VAMC-level statistics on the prevalence, mental health utilization, non-mental health utilization, mental health workload, and psychological testing of Veterans with a possible or confirmed diagnosis of mental illness. Information prepared by the VA Northeast Program Evaluation Center (NEPEC) for fiscal year 2015. This dataset is no longer supported and is provided as-is. Any historical knowledge regarding meta data or it's creation is no longer available. All known information is proved as part of this data set.

A subset of the FY13 National Veteran Health Equity Report, filtered by mental illness.

The National Veteran Health Equity Report details patterns and provides comparative rates of health conditions for vulnerable Veteran groups. Specifically, this report is designed to provide basic comparative information on the sociodemographics, utilization patterns and rates of diagnosed health conditions among the groups over which the VHA Office of Health Equity (OHE) has responsibility with respect to monitoring, evaluating and acting on identified disparities in access, use, care, quality and outcomes. The report allows the VA, Veterans, and stakeholders to monitor the care vulnerable Veterans receive and set goals for improving their care.

This data set includes monthly counts and rates (per 1,000 beneficiaries) of behavioral health services, including emergency department services, inpatient services, intensive outpatient/partial hospitalizations, outpatient services, or services delivered through telehealth, provided to Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries, by state. Users can filter by either mental health disorder or substance use disorder.

These metrics are based on data in the T-MSIS Analytic Files (TAF). Some states have serious data quality issues for one or more months, making the data unusable for calculating behavioral health services measures. To assess data quality, analysts adapted measures featured in the DQ Atlas. Data for a state and month are considered unusable if at least one of the following topics meets the DQ Atlas threshold for unusable: Total Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment, Claims Volume - IP, Claims Volume - OT, Diagnosis Code - IP, Diagnosis Code - OT. Please refer to the DQ Atlas at http://medicaid.gov/dq-atlas for more information about data quality assessment methods. Cells with a value of “DQ” indicate that data were suppressed due to unusable data.

Some cells have a value of “DS”. This indicates that data were suppressed for confidentiality reasons because the group included fewer than 11 beneficiaries.

The Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) program of research was initiated in response to the 1977 report of the President's Commission on Mental Health. The purpose was to collect data on the prevalence and incidence of mental disorders and on the use of and need for services by the mentally ill. The ECA Survey is the largest and most comprehensive survey of mental disorders ever conducted in the United States. The scope and complexity of the survey design were made possible because of the confluence of the recent standardization of psychiatric diagnostic criteria and the availability of advanced computer data processing systems. Independent research teams at five universities (Yale, Johns Hopkins, Washington University, Duke University, and University of California at Los Angeles), in collaboration with NIMH, conducted the studies with a core of common questions and sample characteristics. The sites were areas that had previously been designated as Community Mental Health Center catchment areas (New Haven, CN, Baltimore, MD, St. Louis, MO, Durham, NC, and Los Angeles, CA). The ECA encompassed a Household Survey and an Institutional Survey at each site, with two waves of personal interviews administered one year apart and a brief telephone interview in between. The structured psychiatric diagnostic interview used in the ECA was the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS), version III (with the exception of the Yale Wave I survey, which used version II). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edition (DSM-III) diagnoses derived from the DIS include manic episode, major depressive episode, dysthymia, bipolar disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence, drug abuse or dependence, schizophrenia, schizophreniform, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, somatization, panic, antisocial personality, and anorexia nervosa. The DIS elicits diagnoses across the respondent's full life span and also indicates when symptoms appeared during the last year (within last two weeks, last month, last six months, and last full year). The DIS uses the Mini-Mental State Examination to screen, when respondents appear confused, for cognitive impairment and inability to complete the interview, and continuation by a proxy interview.

ContextDespite the high prevalence of work disability due to common mental disorders (CMD), no information exists on the rates and predictors of recurrence in a United States population.ObjectiveTo estimate recurrent work disability statistics and evaluate factors associated with recurrence due to CMDs including adjustment, anxiety, bipolar, and depressive disorders.MethodsRecurrent work disability statistics were calculated using a nationwide database of disability claims. For the CMDs, univariate and multiple variable analyses were used to examine demographic factors and comorbidities associated with the time to recurrence.ResultsOf the CMDs, cases with bipolar (n = 3,017) and depressive disorders (n = 20,058) had the highest recurrence densities, 98.7 and 70.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively. These rates were more than three times higher than recurrence rates for other chronic disorders (e.g., diabetes, asthma; n = 105,558) and non-chronic disorders (e.g., injury, acute illnesses; n = 153,786). Individuals with CMD were also more likely to have a subsequent disability distinct from their mental health condition. Risk factors for recurrent CMD disability included being younger, being an hourly employee, living in a geographic area with more college graduates, having more previous psychiatric visits, having a previous work leave, and the type of work industry.ConclusionsResults indicate that CMD patients may benefit from additional care and disability management both during and after their work absence to help prevent subsequent CMD and non-CMD related leaves.

Overview

The Associated Press is sharing data from the COVID Impact Survey, which provides statistics about physical health, mental health, economic security and social dynamics related to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States.

Conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation, the probability-based survey provides estimates for the United States as a whole, as well as in 10 states (California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Oregon and Texas) and eight metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Phoenix and Pittsburgh).

The survey is designed to allow for an ongoing gauge of public perception, health and economic status to see what is shifting during the pandemic. When multiple sets of data are available, it will allow for the tracking of how issues ranging from COVID-19 symptoms to economic status change over time.

The survey is focused on three core areas of research:

• Physical Health: Symptoms related to COVID-19, relevant existing conditions and health insurance coverage.
• Economic and Financial Health: Employment, food security, and government cash assistance.
• Social and Mental Health: Communication with friends and family, anxiety and volunteerism. (Questions based on those used on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.) ## Using this Data - IMPORTANT This is survey data and must be properly weighted during analysis: DO NOT REPORT THIS DATA AS RAW OR AGGREGATE NUMBERS!!

Instead, use our queries linked below or statistical software such as R or SPSS to weight the data.

Queries

If you'd like to create a table to see how people nationally or in your state or city feel about a topic in the survey, use the survey questionnaire and codebook to match a question (the variable label) to a variable name. For instance, "How often have you felt lonely in the past 7 days?" is variable "soc5c".

Nationally: Go to this query and enter soc5c as the variable. Hit the blue Run Query button in the upper right hand corner.

Local or State: To find figures for that response in a specific state, go to this query and type in a state name and soc5c as the variable, and then hit the blue Run Query button in the upper right hand corner.

The resulting sentence you could write out of these queries is: "People in some states are less likely to report loneliness than others. For example, 66% of Louisianans report feeling lonely on none of the last seven days, compared with 52% of Californians. Nationally, 60% of people said they hadn't felt lonely."

Margin of Error

The margin of error for the national and regional surveys is found in the attached methods statement. You will need the margin of error to determine if the comparisons are statistically significant. If the difference is:

• At least twice the margin of error, you can report there is a clear difference.
• At least as large as the margin of error, you can report there is a slight or apparent difference.
• Less than or equal to the margin of error, you can report that the respondents are divided or there is no difference. ## A Note on Timing Survey results will generally be posted under embargo on Tuesday evenings. The data is available for release at 1 p.m. ET Thursdays.

About the Data

The survey data will be provided under embargo in both comma-delimited and statistical formats.

Each set of survey data will be numbered and have the date the embargo lifts in front of it in the format of: 01_April_30_covid_impact_survey. The survey has been organized by the Data Foundation, a non-profit non-partisan think tank, and is sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the Packard Foundation. It is conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, a non-partisan research organization. (NORC is not an abbreviation, it part of the organization's formal name.)

Data for the national estimates are collected using the AmeriSpeak Panel, NORC’s probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population. Interviews are conducted with adults age 18 and over representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Panel members are randomly drawn from AmeriSpeak with a target of achieving 2,000 interviews in each survey. Invited panel members may complete the survey online or by telephone with an NORC telephone interviewer.

Once all the study data have been made final, an iterative raking process is used to adjust for any survey nonresponse as well as any noncoverage or under and oversampling resulting from the study specific sample design. Raking variables include age, gender, census division, race/ethnicity, education, and county groupings based on county level counts of the number of COVID-19 deaths. Demographic weighting variables were obtained from the 2020 Current Population Survey. The count of COVID-19 deaths by county was obtained from USA Facts. The weighted data reflect the U.S. population of adults age 18 and over.

Data for the regional estimates are collected using a multi-mode address-based (ABS) approach that allows residents of each area to complete the interview via web or with an NORC telephone interviewer. All sampled households are mailed a postcard inviting them to complete the survey either online using a unique PIN or via telephone by calling a toll-free number. Interviews are conducted with adults age 18 and over with a target of achieving 400 interviews in each region in each survey.Additional details on the survey methodology and the survey questionnaire are attached below or can be found at https://www.covid-impact.org.

Attribution

Results should be credited to the COVID Impact Survey, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation.

AP Data Distributions

​To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

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 research project has tested a possible explanation for the Great American Crime Decline of the 1990s and especially 2000s: the increasing rates at which psychotropic drugs are prescribed, especially to children and adolescents. Psychotropic drugs are often prescribed to youth for mental health conditions that involve disruptive and impulsive behaviors and learning difficulties. The effects of these drugs are thus expected to lead to the decrease in the juveniles' involvement in delinquency and violence. The effects of two legislative changes are hypothesized to have contributed to the increased prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children growing up in families in poverty: 1) changes in eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) that made it possible for poor children to qualify for additional financial assistance due to mental health conditions (1990 and 1996), and 2) changes in school accountability rules following the passage of No Child Left Behind Act (2002) that put pressure on schools in some low-income areas to qualify academically challenged students as having ADHD or other learning disabilities.

The objectives of the project are: 1) to assemble a data set, using state-level data from various publicly available sources, containing information about trends in juvenile delinquency and violence, trends in psychotropic drug prescribing to children and adolescents, and various control variables associated with these two sets of trends; 2) to test the proposed hypotheses about the effect of increasing psychotropic medication prescribing to children and adolescents on juvenile delinquency and violence, using the assembled data set; and 3) to disseminate the scientific knowledge gained through this study among criminal justice researchers, psychiatric and public health scientists, as well as among a wider audience of practitioners and the general public. This collection includes one SPSS file (Dataset_NIJ_GRANT_2014-R2-CX-0003_DV-IV_3-29-17.sav; n=1,275, 113 variables) and one Word syntax file (doc36775-0001_syntax.docx).

ObjectivePandemic-associated stress may have exacerbated preexisting mental health and substance use disorders (MH/SUD) and caused new MH/SUD diagnoses which would be expected to lead to an increase in visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for these conditions. This study assessed whether the proportion of hospital and emergency department encounters for MH/SUD diagnoses increased during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.MethodsWe conducted a longitudinal (interrupted time series) analysis of 994,724 eligible encounters identified by electronic query between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2021. Of these, 55,574 encounters involved MH/SUD diagnosis. The pre-pandemic period was defined as January 1, 2016 to March 31, 2020, and the pandemic period was defined as April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. All statistical analyses were performed with R.ResultsNo significant trend in MH/SUD encounters at baseline (rate ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.99–1.01, p = 0.75) was observed. However, the onset of the pandemic was temporally associated with a significant level increase in the proportion of MH/SUD encounters relative to overall encounters (rate ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.06–1.21, p

These data are being released in BETA version to facilitate early access to the study for research purposes. This collection has not been fully processed by NACDA or ICPSR at this time; the original materials provided by the principal investigator were minimally processed and converted to other file types for ease of use. As the study is further processed and given enhanced features by ICPSR, users will be able to access the updated versions of the study. Please report any data errors or problems to user support and we will work with you to resolve any data related issues. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted annually and sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the U.S. Public Health Service. The purpose of the NHIS is to obtain information about the amount and distribution of illness, its effects in terms of disability and chronic impairments, and the kinds of health services people receive across the United States population through the collection and analysis of data on a broad range of health topics. The redesigned NHIS questionnaire introduced in 1997 (see National Health Interview Survey, 1997 [ICPSR 2954]) consists of a core that remains largely unchanged from year to year, plus an assortment of supplements varying from year to year. The 2010 NHIS Core consists of three modules: Family, Sample Adult, and Sample Child. The datasets derived from these modules include Household Level, Family Level, Person Level, Injury/Poison Episode Level, Injury/Poison Verbatim Level, Sample Adult Level, and Sample Child level. The 2010 NHIS supplements consist of stand alone datasets for Cancer Level and Quality of Life data derived from the Sample Adult core and Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level derived from the Family core questionnaire. Additional supplementary questions can be found in the Sample Child dataset on the topics of cancer, immunization, mental health, and mental health services and in the Sample Adult dataset on the topics of epilepsy, immunization, and occupational health. Part 1, Household Level, contains data on type of living quarters, number of families in the household responding and not responding, and the month and year of the interview for each sampling unit. Parts 2-5 are based on the Family Core questionnaire. Part 2, Family Level, provides information on all family members with respect to family size, family structure, health status, limitation of daily activities, cognitive impairment, health conditions, doctor visits, hospital stays, health care access and utilization, employment, income, participation in government assistance programs, and basic demographic information. Part 3, Person Level, includes information on sex, age, race, marital status, education, family income, major activities, health status, health care costs, activity limits, and employment status. Parts 4 and 5, Injury/Poisoning Episode Level and Injury/Poisoning Verbatim Level, consist of questions about injuries and poisonings that resulted in medical consultations for any family members and contains information about the external cause and nature of the injury or poisoning episode and what the person was doing at the time of the injury or poisoning episode, in addition to the date and place of occurrence. A randomly-selected adult in each family was interviewed for Part 6, Sample Adult Level, regarding specific health issues, the relation between employment and health, health status, health care and doctor visits, limitation of daily activities, immunizations, and behaviors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Demographic information, including occupation and industry, also was collected. The respondents to Part 6 also completed Part 7, Cancer Level, which consists of a set of supplemental questions about diet and nutrition, physical activity, tobacco, cancer screening, genetic testing, family history, and survivorship. Part 8, Sample Child Level, provides information from an adult in the household on medical conditions of one child in the household, such as developmental or intellectual disabilities, respiratory problems, seizures, allergies, and use of special equipment like hearing aids, braces, or wheelchairs. Parts 9 through 13 comprise the additional Supplements and Paradata for the 2010 NHIS. Part 9, Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level

This data set includes annual counts and percentages of Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollees who received mental health (MH) or substance use disorder (SUD) services, overall and by six subpopulation topics: age group, sex or gender identity, race and ethnicity, urban or rural residence, eligibility category, and primary language. These results were generated using Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) Analytic Files (TAF) Release 1 data and the Race/Ethnicity Imputation Companion File. This data set includes Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, ages 12 to 64 at the end of the calendar year, who were not dually eligible for Medicare and were continuously enrolled with comprehensive benefits for 12 months, with no more than one gap in enrollment exceeding 45 days. Enrollees who received services for both an MH condition and SUD in the year are counted toward both condition categories. Enrollees in Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and select states with TAF data quality issues are not included. Results shown for the race and ethnicity subpopulation topic exclude enrollees in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Results shown for the primary language subpopulation topic exclude select states with data quality issues with the primary language variable in TAF. Some rows in the data set have a value of "DS," which indicates that data were suppressed according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Cell Suppression Policy for values between 1 and 10. This data set is based on the brief: "Medicaid and CHIP enrollees who received mental health or SUD services in 2020." Enrollees are assigned to an age group subpopulation using age as of December 31st of the calendar year. Enrollees are assigned to a sex or gender identity subpopulation using their latest reported sex in the calendar year. Enrollees are assigned to a race and ethnicity subpopulation using the state-reported race and ethnicity information in TAF when it is available and of good quality; if it is missing or unreliable, race and ethnicity is indirectly estimated using an enhanced version of Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) (Race and ethnicity of the national Medicaid and CHIP population in 2020). Enrollees are assigned to an urban or rural subpopulation based on the 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) code associated with their home or mailing address ZIP code in TAF (Rural Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in 2020). Enrollees are assigned to an eligibility category subpopulation using their latest reported eligibility group code, CHIP code, and age in the calendar year. Enrollees are assigned to a primary language subpopulation based on their reported ISO language code in TAF (English/missing, Spanish, and all other language codes) (Primary Language). Please refer to the full brief for additional context about the methodology and detailed findings. Future updates to this data set will include more recent data years as the TAF data become available.

This report presents findings from the third (wave 3) in a series of follow up reports to the 2017 Mental Health of Children and Young People (MHCYP) survey, conducted in 2022. The sample includes 2,866 of the children and young people who took part in the MHCYP 2017 survey. The mental health of children and young people aged 7 to 24 years living in England in 2022 is examined, as well as their household circumstances, and their experiences of education, employment and services and of life in their families and communities. Comparisons are made with 2017, 2020 (wave 1) and 2021 (wave 2), where possible, to monitor changes over time.

A survey from 2023-2024 of college students in the United States found that the most common mental disorders that college students have been diagnosed with are anxiety disorders and depression or other mood disorders. Around ** percent of the college students surveyed at that time reported they had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder at some point in their lifetime. Depression among college students Although college can be an exciting time, it can also be stressful and difficult. College students are often faced with new challenges related to living alone, their academic performance, the financial burden of attending college, and new social interactions. Therefore, anxiety and symptoms of depression are not uncommon among college students. In fact, it is estimated that up to ** percent of college students in the U.S. had symptoms of depression in 2023. Thankfully, depressive symptoms can usually be successfully treated through therapy, medication, lifestyle changes, or a combination of these. However, if left untreated depression can lead to thoughts of suicide or self-harm. A survey from 2023, found that up to ** percent of U.S. college students had thoughts of suicide in the past year. Mental health help on campus Many colleges in the United States have recognized the stress and anxiety that students can experience and now offer mental health resources on campus. However, barriers to access mental health services still exist. For example, as of 2024, around ** percent of surveyed college students in the U.S. indicated that they were not sure where on their campus to seek professional help for their mental or emotional health. Furthermore, around ** percent of students stated that they received fewer mental or emotional health services than they otherwise would have due to not having enough time for such services, while ** percent said they received fewer services due to financial reasons.

The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) Health Center Component, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), collects annual data on visits to health centers to describe patterns of utilization and provision of ambulatory care delivery in the United States. Data are collected from federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and FQHC look-alikes from all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and are used to develop nationally representative estimates. The data include preliminary, biannual counts and rates of health center visits from January 2022-June 2024 by medical diagnosis chapters, maternal and reproductive health-related diagnoses, mental health disorders, and respiratory conditions, stratified by selected patient characteristics. Estimates are split into biannual time periods (January to June, and July to December) and are considered preliminary, meaning they may differ from final estimates.

The Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES) were initiated in recognition of the need for contemporary, comprehensive epidemiological data regarding the distributions, correlates and risk factors of mental disorders among the general population with special emphasis on minority groups. The primary objective of the CPES was to collect data about the prevalence of mental disorders, impairments associated with these disorders, and their treatment patterns from representative samples of majority and minority adult populations in the United States. Secondary goals were to obtain information about language use and ethnic disparities, support systems, discrimination and assimilation, in order to examine whether and how closely various mental health disorders are linked to social and cultural issues. To this end, CPES joins together three nationally representative surveys: the NATIONAL COMORBIDITY SURVEY REPLICATION (NCS-R), the NATIONAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LIFE (NSAL), and the NATIONAL LATINO AND ASIAN AMERICAN STUDY (NLAAS). These surveys collectively provide the first national data with sufficient power to investigate cultural and ethnic influences on mental disorders. In this manner, CPES permits analysts to approach analysis of the combined dataset as though it were a single, nationally representative survey. Each of the CPES surveys has been documented in a comprehensive and flexible manner that promotes cross-survey linking of key data and scientific constructs.

Abstract (en): 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. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Standardized missing values.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. State laws require certain substance abuse treatment programs to report all of their admissions and discharges to the State. In all States, treatment programs receiving any public funds are required to provide the data on both publicly and privately funded clients. In some States, programs that do not receive public funds are required to provide data as well. On the other hand, there are some instances in which information is provided only for clients whose treatment is funded through public monies. TEDS collects this data from the States on all admissions and discharges aged 12 or older. TEDS-D presents data on the discharges, as well as the data for the discharges that was collected at admission. Smallest Geographic Unit: Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 2013-11-27 Updated and released variable-level ddi file.2012-11-02 The data for this collection have been updated with a new data extract, current as of October 10, 2011.2012-01-30 Changes were made to provide greater utility to the dataset. The variables DETNLF and DETCRIM have been modified in how they were previously recoded. The recode table in the codebooks now show the original percentages of each value for select variables. The order of the variables in the dataset now coincides with the order of the variables in the codebook.2011-02-10 Cases where age was missing have been excluded from the dataset. Minor changes to some variable labels...

This data set includes annual counts and percentages of Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollees who received mental health (MH) or substance use disorder (SUD) services, overall and by six subpopulation topics: age group, sex or gender identity, race and ethnicity, urban or rural residence, eligibility category, and primary language. These results were generated using Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) Analytic Files (TAF) Release 1 data and the Race/Ethnicity Imputation Companion File. This data set includes Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, ages 12 to 64 at the end of the calendar year, who were not dually eligible for Medicare and were continuously enrolled with comprehensive benefits for 12 months, with no more than one gap in enrollment exceeding 45 days. Enrollees who received services for both an MH condition and SUD in the year are counted toward both condition categories. Enrollees in Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and select states with TAF data quality issues are not included. Results shown for the race and ethnicity subpopulation topic exclude enrollees in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Results shown for the primary language subpopulation topic exclude select states with data quality issues with the primary language variable in TAF. Some rows in the data set have a value of "DS," which indicates that data were suppressed according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Cell Suppression Policy for values between 1 and 10. This data set is based on the brief: "Medicaid and CHIP enrollees who received mental health or SUD services in 2020." Enrollees are assigned to an age group subpopulation using age as of December 31st of the calendar year. Enrollees are assigned to a sex or gender identity subpopulation using their latest reported sex in the calendar year. Enrollees are assigned to a race and ethnicity subpopulation using the state-reported race and ethnicity information in TAF when it is available and of good quality; if it is missing or unreliable, race and ethnicity is indirectly estimated using an enhanced version of Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) (Race and ethnicity of the national Medicaid and CHIP population in 2020). Enrollees are assigned to an urban or rural subpopulation based on the 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) code associated with their home or mailing address ZIP code in TAF (Rural Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in 2020). Enrollees are assigned to an eligibility category subpopulation using their latest reported eligibility group code, CHIP code, and age in the calendar year. Enrollees are assigned to a primary language subpopulation based on their reported ISO language code in TAF (English/missing, Spanish, and all other language codes) (Primary Language). Please refer to the full brief for additional context about the methodology and detailed findings. Future updates to this data set will include more recent data years as the TAF data become available.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) provides national and state-level data on the use of tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs (including non-medical use of prescription drugs) and mental health in the United States. This annual survey involves interviews with approximately 70,000 randomly selected individuals. The survey cohort consists of U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population aged 12 years and older and includes residents in group quarters such as college dormitories, group homes, shelters, rooming houses, and military bases. Interviews are conducted in participants’ homes facilitated via the use of Computer Assisted Interviewing (CAI). NSDUH is sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an agency of the U.S. Public Health Service in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

This dataset shows daily confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19 in New York City by date of specimen collection. Total cases has been calculated as the sum of daily confirmed and probable cases. Seven-day averages of confirmed, probable, and total cases are also included in the dataset. A person is classified as a confirmed COVID-19 case if they test positive with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT, also known as a molecular test; e.g. a PCR test). A probable case is a person who meets the following criteria with no positive molecular test on record: a) test positive with an antigen test, b) have symptoms and an exposure to a confirmed COVID-19 case, or c) died and their cause of death is listed as COVID-19 or similar. As of June 9, 2021, people who meet the definition of a confirmed or probable COVID-19 case >90 days after a previous positive test (date of first positive test) or probable COVID-19 onset date will be counted as a new case. Prior to June 9, 2021, new cases were counted ≥365 days after the first date of specimen collection or clinical diagnosis. Any person with a residence outside of NYC is not included in counts. Data is sourced from electronic laboratory reporting from the New York State Electronic Clinical Laboratory Reporting System to the NYC Health Department. All identifying health information is excluded from the dataset.

These data are used to evaluate the overall number of confirmed and probable cases by day (seven day average) to track the trajectory of the pandemic. Cases are classified by the date that the case occurred. NYC COVID-19 data include people who live in NYC. Any person with a residence outside of NYC is not included.

Abstract (en): 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. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Standardized missing values.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. State laws require certain substance abuse treatment programs to report all of their admissions and discharges to the State. In all States, treatment programs receiving any public funds are required to provide the data on both publicly and privately funded clients. In some States, programs that do not receive public funds are required to provide data as well. On the other hand, there are some instances in which information is provided only for clients whose treatment is funded through public monies. TEDS collects this data from the States on all admissions and discharges aged 12 or older. TEDS-A presents only the admission data. Smallest Geographic Unit: Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 2014-09-11 Recoded Midwest value in Region variable to correct value after inadvertent incorrect labeling of missing.2014-07-28 The data for this collection have been updated with a new data extract, current as of October 17, 2013 Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. record abstracts Several limitations to the data exist and should be noted: The number and client mix of TEDS records depends, to some extent, on external factors, including the availability of public funds. In states with higher funding levels, a larger percentage of the substance-abusing population may be admitted to treatment, including the less severely impaired and the less economically disadvantaged.; The primary, secondary, and tertiary substances of abuse reported to TEDS are those substances that led to the treatment episode, and not necessarily a complete enum...

(Note: Part of the content of this post was adapted from the original DIRECT Psychoradiology paper (https://academic.oup.com/psyrad/article/2/1/32/6604754) and REST-meta-MDD PNAS paper (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1900390116) under CC BY-NC-ND license.)Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is the second leading cause of health burden worldwide (1). Unfortunately, objective biomarkers to assist in diagnosis are still lacking, and current first-line treatments are only modestly effective (2, 3), reflecting our incomplete understanding of the pathophysiology of MDD. Characterizing the neurobiological basis of MDD promises to support developing more effective diagnostic approaches and treatments.An increasingly used approach to reveal neurobiological substrates of clinical conditions is termed resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (R-fMRI) (4). Despite intensive efforts to characterize the pathophysiology of MDD with R-fMRI, clinical imaging markers of diagnosis and predictors of treatment outcomes have yet to be identified. Previous reports have been inconsistent, sometimes contradictory, impeding the endeavor to translate them into clinical practice (5). One reason for inconsistent results is low statistical power from small sample size studies (6). Low-powered studies are more prone to produce false positive results, reducing the reproducibility of findings in a given field (7, 8). Of note, one recent study demonstrate that sample size of thousands of subjects may be needed to identify reproducible brain-wide association findings (9), calling for larger datasets to boost effect size. Another reason could be the high analytic flexibility (10). Recently, Botvinik-Nezer and colleagues (11) demonstrated the divergence in results when independent research teams applied different workflows to process an identical fMRI dataset, highlighting the effects of “researcher degrees of freedom” (i.e., heterogeneity in (pre-)processing methods) in producing disparate fMRI findings.To address these critical issues, we initiated the Depression Imaging REsearch ConsorTium (DIRECT) in 2017. Through a series of meetings, a group of 17 participating hospitals in China agreed to establish the first project of the DIRECT consortium, the REST-meta-MDD Project, and share 25 study cohorts, including R-fMRI data from 1300 MDD patients and 1128 normal controls. Based on prior work, a standardized preprocessing pipeline adapted from Data Processing Assistant for Resting-State fMRI (DPARSF) (12, 13) was implemented at each local participating site to minimize heterogeneity in preprocessing methods. R-fMRI metrics can be vulnerable to physiological confounds such as head motion (14, 15). Based on our previous work examination of head motion impact on R-fMRI FC connectomes (16) and other recent benchmarking studies (15, 17), DPARSF implements a regression model (Friston-24 model) on the participant-level and group-level correction for mean frame displacements (FD) as the default setting.In the REST-meta-MDD Project of the DIRECT consortium, 25 research groups from 17 hospitals in China agreed to share final R-fMRI indices from patients with MDD and matched normal controls (see Supplementary Table; henceforth “site” refers to each cohort for convenience) from studies approved by local Institutional Review Boards. The consortium contributed 2428 previously collected datasets (1300 MDDs and 1128 NCs). On average, each site contributed 52.0±52.4 patients with MDD (range 13-282) and 45.1±46.9 NCs (range 6-251). Most MDD patients were female (826 vs. 474 males), as expected. The 562 patients with first episode MDD included 318 first episode drug-naïve (FEDN) MDD and 160 scanned while receiving antidepressants (medication status unavailable for 84). Of 282 with recurrent MDD, 121 were scanned while receiving antidepressants and 76 were not being treated with medication (medication status unavailable for 85). Episodicity (first or recurrent) and medication status were unavailable for 456 patients.To improve transparency and reproducibility, our analysis code has been openly shared at https://github.com/Chaogan-Yan/PaperScripts/tree/master/Yan_2019_PNAS. In addition, we would like to share the R-fMRI indices of the 1300 MDD patients and 1128 NCs through the R-fMRI Maps Project (http://rfmri.org/REST-meta-MDD). These data derivatives will allow replication, secondary analyses and discovery efforts while protecting participant privacy and confidentiality.According to the agreement of the REST-meta-MDD consortium, there would be 2 phases for sharing the brain imaging data and phenotypic data of the 1300 MDD patients and 1128 NCs. 1) Phase 1: coordinated sharing, before January 1, 2020. To reduce conflict of the researchers, the consortium will review and coordinate the proposals submitted by interested researchers. The interested researchers first send a letter of intent to rfmrilab@gmail.com. Then the consortium will send all the approved proposals to the applicant. The applicant should submit a new innovative proposal while avoiding conflict with approved proposals. This proposal would be reviewed and approved by the consortium if no conflict. Once approved, this proposal would enter the pool of approved proposals and prevent future conflict. 2) Phase 2: unrestricted sharing, after January 1, 2020. The researchers can perform any analyses of interest while not violating ethics.The REST-meta-MDD data entered unrestricted sharing phase since January 1, 2020. The researchers can perform any analyses of interest while not violating ethics. Please visit Psychological Science Data Bank to download the data, and then sign the Data Use Agreement and email the scanned signed copy to rfmrilab@gmail.com to get unzip password and phenotypic information. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFC1309902), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81671774, 81630031, 81471740 and 81371488), the Hundred Talents Program and the 13th Five-year Informatization Plan (XXH13505) of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission (Z161100000216152, Z171100000117016, Z161100002616023 and Z171100000117012), Department of Science and Technology, Zhejiang Province (2015C03037) and the National Basic Research (973) Program (2015CB351702). REFERENCES1. A. J. Ferrari et al., Burden of Depressive Disorders by Country, Sex, Age, and Year: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. PLOS Medicine 10, e1001547 (2013).2. L. M. Williams et al., International Study to Predict Optimized Treatment for Depression (iSPOT-D), a randomized clinical trial: rationale and protocol. Trials 12, 4 (2011).3. S. J. Borowsky et al., Who is at risk of nondetection of mental health problems in primary care? J Gen Intern Med 15, 381-388 (2000).4. B. B. Biswal, Resting state fMRI: a personal history. Neuroimage 62, 938-944 (2012).5. C. G. Yan et al., Reduced default mode network functional connectivity in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116, 9078-9083 (2019).6. K. S. Button et al., Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14, 365-376 (2013).7. J. P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine 2, e124 (2005).8. R. A. Poldrack et al., Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research. Nat Rev Neurosci 10.1038/nrn.2016.167 (2017).9. S. Marek et al., Reproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals. Nature 603, 654-660 (2022).10. J. Carp, On the Plurality of (Methodological) Worlds: Estimating the Analytic Flexibility of fMRI Experiments. Frontiers in Neuroscience 6, 149 (2012).11. R. Botvinik-Nezer et al., Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams. Nature 10.1038/s41586-020-2314-9 (2020).12. C.-G. Yan, X.-D. Wang, X.-N. Zuo, Y.-F. Zang, DPABI: Data Processing & Analysis for (Resting-State) Brain Imaging. Neuroinformatics 14, 339-351 (2016).13. C.-G. Yan, Y.-F. Zang, DPARSF: A MATLAB Toolbox for "Pipeline" Data Analysis of Resting-State fMRI. Frontiers in systems neuroscience 4, 13 (2010).14. R. Ciric et al., Mitigating head motion artifact in functional connectivity MRI. Nature protocols 13, 2801-2826 (2018).15. R. Ciric et al., Benchmarking of participant-level confound regression strategies for the control of motion artifact in studies of functional connectivity. NeuroImage 154, 174-187 (2017).16. C.-G. Yan et al., A comprehensive assessment of regional variation in the impact of head micromovements on functional connectomics. NeuroImage 76, 183-201 (2013).17. L. Parkes, B. Fulcher, M. Yücel, A. Fornito, An evaluation of the efficacy, reliability, and sensitivity of motion correction strategies for resting-state functional MRI. NeuroImage 171, 415-436 (2018).18. L. Wang et al., Interhemispheric functional connectivity and its relationships with clinical characteristics in major depressive disorder: a resting state fMRI study. PLoS One 8, e60191 (2013).19. L. Wang et al., The effects of antidepressant treatment on resting-state functional brain networks in patients with major depressive disorder. Hum Brain Mapp 36, 768-778 (2015).20. Y. Liu et al., Regional homogeneity associated with overgeneral autobiographical memory of first-episode treatment-naive patients with major depressive disorder in the orbitofrontal cortex: A resting-state fMRI study. J Affect Disord 209, 163-168 (2017).21. X. Zhu et al., Evidence of a dissociation pattern in resting-state default mode network connectivity in first-episode, treatment-naive major depression patients. Biological psychiatry 71, 611-617 (2012).22. W. Guo et al., Abnormal default-mode