This survey charted Finnish citizens' as well as social and healthcare service professionals' attitudes and views concerning secondary use of health and social care data in research and development of services. The study contained two target groups: (1) persons who suffered or had a close relative or acquaintance who suffered from one or more chronic conditions, diseases or disorders, and (2) social and healthcare service professionals. First, the respondents' opinions on the reliability of a variety of authorities and organisations were examined (e.g. the police, Kela, register and statistics authorities, universities) as well as trust in appropriate handling of personal data. They were also asked which type of information they deemed personal or not (e.g. bank account number and balance, purchase history at a grocery store, web browsing history, patient records, genetic information, social security number, phone number). They were asked to evaluate which principles they considered important in handling personal health data (e.g. being able to access one's personal data and to have inaccurate data rectified, and being able to restrict data processing), and the study also surveyed how interested the respondents were in keeping track of the use of their health data, and how willing they would be to permit the use of anonymous health data and genetic information for a variety of purposes (e.g. medicine and treatment development, development of equipment and services, and operations of insurance companies). Next, it was examined whether the respondents kept track of their physical activity with a smartphone or a fitness tracker, for instance, and if they would be willing to permit the use of anonymous data concerning physical activity for a variety of purposes. In addition, the respondents' attitudes were charted with regard to developing medicine research by combining anonymous health data and patient records with other data on, for instance, physical activity, alcohol use, grocery store purchase history, web browsing history, and social media use. The study also examined the willingness to permit access to personal health data for social and healthcare service professionals in a service situation, as well as for social and healthcare authorities and other authorities outside of a service situation. Finally, it was charted how important the respondents deemed different factors relating to data collection (e.g. being able to decide for which purposes personal data, or even anonymous data, can be used, and increasing awareness on how health data can be utilised in scientific research). The reliability of a variety of authorities and organisations, such as social welfare/healthcare organisations, academic researchers and pharmaceutical companies, was also examined in terms of data security and purposes for using data. Background variables included, among others, mother tongue, marital status, household composition, housing tenure, socioeconomic class, political party preference, left-right political self-placement, gross income, economic activity and occupational status, and respondent group (citizen/healthcare service professional/social service professional).

According to a survey conducted in 2022, 70 percent of respondents from healthcare organizations at a mature stage of AI adoption stated that natural language text was used in their AI applications. Structured data was the most common data type on which AI models were applied by healthcare organizations in early-stage AI adoption.

This dataset contains model-based place (incorporated and census-designated places) estimates. PLACES covers the entire United States—50 states and the District of Columbia—at county, place, census tract, and ZIP Code Tabulation Area levels. It provides information uniformly on this large scale for local areas at four geographic levels. Estimates were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. PLACES was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. The dataset includes estimates for 36 measures: 13 for health outcomes, 9 for preventive services use, 4 for chronic disease-related health risk behaviors, 7 for disabilities, and 3 for health status. These estimates can be used to identify emerging health problems and to help develop and carry out effective, targeted public health prevention activities. Because the small area model cannot detect effects due to local interventions, users are cautioned against using these estimates for program or policy evaluations. Data sources used to generate these model-based estimates are Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2021 or 2020 data, Census Bureau 2010 population data, and American Community Survey 2015–2019 estimates. The 2023 release uses 2021 BRFSS data for 29 measures and 2020 BRFSS data for 7 measures (all teeth lost, dental visits, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, core preventive services among older adults, and sleeping less than 7 hours) that the survey collects data on every other year. More information about the methodology can be found at www.cdc.gov/places.

This dataset contains model-based census tract estimates. PLACES covers the entire United States—50 states and the District of Columbia—at county, place, census tract, and ZIP Code Tabulation Area levels. It provides information uniformly on this large scale for local areas at four geographic levels. Estimates were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. PLACES was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. The dataset includes estimates for 36 measures: 13 for health outcomes, 9 for preventive services use, 4 for chronic disease-related health risk behaviors, 7 for disabilities, and 3 for health status. These estimates can be used to identify emerging health problems and to help develop and carry out effective, targeted public health prevention activities. Because the small area model cannot detect effects due to local interventions, users are cautioned against using these estimates for program or policy evaluations. Data sources used to generate these model-based estimates are Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2021 or 2020 data, Census Bureau 2010 population data, and American Community Survey 2015–2019 estimates. The 2023 release uses 2021 BRFSS data for 29 measures and 2020 BRFSS data for seven measures (all teeth lost, dental visits, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, core preventive services among older adults, and sleeping less than 7 hours) that the survey collects data on every other year. More information about the methodology can be found at www.cdc.gov/places.

As of 2023, 76 percent of respondents surveyed in the United States would want to share their wearable device's data by opening the app in the device and reviewing the health data with the doctor in person during an appointment. Another method just under three-quarters would be willing to carry out is answering questions about health data while completing intake paperwork before an appointment. Less preferred methods included automatic data sharing and sending screenshots of health data to the doctor.

Personal health data encompasses electronic health records (EHR), electronic medical records (EMR), personal health records (PHR), and any other health data transmitted through telehealth, wearables/sensors, or apps. It includes patient-reported and objective data about a patient’s medical history, diagnostic tests, vitals, treatments, medications, and more. Read More

After May 3, 2024, this dataset and webpage will no longer be updated because hospitals are no longer required to report data on COVID-19 hospital admissions, and hospital capacity and occupancy data, to HHS through CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network. Data voluntarily reported to NHSN after May 1, 2024, will be available starting May 10, 2024, at COVID Data Tracker Hospitalizations.

The following dataset provides facility-level data for hospital utilization aggregated on a weekly basis (Sunday to Saturday). These are derived from reports with facility-level granularity across two main sources: (1) HHS TeleTracking, and (2) reporting provided directly to HHS Protect by state/territorial health departments on behalf of their healthcare facilities.

The hospital population includes all hospitals registered with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as of June 1, 2020. It includes non-CMS hospitals that have reported since July 15, 2020. It does not include psychiatric, rehabilitation, Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities, Defense Health Agency (DHA) facilities, and religious non-medical facilities.

For a given entry, the term “collection_week” signifies the start of the period that is aggregated. For example, a “collection_week” of 2020-11-15 means the average/sum/coverage of the elements captured from that given facility starting and including Sunday, November 15, 2020, and ending and including reports for Saturday, November 21, 2020.

Reported elements include an append of either “_coverage”, “_sum”, or “_avg”.

• A “_coverage” append denotes how many times the facility reported that element during that collection week.
• A “_sum” append denotes the sum of the reports provided for that facility for that element during that collection week.
• A “_avg” append is the average of the reports provided for that facility for that element during that collection week.

The file will be updated weekly. No statistical analysis is applied to impute non-response. For averages, calculations are based on the number of values collected for a given hospital in that collection week. Suppression is applied to the file for sums and averages less than four (4). In these cases, the field will be replaced with “-999,999”.

A story page was created to display both corrected and raw datasets and can be accessed at this link: https://healthdata.gov/stories/s/nhgk-5gpv

This data is preliminary and subject to change as more data become available. Data is available starting on July 31, 2020.

Sometimes, reports for a given facility will be provided to both HHS TeleTracking and HHS Protect. When this occurs, to ensure that there are not duplicate reports, deduplication is applied according to prioritization rules within HHS Protect.

For influenza fields listed in the file, the current HHS guidance marks these fields as optional. As a result, coverage of these elements are varied.

For recent updates to the dataset, scroll to the bottom of the dataset description.

On May 3, 2021, the following fields have been added to this data set.

• hhs_ids
• previous_day_admission_adult_covid_confirmed_7_day_coverage
• previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_7_day_coverage
• previous_day_admission_adult_covid_suspected_7_day_coverage
• previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_suspected_7_day_coverage
• previous_week_personnel_covid_vaccinated_doses_administered_7_day_sum
• total_personnel_covid_vaccinated_doses_none_7_day_sum
• total_personnel_covid_vaccinated_doses_one_7_day_sum
• total_personnel_covid_vaccinated_doses_all_7_day_sum
• previous_week_patients_covid_vaccinated_doses_one_7_day_sum
• previous_week_patients_covid_vaccinated_doses_all_7_day_sum

On May 8, 2021, this data set has been converted to a corrected data set. The corrections applied to this data set are to smooth out data anomalies caused by keyed in data errors. To help determine which records have had corrections made to it. An additional Boolean field called is_corrected has been added.

On May 13, 2021 Changed vaccination fields from sum to max or min fields. This reflects the maximum or minimum number reported for that metric in a given week.

On June 7, 2021 Changed vaccination fields from max or min fields to Wednesday reported only. This reflects that the number reported for that metric is only reported on Wednesdays in a given week.

On September 20, 2021, the following has been updated: The use of analytic dataset as a source.

On January 19, 2022, the following fields have been added to this dataset:

• inpatient_beds_used_covid_7_day_avg
• inpatient_beds_used_covid_7_day_sum
• inpatient_beds_used_covid_7_day_coverage

On April 28, 2022, the following pediatric fields have been added to this dataset:

• all_pediatric_inpatient_bed_occupied_7_day_avg
• all_pediatric_inpatient_bed_occupied_7_day_coverage
• all_pediatric_inpatient_bed_occupied_7_day_sum
• all_pediatric_inpatient_beds_7_day_avg
• all_pediatric_inpatient_beds_7_day_coverage
• all_pediatric_inpatient_beds_7_day_sum
• previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_0_4_7_day_sum
• previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_12_17_7_day_sum
• previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_5_11_7_day_sum
• previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_unknown_7_day_sum
• staffed_icu_pediatric_patients_confirmed_covid_7_day_avg
• staffed_icu_pediatric_patients_confirmed_covid_7_day_coverage
• staffed_icu_pediatric_patients_confirmed_covid_7_day_sum
• staffed_pediatric_icu_bed_occupancy_7_day_avg
• staffed_pediatric_icu_bed_occupancy_7_day_coverage
• staffed_pediatric_icu_bed_occupancy_7_day_sum
• total_staffed_pediatric_icu_beds_7_day_avg
• total_staffed_pediatric_icu_beds_7_day_coverage
• total_staffed_pediatric_icu_beds_7_day_sum

On October 24, 2022, the data includes more analytical calculations in efforts to provide a cleaner dataset. For a raw version of this dataset, please follow this link: https://healthdata.gov/Hospital/COVID-19-Reported-Patient-Impact-and-Hospital-Capa/uqq2-txqb

Due to changes in reporting requirements, after June 19, 2023, a collection week is defined as starting on a Sunday and ending on the next Saturday.

Health expenditure in Austria is compiled according to the System of Health Accounts (SHA). This internationally comparable system of health accounts was developed by the OECD and is now a joint project between the OECD, Eurostat and WHO. Since the reference year 2014, it has been mandatory to submit health expenditure data according to the SHA to the European Commission based on an EU regulation. Statistics Austria has calculated health expenditure by health care services and goods, by financing schemes and by health care providers since 2005. The data sources include annual accounts of local authorities and national accounts data. A flash estimate of health expenditure data is published annually in June; the final results are published in February of the following year. Furthermore, provisional expenditure on hospitals financed by state health funds is published in September, broken down by federal province; the final results are published in February in the following year as well.

The website shows data on the plan and implementation of the health services program by individual health activities (VZD) :

• hospital medical activity,
• general outpatient medical activity,
• specialist outpatient medical activity,
• dental practice,
• other health activities,
• activity of accommodation facilities for patient care,
• social care without accommodation for the elderly and disabled,
• production of pharmaceutical preparations,
• retail trade in specialized stores with pharmaceutical products,
• compulsory social security activity.

Within the framework of each activity, the data for each period are shown separately by contractors and together, the activity by regional units of ZZZS and the activity data at the level of Slovenia together.

Data on the plan and implementation of the health services program are shown in the accounting unit (e.g. points, quotients, weights, groups of comparable cases, non-medical care day, care, days...), which are used to calculate the work performed in the field of individual activities.

The publication of information about the plan and implementation of the program on the ZZZS website is primarily intended for the professional public. The displayed program plan for an individual contractor refers to the defined billing period. (example: The plan for the period 1-3 201X is calculated as 3/12 of the annual plan agreed in the contract).

The data on the implementation of the program represents the implementation of the program at an individual provider for insured persons who benefited from medical services from him during the accounting period. Data on the realization of the program do not refer to persons insured in accordance with the European legal order and bilateral agreements on social security. Data for individual contractors are classified by regional units based on the contractor's headquarters. The content of the data on the "number of cases" is defined in the Instruction on recording and accounting for medical services and issued materials.

The institute reserves the right to change the data, in the event of subsequently discovered irregularities after already published on the Internet.

According to a survey carried out in the United States in December 2021, approximately 39 percent of respondents stated that they were somewhat concerned about how their health care data is shared, while a further 35 percent were very concerned. On the other hand, just over ten percent of respondents were unconcerned about the sharing of their health data.

The Health Inequalities Dashboard presents data on health inequalities for England, English regions, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities. It presents measures of inequality for 18 indicators, each drawn from the Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF).

The dashboard measures trends in each indicator since a baseline period, with longer term data provided where these are available. Inequalities are considered across a range of dimensions, including:

• deprivation
• ethnic group
• sexual orientation
• employment status

The "https://addhealth.cpc.unc.edu/" Target="_blank">National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) is a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States. The Add Health cohort has been followed into young adulthood with four in-home interviews, the most recent in 2008, when the sample was aged 24-32*. Add Health combines longitudinal survey data on respondents' social, economic, psychological and physical well-being with contextual data on the family, neighborhood, community, school, friendships, peer groups, and romantic relationships, providing unique opportunities to study how social environments and behaviors in adolescence are linked to health and achievement outcomes in young adulthood. The fourth wave of interviews expanded the collection of biological data in Add Health to understand the social, behavioral, and biological linkages in health trajectories as the Add Health cohort ages through adulthood. The fifth wave of data collection is planned to begin in 2016.

Initiated in 1994 and supported by three program project grants from the "https://www.nichd.nih.gov/" Target="_blank">Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) with co-funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations, Add Health is the largest, most comprehensive longitudinal survey of adolescents ever undertaken. Beginning with an in-school questionnaire administered to a nationally representative sample of students in grades 7-12, the study followed up with a series of in-home interviews conducted in 1995, 1996, 2001-02, and 2008. Other sources of data include questionnaires for parents, siblings, fellow students, and school administrators and interviews with romantic partners. Preexisting databases provide information about neighborhoods and communities.

Add Health was developed in response to a mandate from the U.S. Congress to fund a study of adolescent health, and Waves I and II focus on the forces that may influence adolescents' health and risk behaviors, including personal traits, families, friendships, romantic relationships, peer groups, schools, neighborhoods, and communities. As participants have aged into adulthood, however, the scientific goals of the study have expanded and evolved. Wave III, conducted when respondents were between 18 and 26** years old, focuses on how adolescent experiences and behaviors are related to decisions, behavior, and health outcomes in the transition to adulthood. At Wave IV, respondents were ages 24-32* and assuming adult roles and responsibilities. Follow up at Wave IV has enabled researchers to study developmental and health trajectories across the life course of adolescence into adulthood using an integrative approach that combines the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences in its research objectives, design, data collection, and analysis.

* 52 respondents were 33-34 years old at the time of the Wave IV interview.
** 24 respondents were 27-28 years old at the time of the Wave III interview.

Included here are weights to remove any differences between the composition of the sample and the estimated composition of the population. See the attached codebook for information regarding how these weights were calculated.

Data collected using Google Consumer Survey on attitudes towards sharing health data, regarding quality of health service, and privacy

Data on child health in Segamil and Paisano in Guatemala

"""Local Law 14 (2016) requires that the NYCDOE provide citywide Health Education data, dis aggregated by community school district, city council district, and each individual school. Data reported in this report is from the 2015-16 school year. "" This report provides information about the number and percent of students receiving one semester of health education as defined in Local Law 14 as reported through the 2015-2016 STARS database. It is important to note that schools self-report their scheduling information in STARS.

This report consists of 10 tabs:

1. Health Education Standards
2. HS - School
3. HS-District
4. JS-City Council District
5. MS-School
6. MS-District
7. Ms-City Council District
8. Efficacy
9. Compliance

10. LGBTQ Inclusivity

11. Health Education Standards

This tab provides information on the New York State Health Education Requirements and Standards. These requirements can be found in NYS Education Commissioner’s Regulation Subchapter G Part 135.

1. HS - School

This tab includes school level data on the number of students that received a semester (one credit) of health instruction, as well as the number of June and August graduates meeting the HS health requirements for the 2015-2016 school year. Note that students are not required to receive health instruction at any particular grade level in high school, only prior to graduating. Additionally, values less than 100% do not necessarily imply that students graduated without meeting credit requirements. In very rare cases, these values may indicate missing or incomplete historical transcript data.

1. HS - District

This tab includes district level data on the number of students that received a semester (one credit) of health instruction, as well as the number of June and August graduates meeting the HS health requirements for the 2015-2016 school year. Note that students are not required to receive health instruction at any particular grade level in high school, only prior to graduating. Additionally, values less than 100% do not necessarily imply that students graduated without meeting credit requirements. In very rare cases, these values may indicate missing or incomplete historical transcript data.

1. HS - City Council District

This tab includes city council district level data on the number of students that received a semester (one credit) of health instruction, as well as the number of June and August graduates meeting the HS health requirements for the 2015-2016 school year. Note that students are not required to receive health instruction at any particular grade level in high school, only prior to graduating. Additionally, values less than 100% do not necessarily imply that students graduated without meeting credit requirements. In very rare cases, these values may indicate missing or incomplete historical transcript data.

1. Ms - School

This tab includes school level data on the number of 6-8 graders that received a semester (one half-unit) of health instruction, as well as the number of 8th graders meeting the middle school health requirements for the 2015-2016 school year. Note that this regulation does not require students to receive health instruction at any particular grade level in middle school, only prior to completing 8th grade. However, a student may advance to the next grade without completing the course.

1. MS - District

This tab includes district level data on the number of 6-8 graders that received a semester (one half-unit) of health instruction, as well as the number of 8th graders meeting the middle school health requirements for the 2015-2016 school year. Note that this regulation does not require students to receive health instruction at any particular grade level in middle school, only prior to completing 8th grade. However, a student may advance to the next grade without completing the course.

1. MS - City Council District

This tab includes Cit

This is the current Medical Service Study Area. California Medical Service Study Areas are created by the California Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI).Check the Data Dictionary for field descriptions.Search for the Medical Service Study Area data on the CHHS Open Data Portal.Checkout the California Healthcare Atlas for more Medical Service Study Area information.This is an update to the MSSA geometries and demographics to reflect the new 2020 Census tract data. The Medical Service Study Area (MSSA) polygon layer represents the best fit mapping of all new 2020 California census tract boundaries to the original 2010 census tract boundaries used in the construction of the original 2010 MSSA file. Each of the state's new 9,129 census tracts was assigned to one of the previously established medical service study areas (excluding tracts with no land area), as identified in this data layer. The MSSA Census tract data is aggregated by HCAI, to create this MSSA data layer. This represents the final re-mapping of 2020 Census tracts to the original 2010 MSSA geometries. The 2010 MSSA were based on U.S. Census 2010 data and public meetings held throughout California.Source of update: American Community Survey 5-year 2006-2010 data for poverty. For source tables refer to InfoUSA update procedural documentation. The 2010 MSSA Detail layer was developed to update fields affected by population change. The American Community Survey 5-year 2006-2010 population data pertaining to total, in households, race, ethnicity, age, and poverty was used in the update. The 2010 MSSA Census Tract Detail map layer was developed to support geographic information systems (GIS) applications, representing 2010 census tract geography that is the foundation of 2010 medical service study area (MSSA) boundaries. ***This version is the finalized MSSA reconfiguration boundaries based on the US Census Bureau 2010 Census. In 1976 Garamendi Rural Health Services Act, required the development of a geographic framework for determining which parts of the state were rural and which were urban, and for determining which parts of counties and cities had adequate health care resources and which were "medically underserved". Thus, sub-city and sub-county geographic units called "medical service study areas [MSSAs]" were developed, using combinations of census-defined geographic units, established following General Rules promulgated by a statutory commission. After each subsequent census the MSSAs were revised. In the scheduled revisions that followed the 1990 census, community meetings of stakeholders (including county officials, and representatives of hospitals and community health centers) were held in larger metropolitan areas. The meetings were designed to develop consensus as how to draw the sub-city units so as to best display health care disparities. The importance of involving stakeholders was heightened in 1992 when the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Health and Resources Administration entered a formal agreement to recognize the state-determined MSSAs as "rational service areas" for federal recognition of "health professional shortage areas" and "medically underserved areas". After the 2000 census, two innovations transformed the process, and set the stage for GIS to emerge as a major factor in health care resource planning in California. First, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development [OSHPD], which organizes the community stakeholder meetings and provides the staff to administer the MSSAs, entered into an Enterprise GIS contract. Second, OSHPD authorized at least one community meeting to be held in each of the 58 counties, a significant number of which were wholly rural or frontier counties. For populous Los Angeles County, 11 community meetings were held. As a result, health resource data in California are collected and organized by 541 geographic units. The boundaries of these units were established by community healthcare experts, with the objective of maximizing their usefulness for needs assessment purposes. The most dramatic consequence was introducing a data simultaneously displayed in a GIS format. A two-person team, incorporating healthcare policy and GIS expertise, conducted the series of meetings, and supervised the development of the 2000-census configuration of the MSSAs.MSSA Configuration Guidelines (General Rules):- Each MSSA is composed of one or more complete census tracts.- As a general rule, MSSAs are deemed to be "rational service areas [RSAs]" for purposes of designating health professional shortage areas [HPSAs], medically underserved areas [MUAs] or medically underserved populations [MUPs].- MSSAs will not cross county lines.- To the extent practicable, all census-defined places within the MSSA are within 30 minutes travel time to the largest population center within the MSSA, except in those circumstances where meeting this criterion would require splitting a census tract.- To the extent practicable, areas that, standing alone, would meet both the definition of an MSSA and a Rural MSSA, should not be a part of an Urban MSSA.- Any Urban MSSA whose population exceeds 200,000 shall be divided into two or more Urban MSSA Subdivisions.- Urban MSSA Subdivisions should be within a population range of 75,000 to 125,000, but may not be smaller than five square miles in area. If removing any census tract on the perimeter of the Urban MSSA Subdivision would cause the area to fall below five square miles in area, then the population of the Urban MSSA may exceed 125,000. - To the extent practicable, Urban MSSA Subdivisions should reflect recognized community and neighborhood boundaries and take into account such demographic information as income level and ethnicity. Rural Definitions: A rural MSSA is an MSSA adopted by the Commission, which has a population density of less than 250 persons per square mile, and which has no census defined place within the area with a population in excess of 50,000. Only the population that is located within the MSSA is counted in determining the population of the census defined place. A frontier MSSA is a rural MSSA adopted by the Commission which has a population density of less than 11 persons per square mile. Any MSSA which is not a rural or frontier MSSA is an urban MSSA. Last updated December 6th 2024.

The Health Statistics and Health Research Database is Estonian largest set of health-related statistics and survey results administrated by National Institute for Health Development. Use of the database is free of charge.

The database consists of eight main areas divided into sub-areas. The data tables included in the sub-areas are assigned unique codes. The data tables presented in the database can be both viewed in the Internet environment, and downloaded using different file formats (.px, .xlsx, .csv, .json). You can download the detailed database user manual here (.pdf).

The database is constantly updated with new data. Dates of updating the existing data tables and adding new data are provided in the release calendar. The date of the last update to each table is provided after the title of the table in the list of data tables.

A contact person for each sub-area is provided under the "Definitions and Methodology" link of each sub-area, so you can ask additional information about the data published in the database. Contact this person for any further questions and data requests.

Read more about publication of health statistics by National Institute for Health Development in Health Statistics Dissemination Principles.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) EHR Incentive Program provides incentive payments for eligible hospitals to adopt and meaningfully use certified health IT. Among the requirements to receive an incentive payment, participating hospitals must report on public health measures. These measures include the electronic reporting of data regarding: immunizations, emergency department visits (syndromic surveillance), reportable infectious disease laboratory results, and electronic patient data to specialized registries, like cancert. As of 2015, stage 2 of the EHR Incentive Program requires hospitals to report on three public health measures, when applicable, and modified stage 2 of the program requires hospitals to report on two of the three measures. This dataset includes the percentage of hospitals who reported on these measures in program years, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

This table contains data on the perceived state of health and on contacts with providers of medical care of the Dutch population in private households. These data can be grouped by several personal characteristics.

Data available for 2014-2021

Status of the data: final.

Changes as of July 31, 2023: None, the table has been discontinued.

When will new data be published? Not applicable. This table has been replaced, see paragraph 3 for a link to the new table.

Contemporary public health and healthcare are navigating a complex landscape marked by limited resources, conflicting individual and collective preferences, and the challenge of improving efficiency while maintaining quality. This scenario raises a multitude of ethical and moral questions, necessitating state intervention through stewardship and governance. Governments worldwide strive to enhance utility, value for money, and health equity, guided by principles of distributive and procedural justice.

The moral underpinnings of public health activities, such as overall benefit, collective efficiency, distributive fairness, and harm prevention, are crucial in addressing global health resource challenges. These considerations encompass efficiency, equity, rights, and other ethical issues. The distribution of resources, whether based on noncorrelative or correlative principles, is a key aspect of justice in public health.

Public health efforts are also focused on mitigating the adverse effects of socio-economic determinants on health outcomes and addressing health disparities. This is particularly vital for vulnerable, high-risk, and marginalized groups who face unique challenges like historic injustices, discrimination, and specific social or physical needs.

The project at hand delves into the concepts outlined by Peragine, focusing on measuring individual opportunity sets, assessing inequality in opportunity distribution, and designing mechanisms to enhance 'opportunity equality'. A representative survey of Vienna's population (N=1411) explores various dimensions:

Socio-demography: This module gathers data on gender, age, education, and migration background. Health: It assesses individual health status, chronic conditions, multimorbidity, and health-related behaviors. Socio-economic status: This includes occupation, net income, asset wealth, and other indicators of social or economic capital. Access to healthcare: Respondents provide insights into their experiences with healthcare access, including barriers and needs. Affordability of healthcare: Questions revolve around health-related expenditures and attitudes towards healthcare coverage and benefits. Provision of healthcare: This focuses on the quality and timeliness of medical interventions and healthcare services. Justice-Fairness attitudes: The survey captures attitudes towards social/distributive justice and fairness in socio-economic and health-related aspects. Preferences for health policy and redistribution: This module explores public vs. private health insurance preferences and allocation preferences for the public health budget. Solidarity & Reciprocity: Estimating solidarity through measures of social trust, cooperative behavior, sharing, helping, and expressions of solidarity. Overall, this comprehensive approach aims to address the intricate interplay of ethical, moral, and practical considerations in public health and healthcare, emphasizing the need for equitable and just solutions in a resource-constrained environment.

Contemporary public health and health care face resource constraints, self-regarding versus other-regarding preferences, and strains to become more efficient at less costs, while maintaining quality. Thus, diverse distinct ethical and moral questions and challenges arise. These concerns inevitably imply some involvement of the state that has to intervene through stewardship and governance. In doing so governments seek to promote (aggregate) utility, increase value for money, and foster health equity, while adhering to principles of distributive and procedural justice (Hecht et al. 2019). Globally nations have found a wealth of ways to reach and improve on these objectives. “Moral justifications for public health activities, including overall benefit, collective efficiency, distributive fairness, and harm prevention, are considered by way of examining global human resources for health, with an eye to efficiency, equity, rights, and other ethical issues” (Merritt & Hyder 2019, p. 109). In striving for justice “we must also consider how to distribute whatever is measured. Noncorrelative principles do not try to correlate how much each individual receives with other facts about that individual, whereas correlative principles do” (Persad 2019, p. 36).

Public health aims to mitigate the negative effects of socio-economic determinants of health outcomes, as well as countering health disparities (Venkatapuram 2019). These patterns and gradients, which harm individual, community and public health, are even exacerbated for vulnerable, high-risk and marginalised populations. Such health “stressors may include historic injustices, discrimination and stigmatization, and unique social or physical needs, limitations, or vulnerabilities. […] Included groups are ageing populations, children and adolescents, persons with mental illness, persons with disabilities, sexual and gender minorities, and immigrants and refugees” (Bernheim &...