Showing 1 – 8 of 8 results.
Curated
CBS News/New York Times Monthly Poll, September 2009 (ICPSR 27805)
Released/updated on: 2011-05-09
Geographic coverage: United States
This poll, fielded September 19-23, 2009, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way Barack Obama was handling the presidency, the situations in Iraq and in Afghanistan, health care and the economy, whether they thought the country was on the right track, how they would rate the condition of the national economy and whether they thought the economy would get better. Respondents were also asked questions about the economic recession, whether they believed the stimulus package had made the economy better, whether the stimulus package would make the economy better in the future, and whether it was acceptable to raise the deficit to create jobs and stimulate growth. Several questions about health care were included that asked respondents how much change was needed in the health care system, how changes to the health care system would affect the Medicare program, whether they favored government administered health insurance plans, how satisfied they were with the quality of health care they were receiving, whether they were satisfied with their health care costs, whether they believed health care coverage could be increased without increasing the budget deficit, whether fixing the cost or providing coverage for the uninsured had the higher priority, and whether the respondent would consider public health care that anyone could join at any age. Other topics that were covered included, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, respondents' opinion of Michelle Obama, how the federal government should use taxpayer's money, how the deficit should be handled, personal finances, and job security. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, marital status, education level, household income, political party affiliation, political philosophy, perceived social class, religious preference, whether the respondent considered themselves to be a born-again Christian, and voter registration status and participation history.
Curated
Comparison of Formal and Informal Dispute Resolution in Medical Malpractice (ICPSR 1059)
Released/updated on: 1996-01-03
Geographic coverage: United States
These data and/or computer programs are part of ICPSR's Publication-Related Archive and are distributed exactly as they arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the INVESTIGATOR(S) if further information is desired.
Curated
Database of State Tort Law Reforms (3rd), 1980-2008 (ICPSR 30409)
Released/updated on: 2011-03-09
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1980-01-01--2008-01-01
This data collection contains two Excel files that code ten reforms found in the Database of State Tort Law Reforms (DSTLR 3rd). The DSTLR (3rd) contains the most detailed, complete, and comprehensive legal dataset of the most prevalent tort reforms enacted or revised in all 50 states and the District of Columbia between 1980 and 2008. For each reform, the DSTLR (3rd) records the effective date, a short description of the reform, whether or not the jury is allowed to know about the reform, whether the reform was upheld or struck down by the states' courts, as well as whether it was amended by the state legislator. One of the Excel files codes the DSTLR (3rd). The other Excel file, DSTLR 3rd (clever), turns off reforms for various reasons, such as the caps being too high to bind. A Word document explains what distinguishes the DSTLR 3rd (clever) Excel file from the regular DSTLR (3rd) Excel file. The Excel files code the state tort reforms for non-wrongful-death medical malpractice related laws based on the DSTLR (3rd). However, users of the file should be aware that there are many legitimate ways to code the data. Specifically, users should be aware that: (1) If the Avraham, Database of State Tort Law Reforms (3rd) effective date of the reform was on or after July 1st, it was coded as belonging to the following year. (The rationale being that for most of the calendar year in which it was enacted the reform did not apply). (2) Similarly, if a reform was struck down on or after July 1st, it was coded as still active in that year. (The rationale being that for most of the calendar year in which it was struck down the reform did apply). (3) Reforms which simply codified pre-existing common law were not coded. (4) While reforms come in many flavors, the file collapses them into a single zero or one dummy variable. Thus, there is no distinction between different levels of caps, different variations of the joint and several liability reform, etc. (5) The only exception to the previous rule is with respect to periodic payment reforms which was coded in the following way. Zero means no reform existed in that year. A reform which granted courts the discretion of whether or not to apply periodic payments is coded as one. A reform which required courts to apply periodic payments is coded as two.
Curated
Eurobarometer 64.1: Mobility, Food Risk, Smoking, AIDS Prevention, and Medical Errors, September-October 2005 (ICPSR 4641)
Released/updated on: 2010-04-26
Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Lithuania, Hungary, Europe, United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Estonia
Time period: 2005-09-02--2005-10-06
This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from the standard Eurobarometer measures and queried respondents on their opinions regarding labor and residential mobility, risk issues regarding food, smoking habits and passive smoking, AIDS prevention, and medical errors. Respondents' attitudes toward labor and residential mobility included what was most important for their quality of life, the main reasons they had for moving, what improved and what got worse after the last time they moved to another region or European Union country, whether they intended to move to another member state in the near future, their reasons for changing their place of residence, and the most important difficulties they would have to face. Respondents were also asked for their current job and previous job, their title, the reason for changing jobs, as well as their satisfaction with their current job and professional life. Respondents were asked additional questions about whether they took any training courses to improve their professional skills in the last 12 months, and the main reason why they did or did not. The second topic covered was risk issues regarding food. Respondents were asked questions such as: (1) what came to mind when thinking about possible problems or risks associated with food, (2) when going shopping for food, what were the most important factors that influenced their choices, (3) compared to ten years ago, had food safety improved, (4) if a serious food risk were found in fish or chicken, who would they trust the most to inform them about the risk, and (5) whether they had heard any European Union regulations about food safety, consumers' rights, or quality standards for hospitals. The third topic was about smoking habits and passive smoking. Respondents answered questions such as: (1) if they smoked every day, how many cigarettes a day they smoked, (2) if they were in favor of smoking bans in the public space, (3) how often they were bothered by exposure to tobacco smoke in daily life, and (4) why this exposure to tobacco bothered them. Another topic covered was AIDS prevention. Respondents' opinions were sought regarding how AIDS can be caught, whether the measures currently being undertaken in their country (such as an information campaign on the types of behavior that expose people to infection by the AIDS virus, and research funding to find an AIDS vaccine) were very effective and useful. The final topic, medical errors, asked how often respondents read or heard about medical errors in their country, how important a problem they thought medical errors were in their country, whether they or a family member suffered a serious medical error, and how likely it was that a hospital patient could avoid a serious medical error. Background information includes respondent's age, gender, nationality, origin of birth (personal and parental), marital status, left-to-right political self-placement, occupation, age when they stopped full-time education, household composition,region of residence, and use of a fixed or a mobile telephone.
Curated
Partially restricted
Health Tracking Physician Survey, 2008 [United States] (ICPSR 27202)
Released/updated on: 2010-08-17
Geographic coverage: United States
The 2008 Health Tracking Physician Survey (HTPS) is the successor to the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Physician Surveys which were conducted in 1996-1997 (ICPSR 2597), 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3267), 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3820), and 2004-2005 (ICPSR 4584). Unlike the previous surveys, HTPS does not have the community focus intrinsic to CTS. Whereas the CTS design focused on 60 nationally representative communities with sample sizes large enough to draw conclusions about health system change in 12 communities, the HTPS design is a national sample not aimed at measuring change within communities. Hence, "Community" was dropped from the study title. Administered to a nationally representative sample of United States physicians providing direct patient care, HTPS collected information on physician characteristics and specialty distribution; career satisfaction; practice arrangements and ownership; financial interest in medical equipment and hospitals; and physician time allocation, including hours worked, number of office visits, time spent communicating with patients via e-mail and telephone, and provision of charity care. The survey also collected information about the racial and Hispanic-origin composition of patients; percent of patients with chronic conditions; percent of patients with a language barrier; use of interpreter services; sources of practice revenue; level and determinants of physician compensation; use of health information technology; physicians' perception of their ability to deliver care; effects of disease management programs and formal practice guidelines; extent of care coordination; malpractice concerns; and various other aspects of physicians' practice of medicine.
Curated
Medical Malpractice: An Empirical Examination of the Litigation Process (ICPSR 1058)
Released/updated on: 1996-01-03
Geographic coverage: United States
These data and/or computer programs are part of ICPSR's Publication-Related Archive and are distributed exactly as they arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the INVESTIGATOR(S) if further information is desired.
Curated
Preventing Ethical Disasters in the Practice of Medicine, United States, 2008-2016 (ICPSR 38314)
Released/updated on: 2022-11-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2008-01-01--2016-05-27
Researchers researched and analyzed 280 cases of serious wrongdoing in medicine involving three kinds of violations: improper prescribing of controlled substances (IPCS), sexual abuse of patients (SAP), and unnecessary invasive procedures (UIP). They focused on these three types of wrongdoing because each is traumatizing to patients, causing physical and emotional harm, financial loss, and sometimes death. They are often the cause of major disciplinary actions by medical boards.
The methodological approach involved identifying potential cases of serious wrongdoing through systematic literature reviews of court records, medical boards reports, newspaper articles, and online materials for each case. Using a detailed codebook, researchers performed descriptive coding of the literature and used a criminal law framework to identify the salient individual and environmental factors that predicted motive, means, and opportunity (MMO) for each case. Within each of the three types of wrongdoing, they identified typologies of cases using qualitative analysis.
Finally, researchers held a working group meeting with experts to reach a consensus on how findings can inform medical education, policies, and oversight practices to reduce the rates and the duration of serious wrongdoing.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Worry, Risk Perceptions, and the Willingness to Act to Reduce Medical Errors (ICPSR 34649)
Released/updated on: 2013-07-08
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Eugene
Time period: 2002-07-01--2002-08-01, 2002-07-01--2002-08-01
This study examined the role of worry and risk perception on action taken to prevent medical errors. The research used psychometric scaling methods to produce 11 different measures on which patients judged perceived risk. All participants completed a two-part questionnaire, where the parts were completed in random order based upon eight versions of the questionnaire. Part 1 of the questionnaire examined whether worry was associated with fatality estimates of various causes of death including medical errors. Participants were given as a guide the number of deaths per year in the United States of a less common cause of death (appendicitis), or a more common cause of death (kidney disease). Respondents were then asked to estimate the number of deaths due to other health conditions and diseases based upon the guides they had been given. They were then asked how worried or concerned they were about each cause of death. In Part 2 of the questionnaire participants rated how likely they were to take different actions to prevent medical errors, and then evaluated specific medical errors a patient could experience in the hospital on different measures of risk. Participants also rated behavioral intention items and an item pertaining to government regulation. Finally, participants responded to a number of items assessing their reactivity to negative events. Demographic information includes age, marital status, gender, race, exposure to and knowledge of medical errors, current health status, education, hospital stay information, number of children living in the home, and three scale variables, the Behavioral Inhibition scale, Extraversion scale, and Stability scale.