Data on drug overdose death rates, by drug type and selected population characteristics. Please refer to the PDF or Excel version of this table in the HUS 2019 Data Finder (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/contents2019.htm) for critical information about measures, definitions, and changes over time. SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, numerator data from annual public-use Mortality Files; denominator data from U.S. Census Bureau national population estimates; and Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Arias E, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: Final data for 2018. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 69 no 13. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.2021. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm. For more information on the National Vital Statistics System, see the corresponding Appendix entry at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus19-appendix-508.pdf.

This data presents provisional counts for drug overdose deaths based on a current flow of mortality data in the National Vital Statistics System. Counts for the most recent final annual data are provided for comparison. National provisional counts include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia as of the date specified and may not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period. Provisional counts are often incomplete and causes of death may be pending investigation resulting in an underestimate relative to final counts. To address this, methods were developed to adjust provisional counts for reporting delays by generating a set of predicted provisional counts. Several data quality metrics, including the percent completeness in overall death reporting, percentage of deaths with cause of death pending further investigation, and the percentage of drug overdose deaths with specific drugs or drug classes reported are included to aid in interpretation of provisional data as these measures are related to the accuracy of provisional counts. Reporting of the specific drugs and drug classes involved in drug overdose deaths varies by jurisdiction, and comparisons of death rates involving specific drugs across selected jurisdictions should not be made. Provisional data presented will be updated on a monthly basis as additional records are received. For more information please visit: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm

Annual number of deaths registered related to drug poisoning, by local authority, England and Wales.

Total number of accidental overdose deaths in Pierce County

Source: Office of State Medical Examiners (OSME), Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH)Note: Rates are calculated using CDC WONDER single-race population estimates for each year (Obtained September 9, 2022) . 2021 rates are applied to 2022. The rate is the number of deaths, divided by the total population for each category, multiplied by 100,000. Hispanic or Latino includes people who identify as any race. All other racial and ethnic groups include people who identify as non-Hispanic ethnicity or have unknown ethnicity. People whose race was "Unknown" or "Asian" have been excluded. Data are limited to accidental drug overdose deaths pronounced in Rhode Island among Rhode Island residents. Some data have been suppressed due to unstable rates.

EMSIndicators:The number of individual patients administered naloxone by EMSThe number of naloxone administrations by EMSThe rate of EMS calls involving naloxone administrations per 10,000 residentsData Source:The Vermont Statewide Incident Reporting Network (SIREN) is a comprehensive electronic prehospital patient care data collection, analysis, and reporting system. EMS reporting serves several important functions, including legal documentation, quality improvement initiatives, billing, and evaluation of individual and agency performance measures.Law Enforcement Indicators:The Number of law enforcement responses to accidental opioid-related non-fatal overdosesData Source:The Drug Monitoring Initiative (DMI) was established by the Vermont Intelligence Center (VIC) in an effort to combat the opioid epidemic in Vermont. It serves as a repository of drug data for Vermont and manages overdose and seizure databases. Notes:Overdose data provided in this dashboard are derived from multiple sources and should be considered preliminary and therefore subject to change. Overdoses included are those that Vermont law enforcement responded to. Law enforcement personnel do not respond to every overdose, and therefore, the numbers in this report are not representative of all overdoses in the state. The overdoses included are limited to those that are suspected to have been caused, at least in part, by opioids. Inclusion is based on law enforcement's perception and representation in Records Management Systems (RMS). All Vermont law enforcement agencies are represented, with the exception of Norwich Police Department, Hartford Police Department, and Windsor Police Department, due to RMS access. Questions regarding this dataset can be directed to the Vermont Intelligence Center at dps.vicdrugs@vermont.gov.Overdoses Indicators:The number of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deathsThe number of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deaths with cocaine involvementThe percent of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deaths with cocaine involvementThe rate of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deathsThe rate of heroin nonfatal overdose per 10,000 ED visitsThe rate of opioid nonfatal overdose per 10,000 ED visitsThe rate of stimulant nonfatal overdose per 10,000 ED visitsData Source:Vermont requires towns to report all births, marriages, and deaths. These records, particularly birth and death records are used to study and monitor the health of a population. Deaths are reported via the Electronic Death Registration System. Vermont publishes annual Vital Statistics reports.The Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-based Epidemics (ESSENCE) captures and analyzes recent Emergency Department visit data for trends and signals of abnormal activity that may indicate the occurrence of significant public health events.Population Health Indicators:The percent of adolescents in grades 6-8 who used marijuana in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who used marijuana in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who drank any alcohol in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who binge drank in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who misused any prescription medications in the past 30 daysThe percent of adults who consumed alcohol in the past 30 daysThe percent of adults who binge drank in the past 30 daysThe percent of adults who used marijuana in the past 30 daysData Sources:The Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) is part of a national school-based surveillance system conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The YRBS monitors health risk behaviors that contribute to the leading causes of death and disability among youth and young adults.The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a telephone survey conducted annually among adults 18 and older. The Vermont BRFSS is completed by the Vermont Department of Health in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Notes:Prevalence estimates and trends for the 2021 Vermont YRBS were likely impacted by significant factors unique to 2021, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the delay of the survey administration period resulting in a younger population completing the survey. Students who participated in the 2021 YRBS may have had a different educational and social experience compared to previous participants. Disruptions, including remote learning, lack of social interactions, and extracurricular activities, are likely reflected in the survey results. As a result, no trend data is included in the 2021 report and caution should be used when interpreting and comparing the 2021 results to other years.The Vermont Department of Health (VDH) seeks to promote destigmatizing and equitable language. While the VDH uses the term "cannabis" to reflect updated terminology, the data sources referenced in this data brief use the term "marijuana" to refer to cannabis. Prescription Drugs Indicators:The average daily MMEThe average day's supplyThe average day's supply for opioid analgesic prescriptionsThe number of prescriptionsThe percent of the population receiving at least one prescriptionThe percent of prescriptionsThe proportion of opioid analgesic prescriptionsThe rate of prescriptions per 100 residentsData Source:The Vermont Prescription Monitoring System (VPMS) is an electronic data system that collects information on Schedule II-IV controlled substance prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies. VPMS proactively safeguards public health and safety while supporting the appropriate use of controlled substances. The program helps healthcare providers improve patient care. VPMS data is also a health statistics tool that is used to monitor statewide trends in the dispensing of prescriptions.Treatment Indicators:The number of times a new substance use disorder is diagnosed (Medicaid recipients index events)The number of times substance use disorder treatment is started within 14 days of diagnosis (Medicaid recipients initiation events)The number of times two or more treatment services are provided within 34 days of starting treatment (Medicaid recipients engagement events)The percent of times substance use disorder treatment is started within 14 days of diagnosis (Medicaid recipients initiation rate)The percent of times two or more treatment services are provided within 34 days of starting treatment (Medicaid recipients engagement rate)The MOUD treatment rate per 10,000 peopleThe number of people who received MOUD treatmentData Source:Vermont Medicaid ClaimsThe Vermont Prescription Monitoring System (VPMS)Substance Abuse Treatment Information System (SATIS)

The primary data source for this study is the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS), which in 2001 defined a representative cohort of c.28% of the population. It is formed from the linkage of the universal Health Card registration system, 2001 Census returns, and vital statistics data. NILS contains a unique Health and Care Number that enables linkage to other health service databases. It is maintained by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). The 2001 Census records provided most of the attributes of the NILS cohort members, also contextual information relating to household composition and interpersonal relationships, and characteristics of the household and area of residence.

The vital events linked to NILS were used to determine whether a cohort member had been bereaved between April 2001 (the time of the Census) and the end of December 2009. The 2001 Census asked questions about relationship to other people living in the household, these questions were used to determine who a cohort member lived with, and the vital events records identified co-resident family members’ deaths. Approximately 96% of death records are routinely linked to the NILS dataset using a mixture of exact and probabilistic matching.

Data relating to medications that have been prescribed by a General Practitioner and dispensed from community pharmacies have been collated centrally in an Enhanced Prescribing Database (EPD) since 2009. Each prescription record contains the individual’s Health and Care Number, a General Practice (GP) identifier, the drug name and British National Formulary (BNF) category. Information was extracted for antidepressant and anxiolytic medications (BNF categories 4.1.2 and 4.3) for the period January 1st to February 28th 2010. Health and Care Number allowed exact matching between prescribing and NILS records. The linkage process was carried out by the EPD and NILS data custodians. The linked dataset was then anonymised before being supplied to the researchers, and was held in a secure setting (9). At no time were patient identifiable data available.

The data used for the Grief study is not publicly available, but researchers can make a request to link data for themselves by contacting the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study Research Support Unit

Everybody will face bereavement at some stage; but for some people, this can be a more difficult process. There are many factors that can influence how people cope with the loss of a loved one, including level of family support, financial resources, stress, and the circumstances surrounding death.By studying use of prescription medications to help with mental health, we can get a better understanding of how factors such as age, gender, family support, employment and religion affect how people cope after bereavement. By looking at circumstances of bereavement this study will also discover if the factors that help people cope - such as family support - are more or less important depending on how they lost their loved ones.The Grief Study is based on data from the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study, this holds information on around 500,000 people. By linking this data with the Northern Ireland Mortality Study and Health and Social care information on prescriptions, the Grief Study aims to learn more about bereavement, mental health, complicated grief, and longer term outcomes for people who have lost a loved one.

Context

RxNorm is a name of a US-specific terminology in medicine that contains all medications available on US market. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RxNorm

RxNorm provides normalized names for clinical drugs and links its names to many of the drug vocabularies commonly used in pharmacy management and drug interaction software, including those of First Databank, Micromedex, Gold Standard Drug Database, and Multum. By providing links between these vocabularies, RxNorm can mediate messages between systems not using the same software and vocabulary. Source: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/rxnorm/

Content

RxNorm was created by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) to provide a normalized naming system for clinical drugs, defined as the combination of {ingredient + strength + dose form}. In addition to the naming system, the RxNorm dataset also provides structured information such as brand names, ingredients, drug classes, and so on, for each clinical drug. Typical uses of RxNorm include navigating between names and codes among different drug vocabularies and using information in RxNorm to assist with health information exchange/medication reconciliation, e-prescribing, drug analytics, formulary development, and other functions.

This public dataset includes multiple data files originally released in RxNorm Rich Release Format (RXNRRF) that are loaded into Bigquery tables. The data is updated and archived on a monthly basis.

The following tables are included in the RxNorm dataset:

• RXNCONSO contains concept and source information

• RXNREL contains information regarding relationships between entities

• RXNSAT contains attribute information

• RXNSTY contains semantic information

• RXNSAB contains source info

• RXNCUI contains retired rxcui codes

• RXNATOMARCHIVE contains archived data

• RXNCUICHANGES contains concept changes

Update Frequency: Monthly

Fork this kernel to get started with this dataset.

Acknowledgements

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/rxnorm/

https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/dataset/bigquery-public-data:nlm_rxnorm

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/public-data/rxnorm

Dataset Source: Unified Medical Language System RxNorm. The dataset is provided "AS IS" without any warranty, express or implied, from Google. Google disclaims all liability for any damages, direct or indirect, resulting from the use of the dataset. This dataset uses publicly available data from the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services; NLM is not responsible for the dataset, does not endorse or recommend this or any other dataset.

Banner Photo by @freestocks from Unsplash.

Inspiration

What are the RXCUI codes for the ingredients of a list of drugs?

Which ingredients have the most variety of dose forms?

In what dose forms is the drug phenylephrine found?

What are the ingredients of the drug labeled with the generic code number 072718?

The Estonian Drug Treatment Database is a state register which is kept on the people who have started drug treatment. The Drug Treatment Database started its work on January 1, 2008.

Collection and processing of data on these people is necessary for getting an overview on occurrence of mental and behavioural disorders related to drug use, as well as for organising of relevant health services and planning of drug abuse preventive actions. Health care institutions holding a psychiatry authorization in Estonia present data to the database if they are turned to by a patient who is diagnosed with a mental and behavioural disorder due to drug use.

On the basis of the database's data, an annual overview is compiled, giving information about drug addicts who have turned to drug treatment in the previous calendar year, about the health service provided, the patients' socio-economic background, drug use and the related risk behaviour.

The data on the Drug Treatment Database are also submitted to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

This report contains results from the latest survey of secondary school pupils in England in years 7 to 11 (mostly aged 11 to 15), focusing on smoking, drinking and drug use. It covers a range of topics including prevalence, habits, attitudes, and wellbeing. In 2023 the survey was administered online for the first time, instead of paper-based surveys as in previous years. This move online also meant that completion of the survey could be managed through teacher-led sessions, rather than being conducted by external interviewers. The 2023 survey also introduced additional questions relating to pupils wellbeing. These included how often the pupil felt lonely, felt left out and that they had no-one to talk to. Results of analysis covering these questions have been presented within parts of the report and associated data tables. The report includes this summary report showing key findings, excel tables with more detailed outcomes, technical appendices and a data quality statement. An anonymised record level file of the underlying data on which users can carry out their own analysis will be made available via the UK Data Service in early 2025 (see link below).

The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including psychotherapeutics. Respondents were also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, substance abuse treatment history, illegal activities, problems resulting from the use of drugs, need for treatment for drug or alcohol use, criminal record, and needle-sharing. Questions on mental health and access to care, which were introduced in the 1994-B questionnaire (see NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1994), were retained in this administration of the survey. Also retained was the section on risk/availability of drugs that was reintroduced in 1996, and sections on driving behavior and personal behavior were added (see NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1996). The 1997 questionnaire (NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1997) introduced new items that the 1998 NHSDA continued on cigar smoking, people who were present when respondents used marijuana or cocaine for the first time (if applicable), reasons for using these two drugs the first time, reasons for using these two drugs in the past year, reasons for discontinuing use of these two drugs (for lifetime but not past-year users), and reasons respondents never used these two drugs. Both the 1997 and 1998 NHSDAs had a series of questions that were asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These items covered a variety of topics that may be associated with substance use and related behaviors, such as exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, gang involvement, relationship with parents, and substance use by friends. Demographic data include sex, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, income level, veteran status, and current household composition. This study has 1 Data Set.

Update — December 7, 2014. – Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is not working for many reasons, for example: 1. Incorrect in their foundations (paradox): hierarchical levels of evidence are supported by opinions (i.e., lowest strength of evidence according to EBM) instead of real data collected from different types of study designs (i.e., evidence). http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1122534 2. The effect of criminal practices by pharmaceutical companies is only possible because of the complicity of others: healthcare systems, professional associations, governmental and academic institutions. Pharmaceutical companies also corrupt at the personal level, politicians and political parties are on their payroll, medical professionals seduced by different types of gifts in exchange of prescriptions (i.e., bribery) which very likely results in patients not receiving the proper treatment for their disease, many times there is no such thing: healthy persons not needing pharmacological treatments of any kind are constantly misdiagnosed and treated with unnecessary drugs. Some medical professionals are converted in K.O.L. which is only a puppet appearing on stage to spread lies to their peers, a person supposedly trained to improve the well-being of others, now deceits on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. Probably the saddest thing is that many honest doctors are being misled by these lies created by the rules of pharmaceutical marketing instead of scientific, medical, and ethical principles. Interpretation of EBM in this context was not anticipated by their creators. “The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs.” ―Peter C. Gøtzsche “doctors and their organisations should recognise that it is unethical to receive money that has been earned in part through crimes that have harmed those people whose interests doctors are expected to take care of. Many crimes would be impossible to carry out if doctors weren’t willing to participate in them.” —Peter C Gøtzsche, The BMJ, 2012, Big pharma often commits corporate crime, and this must be stopped. Pending (Colombia): Health Promoter Entities (In Spanish: EPS ―Empresas Promotoras de Salud).

1. Misinterpretations New technologies or concepts are difficult to understand in the beginning, it doesn’t matter their simplicity, we need to get used to new tools aimed to improve our professional practice. Probably the best explanation is here in these videos (credits to Antonio Villafaina for sharing these videos with me). English https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ&w=420&h=315 Spanish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApozQBrlhU&w=420&h=315 ----------------------- Hypothesis: hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are wrong Dear Editor, I have data to support the hypothesis described in the title of this letter. Before rejecting the null hypothesis I would like to ask the following open question:Could you support with data that hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are correct? (1,2) Additional explanation to this question: – Only respond to this question attaching publicly available raw data.– Be aware that more than a question this is a challenge: I have data (i.e., evidence) which is contrary to classic (i.e., McMaster) or current (i.e., Oxford) hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine. An important part of this data (but not all) is publicly available. References
2. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): The EBM challenge. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1135873
3. The EBM Challenge Day 1: No Answers. Competing interests: I endorse the principles of open data in human biomedical research Read this letter on The BMJ – August 13, 2014.http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/762595Re: Greenhalgh T, et al. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014; 348: g3725. _ Fileset contents Raw data: Excel archive: Raw data, interactive figures, and PubMed search terms. Google Spreadsheet is also available (URL below the article description). Figure 1. Unadjusted (Fig 1A) and adjusted (Fig 1B) PubMed publication trends (01/01/1992 to 30/06/2014). Figure 2. Adjusted PubMed publication trends (07/01/2008 to 29/06/2014) Figure 3. Google search trends: Jan 2004 to Jun 2014 / 1-week periods. Figure 4. PubMed publication trends (1962-2013) systematic reviews and meta-analysis, clinical trials, and observational studies.
   Figure 5. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): Infographics: Unpublished US phase 3 clinical trials (2002-2014) completed before Jan 2011 = 50.8%. figshare.http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1121675 Raw data: "13377 studies found for: Completed | Interventional Studies | Phase 3 | received from 01/01/2002 to 01/01/2014 | Worldwide". This database complies with the terms and conditions of ClinicalTrials.gov: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-site/terms-conditions Supplementary Figures (S1-S6). PubMed publication delay in the indexation processes does not explain the descending trends in the scientific output of evidence-based medicine. Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the following persons for providing valuable concepts in data visualization and infographics:
4. Maria Fernanda Ramírez. Professor of graphic design. Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia.
5. Lorena Franco. Graphic design student. Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia. Related articles by this author (Jorge H. Ramírez)
6. Ramirez JH. Lack of transparency in clinical trials: a call for action. Colomb Med (Cali) 2013;44(4):243-6. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892242
7. Ramirez JH. Re: Evidence based medicine is broken (17 June 2014). http://www.bmj.com/node/759181
8. Ramirez JH. Re: Global rules for global health: why we need an independent, impartial WHO (19 June 2014). http://www.bmj.com/node/759151
9. Ramirez JH. PubMed publication trends (1992 to 2014): evidence based medicine and clinical practice guidelines (04 July 2014). http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/759895 Recommended articles
10. Greenhalgh Trisha, Howick Jeremy,Maskrey Neal. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014;348:g3725
11. Spence Des. Evidence based medicine is broken BMJ 2014; 348:g22
12. Schünemann Holger J, Oxman Andrew D,Brozek Jan, Glasziou Paul, JaeschkeRoman, Vist Gunn E et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies BMJ 2008; 336:1106
13. Lau Joseph, Ioannidis John P A, TerrinNorma, Schmid Christopher H, OlkinIngram. The case of the misleading funnel plot BMJ 2006; 333:597
14. Moynihan R, Henry D, Moons KGM (2014) Using Evidence to Combat Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: Evaluating Treatments, Tests, and Disease Definitions in the Time of Too Much. PLoS Med 11(7): e1001655. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001655
15. Katz D. A-holistic view of evidence based medicinehttp://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/05/02/a-holistic-view-of-evidence-based-medicine/ ---

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use among Young People surveys began in 1982, under the name Smoking among Secondary Schoolchildren. The series initially aimed to provide national estimates of the proportion of secondary schoolchildren aged 11-15 who smoked, and to describe their smoking behaviour. Similar surveys were carried out every two years until 1998 to monitor trends in the prevalence of cigarette smoking. The survey then moved to an annual cycle, and questions on alcohol consumption and drug use were included. The name of the series changed to Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use among Young Teenagers to reflect this widened focus. In 2000, the series title changed, to Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use among Young People. NHS Digital (formerly the Information Centre for Health and Social Care) took over from the Department of Health as sponsors and publishers of the survey series from 2005. From 2014 onwards, the series changed to a biennial one, with no survey taking place in 2015, 2017 or 2019.

In some years, the surveys have been carried out in Scotland and Wales as well as England, to provide separate national estimates for these countries. In 2002, following a review of Scotland's future information needs in relation to drug misuse among schoolchildren, a separate Scottish series, Scottish Schools Adolescent Lifestyle and Substance Use Survey (SALSUS) was established by the Scottish Executive.

The survey uses a two-stage probability sample of schools and pupils, designed to be representative of young people aged between 11 and 15. The sample of schools is stratified by sex of intake and school type. Within these strata, the sampling frame is sorted by local authority. This design does not guarantee a representative sample of schools within all regions and so reliable estimates by region cannot currently be derived from any one year’s data.

This dataset contains regional information as well as key survey variables from the three most recent survey years, 2006 to 2008, combined and weighted to be regionally representative.

Main Topics:

The dataset includes core responses from all pupils who completed a questionnaire in survey years 2006 to 2008. Broad topics included:

• smoking
• drinking
• drug use
• attitudes to smoking, drinking and drug use
• education
• truancy and exclusion
• background information

Source: Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH)Note: Data updated quarterly. On November 1, 2019, the PDMP data were revised to reflect updates to the PDMP data analysis protocol, including revised methods for removing veterinary prescriptions, matching patients, and querying drug types. Prescriptions for buprenorphine medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder are excluded from this measure. Data for overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions are calculated differently by year or by quarter. Summing this quarterly data gives a higher number of people than the yearly prevention strategy metrics on the Track Our Action Plan data page.

The PATH Study was launched in 2011 to inform the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory activities under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The PATH Study is a collaboration between the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The study sampled over 150,000 mailing addresses across the United States to create a national sample of people who use or do not use tobacco. 45,971 adults and youth constitute the first (baseline) wave, Wave 1, of data collected by this longitudinal cohort study. These 45,971 adults and youth along with 7,207 "shadow youth" (youth ages 9 to 11 sampled at Wave 1) make up the 53,178 participants that constitute the Wave 1 Cohort. Respondents are asked to complete an interview at each follow-up wave. Youth who turn 18 by the current wave of data collection are considered "aged-up adults" and are invited to complete the Adult Interview. Additionally, "shadow youth" are considered "aged-up youth" upon turning 12 years old, when they are asked to complete an interview after parental consent. At Wave 4, a probability sample of 14,098 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 10 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 4. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 in the same sampled Primary Sampling Unit (PSU)s and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with Wave 4 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 1 Cohort who were in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 4. This combined set of Wave 4 participants, 52,731 participants in total, forms the Wave 4 Cohort. At Wave 7, a probability sample of 14,863 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 9 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 7. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 or Wave 4 in the same sampled PSUs and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "second replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with the Wave 7 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 4 Cohorts who were at least age 15 and in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 7 participants, 46,169 participants in total, forms the Wave 7 Cohort. Please refer to the Restricted-Use Files User Guide that provides further details about children designated as "shadow youth" and the formation of the Wave 1, Wave 4, and Wave 7 Cohorts. Dataset 0002 (DS0002) contains the data from the State Design Data. This file contains 7 variables and 82,139 cases. The state identifier in the State Design file reflects the participant's state of residence at the time of selection and recruitment for the PATH Study. Dataset 1011 (DS1011) contains the data from the Wave 1 Adult Questionnaire. This data file contains 2,021 variables and 32,320 cases. Each of the cases represents a single, completed interview. Dataset 1012 (DS1012) contains the data from the Wave 1 Youth and Parent Questionnaire. This file contains 1,431 variables and 13,651 cases. Dataset 1411 (DS1411) contains the Wave 1 State Identifier data for Adults and has 5 variables and 32,320 cases. Dataset 1412 (DS1412) contains the Wave 1 State Identifier data for Youth (and Parents) and has 5 variables and 13,651 cases. The same 5 variables are in each State Identifier dataset, including PERSONID for linking the State Identifier to the questionnaire and biomarker data and 3 variables designating the state (state Federal Information Processing System (FIPS), state abbreviation, and full name of the state). The State Identifier values in these datasets represent participants' state of residence at the time of Wave 1, which is also their state of residence at the time of recruitment. Dataset 1611 (DS1611) contains the Tobacco Universal Product Code (UPC) data from Wave 1. This data file contains 32 variables and 8,601 cases. This file contains UPC values on the packages of tobacco products used or in the possession of adult respondents at the time of Wave 1. The UPC values can be used to identify and validate the specific products used by respon

Three crime data sources were collected and merged for this study. All three crime sources were either only reporting on the U.S. state of Kentucky (KOOL and Louisville Open Data), or filtered to only contain results for the U.S. state of Kentucky (FBI). Each data source contains unique features such as crime classifications, and unique challenges in collection and cleaning.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) issues a variety of query-able crime related data on their website. This data is sourced from law enforcement agencies across the U.S. as part of their National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and its standards. The goal of gathering, standardizing, and providing this information is to facilitate research into crime and law enforcement patterns. The information is provided as a collection of CSV files with instructions and code for importing into a SQL database. For the purposes of this research, we utilized the the crime databases for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, containing a total of 1,939,990 unique incidents. The NIBRS_code property denotes the type of crime as assigned by the reporting agency. The human trafficking codes are 40A (Prostitution), 40B (Assisting or Promoting Prostitution), and 370 (Pornography/Obscene Material). The drug incidents were found using codes 35A (Drug/Narcotic Violations) and 35B (Drug Equipment Violations).

The Kentucky Department of Corrections, as a service to the public, provides an online lookup of people currently in its custody called Kentucky Offender Online Lookup (KOOL). This web application offers users tools to search for sets of inmates based on features such as name, crime date, crime name, race, and gender. The data that KOOL searches contains only people who are currently under supervision of the state of Kentucky (or should be under supervision in the case of escape).

The Louisville Open Data Initiative (LOD) is a program from the city of Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.A. to increase the transparency of the city government and promote technological innovation. As part of LOD, a dataset of crime reports is made available online. The records contained within the LOD dataset represent any call for police service where a police incident report was generated. This does not necessarily mean a crime was committed, as an incident report can be generated before an investigation has taken place.

The DC Metropolitan Area Drug Study (DCMADS) was conducted in 1991, and included special analyses of homeless and transient populations and of women delivering live births in the DC hospitals. DCMADS was undertaken to assess the full extent of the drug problem in one metropolitan area. The study was comprised of 16 separate studies that focused on different sub-groups, many of which are typically not included or are underrepresented in household surveys. The Homeless and Transient Population study examines the prevalence of illicit drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among members of the homeless and transient population aged 12 and older in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Statistical Area (DC MSA). The sample frame included respondents from shelters, soup kitchens and food banks, major cluster encampments, and literally homeless people. Data from the questionnaires include history of homelessness, living arrangements and population movement, tobacco, drug, and alcohol use, consequences of use, treatment history, illegal behavior and arrest, emergency room treatment and hospital stays, physical and mental health, pregnancy, insurance, employment and finances, and demographics. Drug specific data include age at first use, route of administration, needle use, withdrawal symptoms, polysubstance use, and perceived risk.This study has 1 Data Set.

Drug use among 13 and 15 year olds in Scotland.

The HealthLink BC Mental Health and Substance Use (MHSU) data set includes the following: Programs that offer early intervention, transitional care or other services that supplement and facilitate primary and adjunctive therapies; which offer community mental health education programs; or which link people who are in need of treatment with appropriate providers. Programs that provide preventive, diagnostic and treatment services in a variety of community and hospital-based settings to help people achieve, maintain and enhance a state of emotional well-being, personal empowerment and the skills to cope with everyday demands without excessive stress or reliance on alcohol or other drugs. Treatment may include emotional support, introspection and problem-solving assistance using a variety of modalities and approaches, and medication, as needed, for individuals who have a substance use disorder involving alcohol and/or other drugs or for people who range from experiencing difficult life transitions or problems in coping with daily living to those with severe, chronic mental illnesses that seriously impact their lives. Multidisciplinary programs, often offered on an inpatient basis with post-discharge outpatient therapy, that provide comprehensive diagnostic and treatment services for individuals who have anorexia nervosa, binge-eating disorder, bulimia or a related eating disorder. Treatment depends on the specific type of eating disorder involved but typically involves psychotherapy, nutrition education, family counseling, medication and hospitalization, if required, to stabilize the patient's health. Alliance of Information & Referral Systems (AIRS) / 211 LA County taxonomy is the data classification used for all HealthLink BC directory data, including this MHSU data set (https://www.airs.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1). AIRS taxonomy and data definitions are protected by Copyright by Information and Referral Federal of Los Angeles County, Inc (https://211taxonomy.org/subscriptions/#agreement)

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (OCJS) (also sometimes known as the Crime and Justice Survey), was the first national longitudinal, self-report offending survey for England and Wales. The series began in 2003, the initial survey representing the first wave in a planned four-year rotating panel study, and ended with the 2006 wave. A longitudinal dataset based on the four years of the study was released in 2009 (held at the Archive under SN 6345).

The OCJS was commissioned by the Home Office, with the overall objective of providing a solid base for measuring the prevalence of offending and drug use in the general population of England and Wales. The survey was developed in response to a significant gap in data on offending in the general population, as opposed to particular groups such as convicted offenders. A specific aim of the series was to monitor trends in offending among young people.

The OCJS series was designed as a 'rotating panel' which means that in each subsequent year, part of the previous year's sample was re-interviewed, and was augmented by a further 'fresh' sample to ensure a cross-sectional representative sample of young people. The aim of this design was to fulfil two objectives: firstly, to provide a solid cross-sectional base from which to monitor year-on-year measures of offending, drug use, and contact with the CJS over the four-year tracking period (2003-2006); and secondly, to provide longitudinal insight into individual behaviour and attitudinal changes over time, and to enable the Home Office to identify temporal links between and within the key survey measures.

The OCJS was managed by a team of researchers in the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. The Home Office commissioned BMRB Social Research and the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to conduct the surveys jointly. Both organisations were involved in developing the surveys and, at each wave, the fieldwork was split between the two agencies.

The longitudinal analysis of the OCJS, based on the four survey years, 2003-2006, aimed to describe the levels of change in offending behaviour, antisocial behaviour (ASB) and drug use within individuals. It also covered the timing of transitions into and out of offending, ASB and drug use. The analysis intended to:

• identify the most common ages for starting to offend and use illegal drugs, and the ages of desistance
• help to identify young people who are most at risk of offending and using drugs
• explore the patterns of offending and drug use, including uptake and desistance among young people

Further information can be found in the user guide but users are also advised to consult the individual OCJS wave documentation.

Main Topics:

The Four-year Panel dataset comprises respondents who participated in all four waves of the OCJS between 2003 and 2006. The dataset includes: the derived offending, antisocial behaviour and drug use variables, derived risk factor variables and the original survey variables used in the derivation of the risk factors. The dataset also includes five cluster variables derived as a result of latent class analysis.

The Paired Transitions dataset contains data for use in the analysis of 12-month transitions between two consecutive OCJS interviews. Each row in the data file represents a respondent who was interviewed at two consecutive waves of OCJS. Hence, respondents who had taken part in all waves appear three times in the dataset; with a separate record for each of the periods covered by waves one to two, waves two to three and waves three to four. Respondents did not need to have been involved in all waves to be included in the transitions data file, although they did need to have taken part in at least two consecutive interviews.