Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2003 (ICPSR 34085)
Released/updated on: 2013-08-05
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, Indiana, United States, Oklahoma, Maine, Utah, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Montana, Hawaii, Kansas, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a state-based system of health surveys that collects information on health risk behaviors, preventive health practices, and health care access primarily related to chronic disease and injury. For many states, the BRFSS is the only available source of timely, accurate data on health-related behaviors. BRFSS was established in 1984 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); currently data are collected monthly in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam. More than 350,000 adults are interviewed each year, making the BRFSS the largest telephone health survey in the world. States use BRFSS data to identify emerging health problems, establish and track health objectives, and develop and evaluate public health policies and programs. The BRFSS is a cross-sectional telephone survey conducted by state health departments with technical and methodologic assistance provided by CDC. States conduct monthly telephone surveillance using a standardized questionnaire to determine the distribution of risk behaviors and health practices among adults. Responses are forwarded to CDC, where the monthly data are aggregated for each state, returned with standard tabulations, and published at the year's end by each state. The BRFSS questionnaire was developed jointly by CDC's Behavioral Surveillance Branch (BSB) and the states. When combined with mortality and morbidity statistics, these data enable public health officials to establish policies and priorities and to initiate and assess health promotion strategies.
External data
CDC WONDER (ICPSR 128)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-08
Geographic coverage: United States
CDC WONDER is the online public information health system created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It provides a single point of access to a wide variety of CDC reports, guidelines, and numeric public health data. With it, one can search for and retrieve MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) articles and Prevention Guidelines published by the CDC, as well as query dozens of numeric datasets on CDC's mainframe and other computers via "fill-in-the blank" request screens. Public-use datasets about mortality, cancer incidence, hospital discharges, AIDS, behavioral risk factors, diabetes, and many other topics are available for query, and the requested data can be readily summarized and analyzed.
Curated
Restricted
Integrated Public Health Surveys, 2010-2011 (ICPSR 33822)
Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-12-31
This collection comprises a single data file which was produced as part of the data harmonization efforts of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The file contains merged data from five sources:
2010 National Profile of Local Health Departments, a survey of local health departments conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO).
2011 National Profile Survey of Local Boards of Health, a survey of local boards of health conducted by the National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH).
2010 State and Territorial Public Health Survey, a survey of state and United States territory health departments conducted by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO).
2011 County Health Rankings, a compilation of county-level health measures and within-state county health rankings produced by the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.
2010 Census Demographic Profile Summary File, a series of tables with housing and population data from the 2010 Census.
Produced by matching data from the last four sources to the NACCHO data, the data file contains one case for each of the 2,107 local health departments (LHD) that responded to the NACCHO survey. Each LHD's record in the file includes the ASTHO data for its state health department and the NALBOH data for its local board of health (LBH), if it had a LBH and the LBH responded to the NALBOH survey. (If a LHD had multiple LBHs, then the first one in the NALBOH data was matched to the LHD). In addition, county (or county equivalent)-level data from the County Health Rankings and Census Demographic Profile Summary File were matched to the records of the 1,535 LHDs represented in the data file with a jurisdiction covering a single county or county equivalent.
Curated
Restricted
National Profile of Local Health Departments, 2010 (ICPSR 32922)
Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2010-01-01--2010-12-31
Conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), the purpose of this survey of local health departments (LHDs) was to advance and support the development of a database for LHDs to describe and understand their structure, function, and capacities. A core set of questions was submitted to every LHD. In addition, some LHDs received one of two randomly assigned modules of supplemental questions. The core questions covered governance, funding, workforce (staffing levels, occupations employed, top executive education and licensure, and percentages of staff by race and Hispanic origin), LHD activities, and community health assessment and health improvement planning. The surveyed LHD activities include immunization, screening for diseases and conditions, treatment for communicable diseases, maternal and child health, epidemiology and surveillance activities, population-based primary prevention activities, and regulation, inspection and/or licensing activities. Topics covered by Module 1 included quality improvement, familiarity with a voluntary national accreditation program for state and local health departments, sharing of resources with other LHDs, emergency preparedness, and information technology. Module 2 examined human resources, policy-making and advocacy, access to health care services, practice-based research, health impact assessments, public health and law, and use of public health reports.
Curated
Restricted
National Profile of Local Health Departments, 2013 (ICPSR 34990)
Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2013-01-01--2013-12-31
Conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), the purpose of this survey of local health departments (LHDs) was to advance and support the development of a database for LHDs to describe and understand their structure, function, and capacities. A core set of questions was submitted to every LHD. In addition, some LHDs received one of two randomly assigned modules of supplemental questions. The core questions covered governance, funding, workforce (staffing levels, occupations employed, top executive education and licensure), LHD activities, community health assessment and health improvement planning, use of the Community Guide of Preventive Services, and policy-making and advocacy. The surveyed LHD activities include immunization, screening for diseases and conditions, treatment for communicable diseases, maternal and child health, epidemiology and surveillance activities, population-based primary prevention activities, and regulation, inspection and/or licensing activities. Topics covered by Module 1 included quality improvement, accreditation through the Public Health Accreditation Board, sharing of resources across LHDs, human resources issues, partnerships and collaboration with other organizations in the community, practice-based research, health impact assessments, use of the County Health Rankings reports, and collaboration with public health institutes. Module 2 examined emergency preparedness, public health informatics, access to health care services, and health disparities.
Curated
Restricted
Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) National Cross-Site Evaluation [Restricted Use] (ICPSR 28921)
Released/updated on: 2014-03-24
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Vermont, Indiana, United States, Wyoming, Tennessee, Maine, Arkansas, Washington, West Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, Guam, Arizona, Nevada, Rhode Island, Montana, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Palau
Time period: 2005-08-01--2007-09-30, 2006-12-14--2007-08-14, 2008-09-15--2009-06-30, 2008-10-15--2009-06-15, 2006-07-01--2006-09-30, 2005-12-01--2007-12-31, 2008-01-01--2008-06-30, 2008-07-01--2008-12-31, 2009-01-01--2009-06-30, 2009-07-01--2009-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-06-30, 2005-12-01--2007-12-31, 2008-01-01--2008-06-30, 2008-07-01--2008-12-31, 2009-01-01--2009-06-30, 2009-07-01--2009-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-06-30, 2005-12-01--2007-12-31, 2008-01-01--2008-06-30, 2008-07-01--2008-12-31, 2009-01-01--2009-06-30, 2009-07-01--2009-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-06-30
The Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) National Cross-Site Evaluation was conducted to evaluate the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)'s SPF SIG initiative, which sought to: (1) prevent the onset and reduce the progression of substance abuse, including childhood and underage drinking; (2) reduce substance abuse-related problems in communities; and (3) build prevention capacity and infrastructure at the state and community levels. This cross-site evaluation included the 21 states and territories CSAP funded in FY2004 (Cohort 1) and an additional 5 States funded in Cohort 2 in FY2005 that were funded for up to 5 years to implement the SPF. The SPF is a five-step prevention planning model that requires states to: (1) conduct a statewide needs assessment, including the establishment of a State Epidemiological and Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW); (2) mobilize and build state and community capacity to address needs; (3) develop a statewide strategic plan for prevention; (4) implement evidence-based prevention, policies, and practices (EBPPP) to meet state and community needs; and (5) monitor and evaluate the implementation of their SPF SIG project. Under contract to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) with funding provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Westat, in collaboration with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) and The MayaTech Corporation, implemented a multilevel, multi-method quasi-experimental design to evaluate SPF SIG's impact. The scope of the evaluation encompassed national, state, and community levels. The design included comparison conditions at both the state and community levels. These data represent Phase I of the restricted use data release and contains extensive data on state-level implementation, community-level implementation, and state-level infrastructure, as well as other reference elements. A subsequent release (Phase II) will include state- and community-level outcomes, as well as data on community-level implementation, community-level implementation fidelity, state-level sustainability, and mediating variables.