Search results

Substance dependence (SD) is a chronic disease that requires specialty drug and alcohol treatment, primary care (PC), and management of related problems. Although patients with SD may be linked with specialty care and PC, their health care often remains episodic and fragmented, rather than longitudinal, comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated. As a result, adults with SD often enter addiction treatment later and require acute medical care, rather than entering the system earlier when interventions of lower intensity but longer duration might prevent catastrophes. Chronic disease management (CDM) is a collaborative, longitudinal approach to treatment of certain chronic medical illnesses proven to be more effective than routine care. CDM addresses individual patient and health systems barriers to receipt of needed treatment. However, the effectiveness of CDM for SD has not been tested. The objective of this Addiction Health Evaluation and Disease management (AHEAD) study, was to test the effectiveness of CDM for SD in PC.

Subject identification and recruitment occurred primarily at a local detoxification center, as well as by self and physician referral from the Boston Medical Center primary and ambulatory care clinics, emergency department, urgent care center, inpatient settings, and the community. The study enrolled 320 adults with drug dependence and 320 adults with alcohol dependence who were not in SD treatment, and randomized them to a SD CDM program (the AHEAD Clinic) integrated into a real-world PC clinic or to referral to standard PC. All subjects were assessed regarding SD diagnosis, substance use and problems, readiness to change, health-related quality of life, and medical and drug treatment utilization. Subjects were evaluated 3, 6, and 12 months later, and health services utilization data were collected for 2 years from a statewide database. Additionally, in order to better understand and explain the implementation and fidelity of the AHEAD Clinic, the primary care providers (PCPs) of AHEAD Clinic patients were surveyed. Each PCP was presented with a letter from the Principal Investigator explaining the purpose of the survey, the reason why s/he was being asked to complete the survey, compensation for completing the survey, and details about confidentiality and anonymity. The survey itself consisted of questions asking providers about their satisfaction and their attitudes towards caring for patients with alcohol and drug problems, their knowledge of services that the AHEAD Clinic provides, and their experience working with the AHEAD Clinic.

Primary outcomes were illicit drug use, alcohol use, substance-related problems, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. The proposal's hypothesis was that compared with standard care, a health services delivery intervention (CDM for SD integrated in PC) would decrease alcohol and illicit drug use and related problems, and improve health care utilization patterns. Improved outcomes using the AHEAD approach would support the adoption of a health services delivery strategy, CDM, to better care for patients with SD.

• Dataset 1: 844 variables; 563 cases
• Dataset 2: 607 variables; 500 cases
• Dataset 3: 607 variables; 487 cases
• Dataset 4: 713 variables; 532 cases
• Dataset 5: 80 variables; 549 cases
• Dataset 6: 59 variables; 1,435 cases
• Dataset 7: 25 variables; 87 cases
• Dataset 8: 25 variables; 87 cases
• Dataset 9: 41 variables; 73 cases
• Dataset 10: 9 variables; 11,018 cases
• Dataset 11: 5 variables; 511 cases

The study examined the first five years of operation of Kansas senate bill 123 (November 2003-November 2008) examining individual-level and system-level outcomes over time and across community corrections districts and judicial actors. The study also assesses the impact of SB 123 on the work routines of criminal justice system actors, examining changes in sentencing and supervision practices and interactions across agencies following the implementation of SB 123.

Individual-level impacts of SB 123 on recidivism rates are assessed using sentencing and revocation data collected by the Kansas Sentencing Commission for drug possessors sentenced in Kansas between November 1, 2001 and October 31, 2008 (Dataset 1). Propensity score matching was used to compare the revocation and reconviction rates of drug possessors sentenced to SB 123 with the recidivism rates of similar individuals sentenced to regular probation (standard supervision by community corrections or court services) (Dataset 2). Supervision and program participation data provided by the Kansas Department of Corrections were used to assess the use of drug treatment services, education and employment services, and sanctions for individuals sentenced to SB 123 or standard community corrections (Dataset 3). These quantitative data were complemented by a set qualitative data derived from interviews with SB 123-eligible offenders (Dataset 4), community corrections managers, and courtroom actors (judges, prosecutors, public defenders) (Dataset 5).

This study is part of the Seek, Test, Treat and Retain (STTR) Collaboration Project that involved over twenty studies in the fields of HIV and drug abuse. All studies were independently developed, but were chosen for the collaboration because they focused on one or more steps of the HIV treatment cascade: Seek, Test, Treat and Retain. As part of STTR Collaboration Project, the studies were grouped into Criminal Justice-related studies and Vulnerable Population-related studies. The data collected by these studies included twelve common domains (e.g., Demographic characteristics, Mental Health) in each of which a shared questionnaire or instrument was taken up by the studies and adapted to fit the study.

The main project of the CARE+ Corrections study is in Washington DC and is a RCT evaluating the "CARE+ Corrections intervention (a computerized tool integrating HIV treatment counseling, secondary transmission risk reduction counseling, and facilitated linkage to care through text message reminders)" versus standard of care among returning citizens in Washington, DC. The study is recruiting 100 participants who are incarcerated or were released from a correctional facility less than 6 months ago.

The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration.

The Medication-Assisted Therapy (MAT) study focuses on implementing linkages to medication assisted treatment in correctional settings. During the study period community corrections staff engaged in training about addiction pharmacotherapies, while leadership in the corrections and treatment facilities engage in a joint strategic planning process to identify and resolve barriers to efficient flow of clients across the two systems.

This study includes 28 datasets and over 1,400 variables. The first five datasets for this study contain data on the baseline characteristics of the treatment and corrections sites that participated in the study as well as the characteristics of the staff working at those facilities. Opinions about Medication Assisted Treatment surveys were administered to personnel at the participating corrections and treatment sites (D6). Data on Inter-organization Relations between Probation and Parole staff with Treatment Providers were also collected (DS7-DS18).

Information was extracted from the charts of clients about their alcohol and opioid dependence as well as the referrals and treatment the clients received (DS19). Probation and parole officers and treatment providers were surveyed about monthly counts of referrals (DS20-DS21).

During the study 10 staff members from the community corrections agency and local treatment providers where MAT services were available were nominated to participate in a Pharmacotherapy Exchange Council (PEC). PEC members were involved with strategic planning for implementing changes to improve the usage of Medication-Assisted Therapy. PEC members were surveyed several times throughout the study.

PEC members completed surveys on how well the sites were adhering to the Organizational Linkages Intervention (OLI) process (DS22). Community corrections staff, PEC members and Connections Coordinators in the experimental group were surveyed about their perceptions of organizational benefits and costs associated with the MATICCE intervention (DS23). The PEC rated the Connections Coordinators (DS24)and the Connections Coordinators rate the PEC (DS25). PEC researchers completed surveys on how much of the OLI was completed (DS26) as well as what the sustainability of the changes made through the MATTICE project (DS27). The final dataset provides a key for who took the KPI (Key Performance Indicators) training and who was a PEC member (DS28).

The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration.

CJ-DATS 2 HIV Services Treatment Implementation in Corrections focused on implementing interventions to address the HIV continuum of care in correctional settings. There are 5 datasets associated with this study.

-Dataset 1 (DS1) contains data aggregated at the correction facility level that examines delivery of HIV services in the experimental and control study groups (215 cases).

-Dataset 2 (DS2) and Dataset 3 (DS3) detail survey responses from correctional staff about how the HIV services were changed and/or implemented at their facilities (DS2 has 68 cases and DS3 has 85 cases).

-Dataset 4 (DS4) contains survey responses from inmates about their perceptions of the HIV services provided at facilities in which they are incarcerated (2,301 cases).

-Dataset 5 (DS5) contains data merged together by the principal investigator from several surveys given to treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional officers and correctional directors. This dataset includes demographic information, staff perceptions of their work environment, perceptions of HIV infected individuals, evaluations of HIV workshops and perceptions of the delivery of HIV services at their facility (385 cases).

These 5 datasets contain a total of 889 variables.

The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration.

The Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII) study (aka Assessment study) focused on implementing assessment and treatment planning processes. Screening and assessment were used to identify substance abuse-related problems and to develop programming to address the problems so identified.

The OPII study engaged corrections and treatment agencies to improve the quality of interagency communication through the effective use of assessment and case planning processes and treatment referrals. Both inter-agency and intra-agency change processes were targeted. A multi-phase implementation protocol was used, wherein agencies engaged in team development, needs assessment, planning, implementation, and sustainability in distinct steps. Early- and delayed-start sites allowed the research team to control for effects of environmental changes within states. The protocol targeted critical communications channels between otherwise often highly segregated correctional and treatment agencies.

Evaluation of the OPII used a multi-site cluster randomized design with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. Clusters consisted of a criminal justice agency and one or more community treatment providers that received referrals from that criminal justice agency. Each of the 9 centers had two clusters (one had three), and each cluster was randomized to an Early-Start or a Delayed-Start condition with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. After randomization, the Early-Start sites began the OPII, while the Delayed-Start sites conducted business as usual, without any additional intervention. After approximately 12 months, or when the Early-Start change team completed the Implementation phase, the Delayed-Start change team began to carry out the protocol.

Throughout the study period different subsets of individuals working at correctional facilities and treatment programs at the study sites were asked to complete surveys. During the Baseline period of the study survey data were collected from correctional staff, correctional directors, treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional executives and treatment executives. These data can be found in (DS1-DS12). The executive respondents provided information at the organizational level for the programs they oversaw (DS5, DS6). Next, Needs Assessments were completed by the change teams and their facilitators (DS13-DS14). The change teams and facilitators also responded to surveys on Process Improvement Planning (DS15-DS19). During the Implementation stage, surveys were administered to select substance abuse treatment programs, change team facilitators, change team members and the immediate supervisors of the change team members (DS20-DS27). Selected correctional and treatment staff members (in the Early-Start sites only) were asked to complete Follow-up surveys at the end of the OPII process (DS28-DS33). Staff members who completed surveys also provided demographic data (DS36-DS41). DS42 is a restricted use version of DS41. Change team members kept track of the time they spent on OPII activities (DS35). Change team success was evaluated by a subset of raters (DS34).

Surveys were administered at 21 study sites and there was a total of over 2,700 survey respondents.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 16 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 16 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 16 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 16 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 16 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug-related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 22 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug-related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 22 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug-related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 22 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

This study is part of the Seek, Test, Treat and Retain (STTR) Collaboration Project that involved over twenty studies in the fields of HIV and drug abuse. All studies were independently developed, but were chosen for the collaboration because they focused on one or more steps of the HIV treatment cascade: Seek, Test, Treat and Retain. As part of STTR Collaboration Project, the studies were grouped into Criminal Justice-related studies and Vulnerable Population-related studies. The data collected by these studies included twelve common domains (e.g., Demographic characteristics, Mental Health) in each of which a shared questionnaire or instrument was taken up by the studies and adapted to fit the study.

This study was a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of a peer-based health system navigation intervention among individuals assigned to the intervention group compared with those assigned to the control group (usual care transitional management services). Baseline interviews were conducted during incarceration while the follow-up interviews were conducted at months 2, 6 and 12 following release from jail to the community. For participants who were re-incarcerated during, interviews were conducted in the jail setting to ensure high study retention. The goal was to improve engagement and retention in HIV care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigators if further information is needed.

This study is a secondary analysis (syntax only, no data) of Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 29961) and Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar Data, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 32282).

The purpose of this study was to further existing knowledge of juvenile justice intervention and how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood. This study examines three main aims using data from the Pathways to Desistance study, which followed a sample of serious adolescent offenders for seven years to examine the desistance process. First, trajectories of secure institutional placement for serious offenders during the study period were identified. Second, trajectories of gainful activities for serious adolescent offenders during the study period were identified. Gainful activities were defined as working or attending school. Third, factors associated with turning points in the gainful activities trajectories were explored. In the course of estimating the gainful activities trajectories, there appeared to be a key moment, around year 3, where multiple trajectories with moderate levels of engagement in gainful activities diverged. Together, these three aims will inform how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood and identify factors that may be related to positive outcomes and critical turning points in the trajectories of serious adolescent offenders.

Group differences were examined by testing bivariate differences in a broad range of variables: demographic variables (gender, age, and race/ethnicity); study site and year of interview; characteristics of prior service receipt at baseline (location and orientation); school, family and neighborhood characteristics; characteristics of the offense and offense history; individual factors (mental health and substance use symptoms); and risk scores.

In 1995-1996, the MacArthur Midlife Research Network carried out a national survey of over 7,000 Americans aged 25 to 74 (ICPSR 2760). The purpose of the study was to investigate the role of behavioral, psychological, and social factors in understanding age-related differences in physical and mental health.

With support from the National Institute on Aging, an initial follow-up of the original Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) samples was conducted in 2004 (MIDUS 2). The daily stress and cognitive functioning projects were repeated at MIDUS 2; in addition the protocol was expanded to include biomarkers and neuroscience. In 2005, a baseline sample of 592 African Americans from Milwaukee was added to MIDUS to examine health issues in minority populations.

In 2013, a third wave (MIDUS 3) of survey data was collected on longitudinal participants. Data collection for this follow-up wave largely repeated baseline assessments (e.g., phone interview and extensive self-administered questionnaire), with additional questions in selected areas (e.g., economic recession experiences, optimism and coping, stressful life events, and caregiving). A third wave of cognitive functioning data and a second wave of the Milwaukee sample were also collected. Data collection for the daily diary, biomarkers, and neuroscience is ongoing. This dataset includes all known MIDUS decedents (N=2,533) from the Core National and Milwaukee samples as of December 2023.

Since 1976, Monitoring the Future (MTF) has enrolled ~2,450 individuals each year from its nationally representative annual sample of 12th graders into the MTF Longitudinal Panel study. A primary goal of the MTF study is to examine potential consequences of substance use across the life course, including mortality. Therefore, the MTF Longitudinal Panel study now includes measures of mortality linked to the National Death Index (NDI).

The MTF Longitudinal Panel Study Mortality Data 1976-2021 file includes MTF Longitudinal Panel members from the high school cohorts of 1976-2021 whose mortality status was confirmed through either (a) the MTF NDI match process (limited to high school cohorts 1976-2019) or (b) the MTF panel tracking process (including 1976-2021 cohorts, tracking through August 2025).

The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) study included 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites selected from 8 states across the country. The purpose of the study was to: (1) Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, in comparision with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts, (2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes, (3) explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs, and (4) examine whether drug courts generate cost savings.

Offenders in all 29 sites were surveyed in 3 waves, at baseline, 6 months later, and 18 months after enrollment. The research comprises three major components: process evaluation, impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation describes how the 23 drug court sites vary in program eligibility, supervision, treatment, team collaboration, and other key policies and practices. The impact evaluation examines whether drug courts produce better outcomes than comparison sites and tests which court policies and offender attitudes might explain those effects. The cost-benefit analysis evaluates drug court costs and benefits.

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

This Fast Release study is part of the Seek, Test, Treat and Retain (STTR) Collaboration Project, which involved over twenty studies in the fields of HIV and drug abuse. All files in the compressed zip package are released as deposited by the PI and were not further processed.

This study evaluated the efficacy of an integrated "Retention Clinic" in achieving virologic suppression among HIV-infected cocaine users.

The Calendar data files are comprised of 47 total parts spread across 13 distinct topical domains.

• Academic Achievement
• Antisocial Activity
• Community-Based Services
• Contact With the Justice System
• Court Monitoring
• Gainful Activity
• Head Injury
• Living Situation
• Making and Spending Money
• Medication
• Out of Community Placement
• Romance
• School

Each topical domain contains multiple reference periods for looking at the topic across the entire data collection period of the study.

Users who request these restricted data should first review the documentation available from NAHDAP (user guide and frequency codebooks) and from the Pathways Website (domain content codebooks). This review will help determine which specific datasets will be needed for your project. The "Research Description" in ICPSR's Data Access Request System (IDARS) must include a specific explanation of why you need each topic domain selected on the "Data Selection" page in IDARS. Most projects should only require one reference period per topic domain being requested. Data requests for all reference periods within a given domain will not be approved without a satisfactory explanation of why all of the reference periods are required for your project. Since the Calendar data collection is very extensive and Restricted Data Use Agreements are only for 2 years, data requests are not expected to need the entire Calendar data collection.

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

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

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

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

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

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

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The misuse, abuse and diversion of controlled substances have reached epidemic proportion in the United States. Contributing to this problem are providers who over-prescribe these substances. The researchers in this study developed a series of metrics to identify providers manifesting unusual prescribing practices using one state's prescription monitoring program.

The collection includes 1 Excel data file with 10,000 cases and 13 variables (2015_NC_PDMP_Synthetic_Data_Set.xlsx).

Users should note the included data file is a synthetic dataset constructed with the same variance and distributions as the original data.

The Treatment Episode Data Set -- Admissions (TEDS-A) is a national census data system of annual admissions to substance abuse treatment facilities. TEDS-A provides annual data on the number and characteristics of persons admitted to public and private substance abuse treatment programs that receive public funding. The unit of analysis is a treatment admission. TEDS consists of data reported to state substance abuse agencies by the treatment programs, which in turn report it to SAMHSA.

A sister data system, called the Treatment Episode Data Set -- Discharges (TEDS-D), collects data on discharges from substance abuse treatment facilities. The first year of TEDS-A data is 1992, while the first year of TEDS-D is 2006.

TEDS variables that are required to be reported are called the "Minimum Data Set (MDS)", while those that are optional are called the "Supplemental Data Set (SuDS)".

Variables in the MDS include: information on service setting, number of prior treatments, primary source of referral, gender, race, ethnicity, education, employment status, substance(s) abused, route of administration, frequency of use, age at first use, and whether methadone was prescribed in treatment. Supplemental variables include: diagnosis codes, presence of psychiatric problems, living arrangements, source of income, health insurance, expected source of payment, pregnancy and veteran status, marital status, detailed not in labor force codes, detailed criminal justice referral codes, days waiting to enter treatment, and the number of arrests in the 30 days prior to admissions (starting in 2008) .

Substances abused include alcohol, cocaine and crack, marijuana and hashish, heroin, nonprescription methadone, other opiates and synthetics, PCP, other hallucinogens, methamphetamine, other amphetamines, other stimulants, benzodiazepines, other non-benzodiazepine tranquilizers, barbiturates, other non-barbiturate sedatives or hypnotics, inhalants, over-the-counter medications, and other substances.

Created variables include total number of substances reported, intravenous drug use (IDU), and flags for any mention of specific substances.

The Treatment Episode Data Set -- Discharges (TEDS-D) is a national census data system of annual discharges from substance abuse treatment facilities. TEDS-D provides annual data on the number and characteristics of persons discharged from public and private substance abuse treatment programs that receive public funding. Data collected both at admission and at discharge is included. The unit of analysis is a treatment discharge. TEDS-D consists of data reported to state substance abuse agencies by the treatment programs, which in turn report it to SAMHSA.

A sister data system, called the Treatment Episode Data Set -- Admissions (TEDS-A), collects data on admissions to substance abuse treatment facilities. The first year of TEDS-A data is 1992, while the first year of TEDS-D is 2006.

TEDS-D variables that are required to be reported are called the "Minimum Data Set (MDS)", while those that are optional are called the "Supplemental Data Set (SuDS)".

Variables unique to TEDS-D, and not part of TEDS-A, are the length of stay, reason for leaving treatment, and service setting at time of discharge. TEDS-D also provides many of the same variables that exist in TEDS-A. This includes information on service setting, number of prior treatments, primary source of referral, gender, race, ethnicity, education, employment status, substance(s) abused, route of administration, frequency of use, age at first use, and whether methadone was prescribed in treatment. Supplemental variables include: diagnosis codes, presence of psychiatric problems, living arrangements, source of income, health insurance, expected source of payment, pregnancy and veteran status, marital status, detailed not in labor force codes, detailed criminal justice referral codes, days waiting to enter treatment, and the number of arrests in the 30 days prior to admissions (starting in 2008).

Substances abused include alcohol, cocaine and crack, marijuana and hashish, heroin, nonprescription methadone, other opiates and synthetics, PCP, other hallucinogens, methamphetamine, other amphetamines, other stimulants, benzodiazepines, other non-benzodiazepine tranquilizers, barbiturates, other non-barbiturate sedatives or hypnotics, inhalants, over-the-counter medications, and other substances.

Created variables include total number of substances reported, intravenous drug use (IDU), and flags for any mention of specific substances.

The Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Drug Study (DC*MADS) was conducted in 1991, and included special analyses of homeless and transient delivering live births in the DC hospitals. DC*MADS was undertaken to assess the full extent of the drug problem in one metropolitan area. The study was comprised of 16 separate studies that focused on different sub-groups, many of which are typically not included or are underrepresented in household surveys.

The DC*MADS: Drug Use Among Women Delivering Livebirths in DC Hospitals was designed to examine the nature and extent of drug use among women delivering live births in eight Washington, DC, hospitals participating in the study. Data from the questionnaires include prenatal care, health problems during pregnancy, pregnancy drug use history, needle use, polysubstance use, patterns of use, respondent's general experiences with drug use, including perceptions of the risks and consequences of use, occurrence of psychological and emotional problems, income and insurance coverage, treatment experiences, and maternal and infant outcomes. Medical records were abstracted from the women and their infants to document medical problems. Abstracted data on the mothers included demographics, discharge diagnoses, disposition at discharge, and results of urine screens. Abstracted data on infants included delivery information, status at discharge, discharge diagnoses/procedures, and first urine toxicology screen results.