Search results

Showing 1 – 13 of 13 results.

Curated

Area Health Resources Files (ICPSR 34043)

Released/updated on: 2012-05-15

Geographic coverage: United States

The Area Resource File (ARF) is a health resource information database containing more than 6,000 variables for each of the nation's counties. ARF contains information on health facilities, health professions, measures of resource scarcity, health status, economic activity, health training programs, and socioeconomic and environmental characteristics.

Curated

Bicol Community Survey (BCS), 1981: [Philippines] (ICPSR 6888)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Philippines, Global

During 1981, the Bicol Community Survey gathered data from 100 barangays located in the same provinces of the Philippines that were sampled by the BICOL MULTIPURPOSE SURVEY (BMS), 1978: [PHILIPPINES] (ICPSR 6878): Albay, Camarines Sur, and Sorsogon. Barangays are political subdivisions equivalent to villages in rural areas and to neighborhoods in urban areas. Data were gathered at the community level from barangay heads, health care providers (both public and private), traditional birth practitioners (hilots), traditional healers (herbolario), and barangay residents using a questionnaire divided into six different sections, each with its own particular focus. The six sections correspond to the six data files in this collection. Part 1, Infant Food Prices, contains information from one store in each barangay on content, availability, and price information of infant foods. Part 2, Health Services: Availability and Distance, contains one observation for each barangay from either barangay captains, barangay officials, or housewives regarding the time and cost of travel to health providers, both public and private. Part 3, Health Services: Prices and Quality, provides information from 518 heads of health care facilities, private health care professionals, traditional birth practitioners, and traditional healers about travel costs, costs per visit, and costs for prescribed medication. Part 4, Promotional Practices of Infant Food Companies, offers responses from hilots, heads of health facilities, and private professionals about brands of infant formula available, whether free samples and pamphlets were provided, and whether supplies such as pads, pencils, equipment, or posters were donated. Part 5, Environmental Sanitation, provides data from sanitary inspectors on water availability, water conditions, and garbage disposal within the barangay. For Part 6, Health Professionals Survey Data, heads of facilities and private professionals were given a self-administered survey regarding the demographic, educational, and employment characteristics of workers, along with their knowledge of and attitude toward breast-feeding. Interviews conducted with hilots by field workers using the same questionnaire are also included.

Curated

Bureau of Health Professions Area Resource File, 1940-1990: [United States] (ICPSR 9075)

Released/updated on: 1994-05-20

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1940-01-01--1990-01-01

The Bureau of Health Professions Area Resource File is a county-based data file summarizing secondary data from a wide variety of sources into a single file to facilitate health analysis. The file contains over 6,000 data elements for all counties in the United States with the exception of Alaska, for which there is a state total, and certain independent cities that have been combined into their appropriate counties. The data elements include: (1) County descriptor codes (name, FIPS, HSA, PSRO, SMSA, SEA, BEA, city size, P/MSA, Census Contiguous County, shortage area designation, etc.), (2) Health professions data (number of professionals registered as M.D., D.O., DDS, R.N., L.P.N., veterinarian, pharmacist, optometrist, podiatrist, and dental hygienist), (3) Health facility data (hospital size, type, utilization, staffing and services, and nursing home data), (4) Population data (size, composition, employment, housing, morbidity, natality, mortality by cause, by sex and race, and by age, and crime data), (5) Health Professions Training data (training programs, enrollments, and graduates by type), (6) Expenditure data (hospital expenditures, Medicare enrollments and reimbursements, and Medicare prevailing charge data), (7) Economic data (total, per capita, and median income, income distribution, and AFDC recipients), and (8) Environment data (land area, large animal population, elevation, latitude and longitude of population centroid, water hardness index, and climate data).

Curated

Restricted

COVID Burnout, California, 2020 (ICPSR 38694)

Released/updated on: 2023-03-06

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Healthcare personnel have faced unprecedented mental health challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study objective is to assess differences in depression, anxiety, and burnout among healthcare personnel with various occupational roles and whether financial and job strain were associated with these mental health outcomes. Methods: Researchers employed an anonymous survey between July and August 2020 at an urban county hospital in California, USA. They assessed depression, anxiety, and burnout using validated scales, and asked questions on financial strain and job strain.

Curated

Evaluation of the First Round of Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG 1.0), United States, 2010-2020 (ICPSR 37290)

Released/updated on: 2025-05-07

Geographic coverage: United States, Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Missouri, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona

Time period: 2010-01-01--2018-01-01

HPOG programs are expected to target skills and competencies demanded by the healthcare industry; support career pathways; result in an employer- or industry-recognized certificate or degree; combine supportive services with education and training services to help participants overcome barriers to employment; and provide services at times and locations that are easily accessible to targeted populations.

In 2010, the first round of HPOG awards was made to 27 organizations located across 20 states to carry out five-year programs in their areas. The first round of HPOG grant awards is referred to as HPOG 1.0. In 2015, a second round of HPOG grant awards was made to 32 organizations located across 21 states for a new five-year period. This second round of grants is referred to as HPOG 2.0.

HPOG is authorized as a demonstration program with a mandated federal evaluation. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) is utilizing a multi-pronged evaluation strategy to document the operations and assess the success of the HPOG program. The evaluation strategy aims to provide information on program implementation, systems change, outcomes, and impacts.

This collection is organized into 22 data parts, including:

3 HPOG National Implementation Evaluation datasets of employers (DS1), grantees (DS2), and management and staff (DS3) surveys
a HPOG 15-month follow-up survey dataset (DS4)
an analysis file with HPOG participant covariates and outcomes (DS5)
6 Performance Reporting System (PRS) datasets
3 datasets from the Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education Evaluation (PACE) containing a subset of respondents who participated in both HPOG and PACE studies
5 datasets from the 3 year follow up impact reports (DS15 to DS20)
2 datasets from the 6 year follow up impact reports (DS21 and DS22)

The PRS is the federal management information system for HPOG grantees that was designed to support participant record and case management, program performance measurement, and program evaluation research.

The Participant dataset (DS6) is at the person-level and contains background information on participants at the time of intake into the HPOG program.
The Participant Supplemental dataset (DS7) is at the person-level and contains supplemental information for participants who participated in the HPOG impact evaluation.
The Education dataset (DS8) contains the date and type of remedial pre-training activities of participants during the HPOG program. This dataset is at the training-level, with one row for each educational activity.
The Employment dataset (DS9) contains the date and type of employment development activities of participants during the HPOG program, as well as job characteristics of participants who find employment. This dataset is at the employment activity level, with one row for each employment activity.
The Services dataset (DS10) is at the person-level and contains the date and type of supportive services received by participants from the HPOG program.
The Training dataset (DS11) contains the date and type of vocational training received by participants from the HPOG program. This dataset is at the training level, with one row for each occupational training activity.

The PACE study was designed to produce rigorous evidence for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers about the effectiveness of nine career pathways approaches that sought to increase credentials, employment, and self-sufficiency among low-income, low-skilled Americans. The 3 HPOG subset datasets from this study include the Basic Information Form Data File (DS12), the First Follow-Up Data File (DS13), and the Self-Administered Questionnaire Data File (DS14). For more information about the PACE study, please see its ICPSR study page (ICPSR #37289).

The follow-up impact report contains a 3 Year Updated Analysis Data File (DS15). Augmented Credentials Data File (DS16) contains data about previous academic and trade school accreditations. Augmented Job Spells Data File (DS17) pertains to the participant's duration of the training and income-based questions. Augmented School Spells Data File (DS18) contains data about the duration of education. Job Conditions Data File (DS19) pertains to job conditions and coworker support. Person Level Data File (DS20) contains person-level data on job benefits and conditions, training, income, self-perception, support networks, and childcare. The 6 year follow-up impact report contains a 6 year Updated Analysis Data File (DS21) and a 6 Year Survey Data File (D22).

Various demographic information, such as age, sex, race, and ethnicity, is also included in the data.

Curated

Restricted

Evaluation of the Second Round of Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG 2.0) Participant Interview Data, United States, 2015-2025 (ICPSR 38561)

Released/updated on: 2023-02-13

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2015-01-01--2025-01-01

The purpose of the Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) Program was to provide education and training to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients and other individuals with low incomes for occupations in the healthcare field that pay well and are expected to either experience labor shortages or be in high demand.

HPOG programs used the career pathways framework that combines education, occupational training, and support services to help participants enter and advance in a sequence of occupations within a specific sector or occupational cluster. Such programs seek to address many of the challenges that might prevent low-income and other disadvantaged adults from succeeding on a chosen pathway. For example, programs are flexible, with strong supports, and connect participants to employers and employment, including work-based learning opportunities. HPOG programs were expected to:

target skills and competencies demanded by the healthcare industry
support clearly defined career pathways
result in an employer- or industry-recognized certificate or degree
combine supportive services with education and training services to help participants overcome barriers to employment; and
provide training and services at times and locations that are easily accessible to targeted populations.

Both rounds of HPOG funding were administered by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 2010, OFA awarded a first round of five-year HPOG funding (HPOG 1.0) to 32 organizations located across 23 states. In 2015, OFA awarded a second round of HPOG funding (HPOG 2.0) to 32 organizations located across 21 states for a new five-year period.

Abt Associates and its partners conducted a National Evaluation of HPOG 2.0. The Abt research team (Abt) conducted in-depth interviews with program participants as part of the Descriptive Evaluation component of the National Evaluation. The goal of these in-depth interviews was to gain insights into the motivations, decision making, expectations, and experiences of HPOG 2.0 program participants. The sample included 153 program participants across 14 local HPOG 2.0 programs. Interviews were semi-structured and covered a common set of topics: career pathways; employment and education histories; experience of the HPOG 2.0 training; managing work, family, and training; and finances.

Quantitative data from HPOG 2.0 are available in ICPSR 38247.

Curated

Evaluation of the Second Round of Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG 2.0), United States, 2015-2025 (ICPSR 38427)

Released/updated on: 2024-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2015-01-01--2025-01-01

The Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG), administered by the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was created to provide education and training to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients and other low-income individuals for occupations in the healthcare field that pay well and were expected to either experience labor shortages or be in high demand. Following on a first round of HPOG awards in 2010 ("HPOG 1.0"), a second round of 32 five-year grants across 21 states were funded in 2015 ("HPOG 2.0"). After an additional one-year extension, the HPOG 2.0 grants concluded in 2021.

Local HPOG programs were expected to target skills and competencies demanded by the healthcare industry; support career pathways; result in an employer- or industry-recognized certificate or degree; combine supportive services with education and training services to help participants overcome barriers to employment; and provide services at times and locations that are easily accessible to targeted populations.

HPOG was authorized as a demonstration program with a mandated federal evaluation. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) is utilizing a multi-pronged evaluation strategy to document the operations and assess the success of the HPOG program. The evaluation strategy for HPOG 2.0 includes several key components:

The impact evaluation randomly assigns eligible participants to either a treatment group that has access to HPOG services or a control group that does not have access to HPOG but can receive other services available in the community ("business as usual") to assess the impacts of the HPOG programs. Data from the short-term impact evaluation are DS1-DS5.
The participant and program data includes baseline intake and services data, including data captured in the HPOG 2.0 Participant Accomplishment and Grant Evaluation System (PAGES), a participant tracking and program management system that included data on participant characteristics, engagement in activities and services, and training and employment outcomes. PAGES also included the activities and supports that grantees offered. HPOG 2.0 grantee staff entered data in PAGES. Data from baseline and PAGES are DS6-DS11.
The descriptive evaluation includes implementation, outcomes, and local service delivery systems studies of the grants and will help interpret findings from the impact study. The descriptive study also includes in-depth qualitative interviews with a small sample of HPOG study participants. Data from the in-depth interviews are available in ICPSR 38561.
The cost benefit analyses will assess the costs and benefits of a standard HPOG program. Data from this component are forthcoming.

For more information, users are encouraged to see the National Evaluation of the 2nd Generation of Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG 2.0 National Evaluation) on the OPRE website.

Curated

Harvard University's School of Public Health/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Poll: Health Care Priorities, United States, June 2001 (ICPSR 38344)

Released/updated on: 2022-03-10

Geographic coverage: United States

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

The data and documentation files for this survey are available through the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [Roper #31092264]. Frequencies and summary statistics for the 126 variables from this survey are available through the ICPSR social science variable database and can be accessed from the Variables tab.

Curated

Partially restricted

National Survey of Attitudes and Choices in Medical Education and Training (ACMET) II, 1997 (ICPSR 3317)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14

Geographic coverage: United States

The purpose of this study was threefold: (1) to assess the effects of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Generalist Physician Initiative (GPI) on attitudes toward primary care among a national cross-sectional sample of medical students, residents, faculty, residency training directors (RTDs), chairpersons, and medical school deans\; (2) to conduct a longitudinal study of medical student, resident, and faculty participants from ACMET I (1994) and ACMET II (1997) to measure changes over time in attitudes and beliefs about primary care and primary care career choice\; and (3) to survey a nationally representative sample of medical students, residents, faculty, RTDs, chairpersons, and medical school deans about their attitudes toward managed care. The GPI challenged schools of medicine, in collaboration with state governments, private insurers, HMOs, hospitals, and community health centers, to increase the supply of generalist physicians (general internal medicine, general pediatrics, family practice, and general practice). ACMET II gauged views on primary care and specialist medical careers, factors affecting residency choice, faculty influences on medical students and residents, and time spent in various settings (inpatient, outpatient, emergency ward, managed care, and long-term care settings) during electives, clerkships, internships, and residency. Background information collected by the survey includes age, sex, marital status, race, medical school debt, and medical specialty.

Curated

National Survey of Surgeons on Trauma Care Issues, March-July 1993 (ICPSR 6265)

Released/updated on: 1998-04-28

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1993-03-02--1993-07-01

This study investigated surgeons' practice patterns, experience and training in trauma care, and preferences and opinions about caring for trauma patients. Practice pattern variables include surgical specialty, type of surgical practice arrangement, type of appointment with a medical school or university, membership in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, the American College of Surgeons, or the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, and whether the respondents' patients paid their bills through private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, or an HMO. In addition, respondents were queried about their primary hospital, including number of beds, types of physicians employed in the trauma or emergency department, whether the hospital was officially recognized as a trauma center, whether it had a separate clinical trauma service with oversight and responsibility for the care of trauma patients, whether surgical patients were covered 24 hours a day by a resident or in-house physician, and whether there was 24-hour coverage by a resident or in-house physician in the hospital's Intensive Care Unit. To assess experience and training in trauma care, respondents were asked how often they were inappropriately called to evaluate and treat trauma patients, if they had taken trauma call at any hospital during the last 12 months, how many trauma patients they treated during the last 12 months and for what percent of them they received compensation, whether they had taken the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) Course in the last four years, how much they had learned about trauma from residency training, post-residency fellowship, combat duty in the Armed Forces, journal articles, and colleagues, how confident they were in their ability to provide resuscitation, diagnosis, operative care, and critical care, if they had ever been named in a malpractice suit in a trauma case, non-trauma emergency case, or non-emergency case in certain disease categories, and whether this litigation made them reluctant to take on these types of cases. Preferences and opinions on the care of trauma patients were investigated through questions that asked respondents if they preferred to treat adult or pediatric trauma patients, if they preferred to treat blunt or penetrating trauma, and how taking care of trauma patients affected their image with their peers and community. Respondents were also queried about incentives and disincentives for treating trauma patients, reasons for not providing trauma care, opinions on how trauma cases compared with other emergency cases, and opinions on how various aspects of trauma care in their community were deficient. The data also include information on the age, gender, and geographic location (census region) of the respondents.

Curated

Partially restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2009-09-15

Geographic coverage: United States

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

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

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

Curated

Primary Care Judgments of Nurses and Physicians, 1976-1978: Clinical Simulation Test -- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Data (ICPSR 7731)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1976-01-01--1978-01-01

This data collection contains four files of the Clinical Simulation Test for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, an instrument developed by the Primary Care Judgements of Nurses and Physicians Research Project to empirically assess the clinical judgements of physicians and nurses in relation to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the period 1976-1978. The purpose of the study was to measure the clinical judgments of health professionals in relation to those of a panel of eight national experts in the specific area of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The instrument simulates the clinical processes from presentation of the chief complaint of a 53-year-old Caucasian male with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease through diagnoses and treatment. The Clinical Simulation Test (Part 1) was given to 200 respondents who were divided into six groups: family practice physicians, nurse practitioners with master's degrees, certified nurse practitioners, public health nurses, pre-medical students, and nursing students. The test contains 13 sections and three diagnostic tests. Nine of the test sections required the respondents to choose from a list of possible treatment actions. Four sections were open-ended and required respondents to identify relevant patient data or to list patient problems. During the process, respondents chose appropriate procedures from among a wide range of possible choices. Items also include an evaluation of the test instrument by the respondents, a proficiency scale which is scored by means of a computer program (Part 2), and the responses of 2 panels of experts used for the purpose of test instrument validation (Parts 3 and 4). Demographic items specify age, sex, education, professional preparation, residency program, specialty, position, and disease management experience of respondents. See the related collection, PRIMARY CARE JUDGMENTS OF NURSES AND PHYSICIANS, 1976-1978: CLINICAL SIMULATION TEST -- HYPERTENSION DATA (ICPSR 7732).

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.