Search results

In collaboration with community- and system-based partners, the current study used an experimental design to test the impact of phone outreach from community-based agencies to women exposed to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) compared to phone referrals provided by system-based unit (i.e., the Victim Assistance Unit of the DPD or the City Attorney's Office) in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of women whose cases have come to the attention of the criminal justice system. The phone outreach was informed by an interdisciplinary team involving both system- and community-based team members. Participants, who were randomly selected to receive outreach or treatment-as-usual, were interviewed at three time points: after an incident of IPV was reported to the police (T1), 6 months after T1, and 12 months after T1. The study addressed three primary roles. First, investigators evaluated the effectiveness of a coordinated, community-based outreach program in improving criminal justice and victim safety and empowerment outcomes for IPV victims using a longitudinal, randomized control design. Second, victim and case characteristics that moderated outcomes were identified. Third, the influence of spatial characteristics on criminal justice outcomes was evaluated.

The Biomarker study is Project 4 of the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) longitudinal study, a national survey of more than 7,000 Americans (aged 25 to 74) begun in 1994. The purpose of the larger 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 (NIA), a longitudinal follow-up of the original MIDUS samples [core sample (N = 3,487), metropolitan over-samples (N = 757), twins (N = 957 pairs), and siblings (N = 950)] was conducted in 2004-2006. Guiding hypotheses, at the most general level, were that behavioral and psychosocial factors are consequential for health (physical and mental). A description of the study and findings from it are available on the MIDUS website.

The Biomarker Project (Project 4) of MIDUS 2 contains data from 1,255 respondents. These respondents include two distinct subsamples, all of whom completed the Project 1 Survey: (1) longitudinal survey sample (n = 1,054) and (2) Milwaukee sample (n = 201). The Milwaukee group contained individuals who participated in the baseline MIDUS Milwaukee study, initiated in 2005. The purpose of the Biomarker Project (Project 4) was to add comprehensive biological assessments on a subsample of MIDUS respondents, thus facilitating analyses that integrate behavioral and psychosocial factors with biology. The broad aim is to identify biopsychosocial pathways that contribute to diverse health outcomes. A further theme is to investigate protective roles that behavioral and psychosocial factors have in delaying morbidity and mortality, or in fostering resilience and recovery from health challenges once they occur. The research was not disease-specific, given that psychosocial factors have relevance across multiple health endpoints.

Biomarker data collection was carried out at three General Clinical Research Centers (at UCLA, University of Wisconsin, and Georgetown University). The biomarkers reflect functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the autonomic nervous system, the immune system, cardiovascular system, musculoskeletal system, antioxidants, and metabolic processes. Our specimens (fasting blood draw, 12-hour urine, saliva) allow for assessment of multiple indicators within these major systems. The protocol also included assessments by clinicians or trained staff, including vital signs, morphology, functional capacities, bone densitometry, medication usage, and a physical exam. Project staff obtained indicators of heart-rate variability, beat to beat blood pressure, respiration, and salivary cortisol assessments during an experimental protocol that included both a cognitive and orthostatic challenge. Finally, to augment the self-reported data collected in Project 1, participants completed a medical history, self-administered questionnaire, and self-reported sleep assessments. For respondents at one site (UW-Madison), objective sleep assessments were also obtained with an Actiwatch(R) activity monitor.

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.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the US, but treatment for marijuana dependence is not fully effective. The most effective treatments to date have employed motivational enhancement (MET) plus cognitive-behavioral coping skills treatment (CB) and contingency management (CM) for abstinence. This study was intended to deliver a treatment to enhance coping and self-efficacy to improve marijuana outcomes in the long term. Researchers are explored the idea that more tailored teaching of coping skills may result in improved outcomes for marijuana-dependence than those seen thus far. The Individualized Assessment and Treatment Program (IATP) for marijuana dependent patients employed experience sampling (ES) to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each patient in drug-use situations so that treatment could be tailored accordingly.

Participants were 198 men and women meeting criteria for marijuana dependence and randomly assigned to 9 sessions of treatment in one of 4 treatment conditions: Standardized MET plus CB (SMET-CB); SMET+ CM (SMET-CB-CM); IATP; or IATP + CM (IATP-CM). Patients in all treatments engaged in ES via cell-phone for two weeks prior to treatment, for a weekly period during treatment, for another week after treatment has ended, and for two weekly periods at months 8 and 14. In the IATP conditions, the information gathered from the pretreatment and during-treatment ES periods provided data for a functional analysis of patients' drug use and urges to use. Therapists used the information to address specific cognitions, affects, and behaviors that were adaptive and maladaptive, and tailored a specific coping skills program with the patient. During-treatment experience sampling allowed monitoring of the treatment goals and procedures, making the treatment adaptive. In the SMET-CB conditions the experience sampling data were not used in therapy, but still provides in-vivo measures of drug use and coping skills.

It was hypothesized that IATP conditions would yield significantly better coping skills acquisition than SMET-CB conditions, both at posttreatment and at extended follow-ups, and that change in coping skills would predict better outcomes for the IATP conditions. It was further predicted that the addition of CM to both IATP and SMET-CB would enhance short-term and long-term outcomes. The results would have implications for improved tailoring of treatment to patients' strength and deficits, and for the validity of the training of coping skills for cannabis relapse prevention. The data collected will shed light on the ways in which patients in treatment use coping skills in real-time contexts. Finally, the use of repeated ES periods will allow researchers to determine how treatment impacts thoughts, feelings and behaviors, and how these in turn affect outcome in the long and short term.

The original Oregon Youth Study (OYS) began in 1983. The goal was to examine the etiology of antisocial behaviors in boys, with a view to designing preventive interventions within the context of the family and the school. This longitudinal study has expanded over the past few decades into an intergenerational study, retaining the original young men and including their partners and children.

The Oregon Youth Study-Three Generational Study (OYS-3GS) was initiated in 1995 and involves the children born to men who were recruited in 1984-85 (OYS), along with their parents.

The original Oregon Youth Study (OYS) began in 1983. The goal was to examine the etiology of antisocial behaviors in boys, with a view to designing preventive interventions within the context of the family and the school. This longitudinal study has expanded over the past few decades into an intergenerational study, retaining the original young men and including their partners and children.

The Oregon Youth Study-Three Generational Study (OYS-3GS) was initiated in 1995 and involves the children born to men who were recruited in 1984-85 (OYS), along with their parents.

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 overall aim of the START study is to increase the rate of HIV testing among recently released offender populations.

CARE-RAPID (RCT)

• This is a pilot randomized study of a computer-assisted program, the Computer Assessment and Risk-Reduction Education--Rapid (CARE-Rapid). CARE-Rapid was used as means of educating offenders leaving jails about the risk of HIV and gaining their consent for an HIV test. The sample consisted of offenders discharged from jails within the past 90 days and entering a residential substance abuse treatment program. The study used an intent-to-treatment design with random assignment to a CARE-Rapid and a treatment-as-usual (TAU) condition. The outcome of interest was whether participants got an HIV test at admission to the treatment program. Participants were followed-up with at 3 months after baseline. CARE-RAPID was conducted at Samaritan Village Inc, a residential substance abuse treatment center, and includes individuals discharged from Riker's Island or Nassau County Jail.

Project START (Quasi-experimental study)

• Project START is a quasi-experimental pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of Project START, a manualized intervention focusing on reducing risk for HIV. Project START consisted of two sessions in jail and four sessions during the first three months after discharge from a facility for offenders serving one year or less. The intervention was administered by Exponents, not-for-profit organization that offers a number of services, including outpatient substance abuse treatment. All Project START subjects were offered an HIV test and pre- and post-test counseling on their arrival at Exponents post-discharge from Rikers Island. Participants in Project Start were compared to the experimental arm from CARE-RAPID.

Qualitative Interviews

• Qualitative interviews were conducted to gain a better understanding of those aspects of the offender's perceptions and circumstances that facilitate or hinder taking an HIV test. Interviews were with offenders who have been released from New York City and Nassau County Jails in the 90-days prior to entering Exponents for treatment.

The Strengthening Washington DC Families (SWFP) Project examined the effectiveness of an evidence-based prevention program implemented on a sample of 715 families across mulitple settings in an urban area. The study area also included suburban Maryland. SWFP was set up as a true experimental design with families being randomly placed into one of four treatment conditions:

• child skills training only
• parent skills training only
• parent and child skills training plus family skills training
• minimal treatment controls

Entire families were assigned to one of the four treatment conditions. Data were collected from all family members who participated in the program. Thus the individual data files contain more than 715 records. The parent file contains 796 cases and the child file contains 961 cases.

The Strengthening Families Program is based on cognitive-behavioral social learning theory and family systems theory targeting elementary school-aged children. In this program parents receive training in parenting skills, children receive training primarily in social skills, and families receive family skills training. The aim of the program is to effectively reduce parent, child, and family risk factors for substance use and delinquency.

The MIDUS Refresher study Survey (2011-2014 ICPSR 36532) recruited a national probability sample of 3,577 adults, aged 25 to 74, designed to replenish the original MIDUS 1 baseline cohort and paralleling the five decadal age groups of the MIDUS 1 baseline survey (ICPSR 2760). The MIDUS Refresher survey employed the same comprehensive assessments as those assembled on the core longitudinal MIDUS sample, but with additional questions about impacts of the economic recession of 2008-09. The MIDUS Refresher Biomarker study (2012-2016) obtained data from 863 respondents (n=746 Main sample, n=117 African Americans from Milwaukee) who completed the MIDUS Refresher Survey.

The purpose of the Refresher Biomarker Project (Project 4) parallels that of the MIDUS 2 Biomarker project (ICPSR 29282), which collected comprehensive biological assessments on a subsample of MIDUS respondents, thus facilitating analyses that integrate behavioral and psychosocial factors with biological regulation/dysregulation, broadly defined. The aim was to use such data to explicate biopsychosocial pathways that contributed to diverse health outcomes. A further theme was to examine period effects on health (mental and physical) related to the economic recession by comparing the pre-recession MIDUS sample with the post-recession MIDUS Refresher sample. A further objective of the MIDUS Refresher sample was to strengthen cross-project analyses by increasing the sample sizes available for testing hypotheses regarding the interplay of key factors (e.g., socioeconomic status, gender, psychosocial factors, biological factors) in mid- and later-life health.

Biomarker data collection was carried out at hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the autonomic nervous system, the immune system, cardiovascular system, musculoskeletal system, antioxidants, and three General Clinical Research Centers (at UCLA, University of Wisconsin, and Georgetown University). The biomarkers reflect functioning of the metabolic processes. Our specimens (fasting blood draw, 12-hour urine, saliva) allowed for assessment of multiple indicators within these major systems. The protocol also included assessments by clinicians or trained staff, including vital signs, morphology, functional capacities including 3 dimensional gait analysis, bone densitometry, body composition, ankle brachial index, medication usage, and a physical exam. Project staff obtained indicators of heart-rate variability, beat to beat blood pressure, respiration, and salivary cortisol assessments during an experimental protocol that included both a cognitive and orthostatic challenge. Finally, to augment the self-reported data collected in Survey (Project 1), participants completed a medical history, self-administered questionnaire, and self-reported sleep assessments. For respondents at one site (UW-Madison), objective sleep assessments were also obtained with an Actiwatch(R) activity monitor.

These data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of CASAWORKS for Families (CWF), a multiservice intervention designed to move substance abusing women on welfare to sobriety and self-sufficiency by addressing their substance abuse, domestic violence, employment, and basic needs. Conducted at 11 sites across the country, the evaluation was designed as a repeated measures, pre-during-post field evaluation with no pre-specified control or comparison groups. The results of this evaluation were primarily intended to guide a proposed second-stage experimental study of the effectiveness of an enhanced and refined CWF model.

When the potential participant presented herself at the CWF site, a research technician administered a specially modified version of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), referred to as the Welfare to Work ASI (WTW-ASI). This version retained the ASI 5th edition as the core instrument but added questions in an addendum. The baseline WTW-ASI measured the severity of problems in nine areas: employment, medical status, alcohol use, drug use, legal status, family and social relationships, children and child care, basic needs, and psychiatric symptoms. In addition, the four-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI), and the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS) were used to assess depression, parenting style, and posttraumatic stress disorder, respectively. The PDI, CES-D, and a follow-up version of WTW-ASI were also administered 6 and 12 months after intake.

Two instruments were used at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postbaseline to record the services provided by CWF: Welfare to Work version of the Treatment Services Review (TSR-WTW) and Case Management Review (CMR). The former mostly collected data on the number of treatment services received, such as doctor visits, therapy sessions, and days of inpatient treatment in the prior 30 days, while the latter collected data on the activities of the case management sessions and topics covered with the case managers. Activities recorded by the CMR included working on self-sufficiency plans, arrangement of follow-up services, skills development, crisis response, and advocating for the client. Topics covered included employment, substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, parenting and child care, basic needs, life skills, and social support.

In order to compare the characteristics of the CWF clients with the general population of women who received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the study also collected WTW-ASI data from women in the general TANF population in the CWF locales regardless of their substance-use status.

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 Tsogolo La Thanzi (TLT): Biomarker collection contains data collected as part of the Tsogolo la Thanzi (TLT) Study. TLT is a longitudinal study in Balaka, Malawi designed to examine how young people navigate reproduction in an AIDS epidemic. Tsogolo la Thanzi means "Healthy Futures" in Chichewa, Malawi's most widely spoken language. New data is being collected to develop better understandings of the reproductive goals and behavior of young adults in Malawi -- the first cohort to never have experienced life without AIDS. To understand these patterns of family formation in a rapidly changing setting, TLT used the following approach: an intensive longitudinal design where respondents are interviewed every fourth months at TLT's centralized research center. Data collection began in May of 2009 and was completed in June of 2012. To assess changes on a longer time-horizon, a follow-up survey referred to as Tsologo la Thanzi 2 (TLT-2) was fielded between June and August of 2016.

The biomarker data collection contains the results of HIV testing and pregnancy testing. These data sets include respondents from all waves.

The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study is a collaboration between the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The study was launched in 2011 to inform the FDA's tobacco regulatory activities under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). For Wave 1 (baseline), the PATH Study sampled over 150,000 mailing addresses across the United States to create a national sample of people who use or do not use tobacco, yielding interviews with 45,971 adult and youth respondents.

45,971 adults and youth constitute the first (baseline) wave, Wave 1, of data collected by this longitudinal cohort study. These 45,971 adults and youth along with 7,207 "shadow youth" (youth ages 9 to 11 sampled at Wave 1) make up the 53,178 participants that constitute the Wave 1 Cohort. Respondents are asked to complete an interview at each follow-up wave. Youth who turn 18 by the current wave of data collection are considered "aged-up adults" and are invited to complete the Adult Interview. Additionally, "shadow youth" are considered "aged-up youth" upon turning 12 years old, when they are asked to complete an interview after parental consent.

At Wave 4, a probability sample of 14,098 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 10 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 4. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 in the same sampled PSUs and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with Wave 4 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 1 Cohort who were in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 4. This combined set of Wave 4 participants, 52,731 participants in total, forms the Wave 4 Cohort.

At Wave 7, a probability sample of 14,863 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 9 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 7. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 or Wave 4 in the same sampled PSUs and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This second replenishment sample was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with Wave 7 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 4 Cohort who were at least age 15 and in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 7. This combined set of Wave 7 participants, 46,169 participants in total, forms the Wave 7 Cohort

Please refer to the Restricted-Use Files User Guide that provides further details about children designated as "shadow youth" and the formation of the Wave 1, Wave 4, and Wave 7 Cohorts.

Biospecimen Collection

Each adult respondent, who completed the interview at Wave 1, was asked to provide at least two biospecimens. Providing biospecimens was voluntary and was not a condition of participation. Respondents were asked to report their use of all nicotine-containing products during the 3-day period prior to the time of any biospecimen collection (Nicotine Exposure Questions (NEQs)) to facilitate interpretation of biomarker results.

Of the 32,320 respondents who completed the Adult Interview at Wave 1, 21,801 (67.4 percent) provided a urine specimen and 14,520 (44.9 percent) provided a blood specimen. For the purposes of subsampling adults into the Wave 1 Biomarker Core, adult participants were grouped by tobacco product use at Wave 1 into nine mutually exclusive groups.

A sample of 11,522 adults who provided sufficient urine for the planned analyses were selected from the first six tobacco product use groups (see section 3.1 of the Biomarker Restricted-Use Files User Guide) representing people who never used tobacco, currently use tobacco, and formerly used tobacco (within the last 12 months). This group constitutes the original Wave 1 Biomarker Core. Of the 11,522 adults, 7,159 also provided a blood specimen. All urine and blood specimens provided by the Wave 1 Biomarker Core were sent for laboratory analysis.

Subsequent to this selection, an additional stratified probability sample of adults who completed the Wave 1 Adult Interview and provided a sufficient amount of urine for the planned analyses at Wave 1 (independent of whether they provided a blood specimen) was selected from the remaining three product use groups (see section 3.1 of the Biomarker Restricted-Use Files User Guide). Wave 1 blood and urine specimens from this expansion sample were also sent for laboratory analysis. The original and expansion samples together form the expanded Wave 1 Biomarker Core. The expansion sample did not provide urine specimens for laboratory analysis again until Wave 7.

Each youth who completed the Wave 4 interview was asked to provide a urine specimen. Each Wave 4 shadow youth (ages 10 and 11 at Wave 4) who completed the Wave 5 youth interview was also asked to provide a urine specimen. Providing this urine biospecimen was voluntary and was not a condition of participation.

Of the 14,798 respondents who completed the Youth Interview at Wave 4, 13,097 (88.5 percent) provided a urine specimen. A sample of 3,509 Wave 4 Cohort youth ages 12 to 17 who completed the Wave 4 Youth Interview and provided a sufficient amount of urine for the planned laboratory analyses was selected from a diverse mix of five tobacco product use and non-use groups. In addition, a sample of 528 Wave 4 shadow youth who completed a Wave 5 interview and provided a sufficient amount of urine for the planned laboratory analyses at Wave 5 was also selected. These 4,037 sampled youth and shadow youth constitute the Wave 4 Biomarker Core. All urine specimens provided by the Wave 4 Biomarker Core were sent for laboratory analysis.

As members of the Wave 1 and Wave 4 Biomarker Cores age over time, a new Wave 7 Biomarker Core was designed to provide nationally representative estimates for the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized adult (ages 18 and older) population (CNP) at the time of Wave 7 (2022-2023). To that end, Aat the conclusion of Wave 7, a new biomarker core was selected from Wave 7 Cohort adults who completed an interview and provided a urine specimen at Wave 7. The Wave 7 Biomarker Core sample selection was a two-stage process. Prior to the start of data collection, a subsample of continuing participants expected to be adults at the time of their Wave 7 interview, including some participants who were part of the Wave 1 or Wave 4 Biomarker Cores, was selected and flagged for urine collection; additionally, a subsample of replenishment sample address was selected and flagged so that any Wave 7 Adult Interview respondents living at the selected addresses would be asked to provide a urine specimen. Of the 10,698 Adult Interview respondents from these subsamples, 9,187 (85.9 percent) provided a urine specimen. A sample of 7,750 Wave 7 Cohort adults who completed the Wave 7 Adult Interview and provided a sufficient amount of urine for the planned laboratory analyses was selected from six mutually exclusive and exhaustive tobacco use groups (see section 3.3 of the Biomarker Restricted-Use Files User Guide). All urine specimens provided by the Wave 7 Biomarker Core were sent for laboratory analysis.

Biomarker Restricted Use Files

Wave 1 Restricted-Use Biomarker Data Files (Biomarker RUF) consists of three different types of files for the Wave 1 Biomarker Core:

• 2 Collection and NEQ files for Urine (DS1001) and Blood (DS1101)
• 2 Biomarker Weight files including variables for use in variance estimation for Urine (DS1021) and Blood (DS1121). Both files are updated to include records for the expanded Wave 1 Biomarker Core.
• 8 Urine Panels (DS1031 to DS1038), 4 Serum Panels (DS1131 to DS1134) and 1 Plasma Panel (DS1231) containing biomarker assay results. 6 Urine Panels (DS1032, DS1033, DS1035, DS1036, DS1037, and DS1038) and 2 Serum Panels (DS1131 and DS1132) are updated to include records for the expanded Wave 1 Biomarker Core.

All files updated to include records for the expanded Wave 1 Biomarker Core contain an indicator R01_A_W1BC_TYPE (1 = Original, 2 = Expansion) to identify respondents in the Wave 1 Biomarker Core original and expansion subsamples.

For Wave 2, urine biospecimens were requested from the original Wave 1 Biomarker Core. Respondents were also asked to complete the NEQs prior to biospecimen collection.

The Wave 2 Biomarker RUF consists of three different types of files:

• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Urine (DS2001)
• 2 Biomarker Weight files including variables for use in variance estimation for Urine (DS2021) and F2PG2a (DS2022)
• 8 Urine Panels (DS2031 to DS2038) containing biomarker assay results.

For Wave 3, urine biospecimens were requested from the original Wave 1 Biomarker Core. Respondents were also asked to complete the NEQs prior to biospecimen collection.

The Wave 3 Biomarker RUF consists of three different types of files:

• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Urine (DS3001)
• 4 Biomarker Weight files including variables for use in variance estimation for Urine (DS3021 and DS3022) and F2PG2a (DS3023 and DS3024).
• 7 Urine Panels (DS3032 to DS3038) containing biomarker assay results.

For Wave 4, urine biospecimens were requested from the original Wave 1 Biomarker Core and all youth who completed the Wave 4 interview. Respondents were also asked to complete the NEQs prior to biospecimen collection.

The Wave 4 Biomarker RUF consists of the following files for each Biomarker Core:

Wave 1 Biomarker Core:

• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Urine (DS4001)
• 4 Biomarker Weight files including variables for use in variance estimation for Urine (DS4021 and DS4022) and F2PG2a (DS4023 and DS4024).
• 7 Urine Panels (DS4032, DS4033, DS4034, DS4035, DS4036, DS4037 and DS4038) containing biomarker assay results.

Wave 4 Biomarker Core:

• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Youth Urine (DS4011)
• 1 Biomarker Weight files including variables for use in variance estimation for Urine (DS4043)
• 7 Urine Panels (DS4051, DS4053, DS4054, DS4055, DS4056, DS4057 and DS4058) containing biomarker assay results.

For Wave 5, urine biospecimens were requested from the original Wave 1 Biomarker Core and the Wave 4 Biomarker Core. Respondents were also asked to complete the NEQs prior to biospecimen collection.

The Wave 5 Biomarker RUF consists of the following files for each Biomarker Core:

Wave 1 Biomarker Core:

• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Urine (DS5001)
• 4 Biomarker Weight files including variables for use in variance estimation for Urine (DS5021 and DS5022) and F2PG2a (DS5023 and DS5024)
• 6 Urine Panels (DS5032, DS5033, DS5035, DS5036, DS5037, and DS5038) containing biomarker assay results.

Wave 4 Biomarker Core:

• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Youth Urine (DS5011)
• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Adult Urine (DS5001)
• 1 Biomarker Weight file including variables for use in variance estimation for Urine (DS5042)
• 7 Urine Panels (DS5051, DS5053, DS5054, DS5055, DS5056, DS5057, and DS5058) containing biomarker assay results.

Note that the initial release of 3 Urine Panels and Biomarker weights for the Wave 4 Biomarker Core only included records for those among the 3,509 members who responded in Wave 5 and provided urine specimens in sufficient quantities for laboratory analyses. As of version 20, the Wave 5 biomarker data files and weights include data for all Wave 4 Biomarker Core members who provided urine specimens at Wave 5 in sufficient quantities for laboratory analyses, including the Wave 4 shadow youth who completed their first interviews at Wave 5. This means that records were added to previously released urine panel data files (DS5051, DS5053, and DS5056) and biomarker weights (DS5042) to include data for the Wave 4 shadow youth (N=528) who completed their first interviews at Wave 5. All panels released in version 20 and beyond will include records for the complete Wave 4 Biomarker Core.

Also note that the Collection and NEQ file for Adult Urine (DS5001) includes data for both the Wave 1 Biomarker Core and Wave 4 Biomarker Core.

For Wave 7, urine biospecimens were requested from the Wave 1 Biomarker Core, the Wave 4 Biomarker Core, and those in the subsample eligible for the Wave 7 biomarker Core. Respondents were also asked to complete the NEQs prior to biospecimen collection.

The Wave 7 Biomarker RUF consists of the following files for each Biomarker Core:

Wave 1 Biomarker Core:

• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Urine (DS7001)
• 4 Biomarker Weight files including variables for use in variance estimation for Urine (DS7021 and DS7022) and F2PG2a (DS7023 and DS7024)
• 6 Urine Panels (DS7032, DS7033, DS7035, DS7036, DS7037, and DS7038) containing biomarker assay results.

Wave 4 Biomarker Core:

• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Youth Urine (DS7011)
• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Adult Urine (DS7001)
• 2 Biomarker Weight files including variables for use in variance estimation for Urine (DS7041 and DS7042)
• 6 Urine Panels (DS7051, DS7053, DS7055, DS7056, DS7057, and DS7058) containing biomarker assay results.

Wave 7 Biomarker Core:

• 1 Collection and NEQ file for Urine (DS7001)
• 1 Biomarker Weight file including variables for use in variance estimation for Urine (DS7061)
• 4 Urine Panels (DS7072, DS7073, DS7076, DS7077) containing biomarker assay results.

The Collection and NEQ file for Adult Urine (DS7001) includes data for the Wave 1 Biomarker Core, Wave 4 Biomarker Core, and Wave 7 Biomarker Core.

Please refer to the Biomarker Restricted-Use Files User Guide for additional information about the Biomarker Cores.

References to the collection of biospecimens will be specified by the collected specimen, i.e., urine and (whole) blood. However, references to biomarker analyses and analytes will be specified by the type of matrix (serum, plasma, or urine) used for the analysis.