to address questions about public health practice; and
5. NACCHO staff to develop programs and resources that meet the needs of LHDs and to advocate effectively for LHDs.

Data included as part of this collection includes the Restricted-Use (Restricted-Use Level 2) data of the National Profile of Local Health Departments 2016 study. The dataset includes 1930 cases for 1116 variables.

The Survey of Long-Term Care Awareness and Planning was designed to measure the attitudes of Americans ages 40-70 towards long-term care (LTC), retirement planning, and insurance policy preferences. Few people have private LTC insurance, and Medicare does not cover LTC. Many older adults pay for LTC out of their income and personal savings until they are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Others, to avoid exhausting their financial resources and relying on Medicaid, depend on unpaid family support or go without needed services. The Survey of Long-Term Care Awareness and Planning collected data on LTC in order to help inform federal policy in this area.

The survey collected respondents' current health information, willingness to take risks, plans for disability care, retirement preparation, and insurance coverage. Part of the survey was a discrete choice experiment (DCE) or conjoint analysis designed to elicit respondent preferences on specific features of LTC insurance. This section included choices on daily benefit, benefit period, deductible period, health requirements, type of insurer, monthly premium, and voluntary or universal. Respondents were also asked about the types of investments they had, where they received health information, opinions on the US healthcare system, whether they had been diagnosed with specific health conditions, willingness to make lifestyle changes due to a disability, concerns about long-term disability care, and opinions on who should be responsible for the costs of LTC. Demographic information collected includes age, education, household size, race, gender, income, marital status, and region.