About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the United States population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for United States. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of United States by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in United States.

Key observations

The largest age group in United States was for the group of age 30 to 34 years years with a population of 23.06 million (6.94%), according to the ACS 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. At the same time, the smallest age group in United States was the 80 to 84 years years with a population of 6.34 million (1.91%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group in consideration
• Population: The population for the specific age group in the United States is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the population of each age group as a proportion of United States total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for United States Population by Age. You can refer the same here

A collaborative project between SPC, the World Fish Centre and the University of Wollongong has produced the first detailed population estimates of people living close to the coast in the 22 Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs). These estimates are stratified into 1, 5, and 10km zones. More information about this dataset: https://sdd.spc.int/mapping-coastal

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the White Earth population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of White Earth across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of White Earth was 93, a 0% decrease year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, White Earth population was 93, a decline of 4.12% compared to a population of 97 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of White Earth increased by 28. In this period, the peak population was 99 in the year 2020. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the White Earth is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in White Earth population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for White Earth Population by Year. You can refer the same here

[1] The Progress by Population Group analysis is a component of the Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) Final Review. The analysis included subsets of the 1,111 measurable HP2020 objectives that have data available for any of six broad population characteristics: sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, disability status, and geographic location. Progress toward meeting HP2020 targets is presented for up to 24 population groups within these characteristics, based on objective data aggregated across HP2020 topic areas. The Progress by Population Group data are also available at the individual objective level in the downloadable data set. [2] The final value was generally based on data available on the HP2020 website as of January 2020. For objectives that are continuing into HP2030, more recent data will be included on the HP2030 website as it becomes available: https://health.gov/healthypeople. [3] For more information on the HP2020 methodology for measuring progress toward target attainment and the elimination of health disparities, see: Healthy People Statistical Notes, no 27; available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt27.pdf. [4] Status for objectives included in the HP2020 Progress by Population Group analysis was determined using the baseline, final, and target value. The progress status categories used in HP2020 were: a. Target met or exceeded—One of the following applies: (i) At baseline, the target was not met or exceeded, and the most recent value was equal to or exceeded the target (the percentage of targeted change achieved was equal to or greater than 100%); (ii) The baseline and most recent values were equal to or exceeded the target (the percentage of targeted change achieved was not assessed). b. Improved—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved 10% or more of the targeted change. c. Little or no detectable change—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was not statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved less than 10% of the targeted change; (iii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was not statistically significant; (iv) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved less than 10% relative to the baseline; (v) No change was observed between the baseline and the final data point. d. Got worse—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved 10% or more relative to the baseline. NOTE: Measurable objectives had baseline data. SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, Healthy People 2020 Progress by Population Group database.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the United States population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of United States across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2024, the population of United States was 340.11 million, a 0.98% increase year-by-year from 2023. Previously, in 2023, United States population was 336.81 million, an increase of 0.83% compared to a population of 334.02 million in 2022. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2024, population of United States increased by 57.95 million. In this period, the peak population was 340.11 million in the year 2024. The numbers suggest that the population has not reached its peak yet and is showing a trend of further growth. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2024

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2024)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the United States is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in United States population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for United States Population by Year. You can refer the same here

Estimated number of persons on July 1, by 5-year age groups and gender, and median age, for Canada, provinces and territories.

Lake County, Illinois Demographic Data. Explanation of field attributes: Total Population – The entire population of Lake County. White – Individuals who are of Caucasian race. This is a percent.African American – Individuals who are of African American race. This is a percent.Asian – Individuals who are of Asian race. This is a percent. Hispanic – Individuals who are of Hispanic ethnicity. This is a percent. Does not Speak English- Individuals who speak a language other than English in their household. This is a percent. Under 5 years of age – Individuals who are under 5 years of age. This is a percent. Under 18 years of age – Individuals who are under 18 years of age. This is a percent. 18-64 years of age – Individuals who are between 18 and 64 years of age. This is a percent. 65 years of age and older – Individuals who are 65 years old or older. This is a percent. Male – Individuals who are male in gender. This is a percent. Female – Individuals who are female in gender. This is a percent. High School Degree – Individuals who have obtained a high school degree. This is a percent. Associate Degree – Individuals who have obtained an associate degree. This is a percent. Bachelor’s Degree or Higher – Individuals who have obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher. This is a percent. Utilizes Food Stamps – Households receiving food stamps/ part of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). This is a percent. Median Household Income - A median household income refers to the income level earned by a given household where half of the homes in the area earn more and half earn less. This is a dollar amount. No High School – Individuals who have not obtained a high school degree. This is a percent. Poverty – Poverty refers to families and people whose income in the past 12 months is below the poverty level. This is a percent.

Estimated number of persons by quarter of a year and by year, Canada, provinces and territories.

This poverty rate data shows what percentage of the measured population* falls below the poverty line. Poverty is closely related to income: different “poverty thresholds” are in place for different sizes and types of household. A family or individual is considered to be below the poverty line if that family or individual’s income falls below their relevant poverty threshold. For more information on how poverty is measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (the source for this indicator’s data), visit the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty webpage.

The poverty rate is an important piece of information when evaluating an area’s economic health and well-being. The poverty rate can also be illustrative when considered in the contexts of other indicators and categories. As a piece of data, it is too important and too useful to omit from any indicator set.

The poverty rate for all individuals in the measured population in Champaign County has hovered around roughly 20% since 2005. However, it reached its lowest rate in 2021 at 14.9%, and its second lowest rate in 2023 at 16.3%. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) data shows fluctuations between years, given their margins of error, none of the differences between consecutive years’ estimates are statistically significant, making it impossible to identify a trend.

Poverty rate data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Age.

*According to the U.S. Census Bureau document “How Poverty is Calculated in the ACS," poverty status is calculated for everyone but those in the following groups: “people living in institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes), people in military barracks, people in college dormitories, living situations without conventional housing, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old."

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (25 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (16 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

National and subnational mid-year population estimates for the UK and its constituent countries by administrative area, age and sex (including components of population change, median age and population density).

NOTE: This dataset has been retired and marked as historical-only. The recommended dataset to use in its place is https://data.cityofchicago.org/Health-Human-Services/COVID-19-Vaccination-Coverage-Region-HCEZ-/5sc6-ey97.

COVID-19 vaccinations administered to Chicago residents by Healthy Chicago Equity Zones (HCEZ) based on the reported address, race-ethnicity, and age group of the person vaccinated, as provided by the medical provider in the Illinois Comprehensive Automated Immunization Registry Exchange (I-CARE).

Healthy Chicago Equity Zones is an initiative of the Chicago Department of Public Health to organize and support hyperlocal, community-led efforts that promote health and racial equity. Chicago is divided into six HCEZs. Combinations of Chicago’s 77 community areas make up each HCEZ, based on geography. For more information about HCEZs including which community areas are in each zone see: https://data.cityofchicago.org/Health-Human-Services/Healthy-Chicago-Equity-Zones/nk2j-663f

Vaccination Status Definitions:

·People with at least one vaccine dose: Number of people who have received at least one dose of any COVID-19 vaccine, including the single-dose Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

·People with a completed vaccine series: Number of people who have completed a primary COVID-19 vaccine series. Requirements vary depending on age and type of primary vaccine series received.

·People with a bivalent dose: Number of people who received a bivalent (updated) dose of vaccine. Updated, bivalent doses became available in Fall 2022 and were created with the original strain of COVID-19 and newer Omicron variant strains.

Weekly cumulative totals by vaccination status are shown for each combination of race-ethnicity and age group within an HCEZ. Note that each HCEZ has a row where HCEZ is “Citywide” and each HCEZ has a row where age is "All" so care should be taken when summing rows.

Vaccinations are counted based on the date on which they were administered. Weekly cumulative totals are reported from the week ending Saturday, December 19, 2020 onward (after December 15, when vaccines were first administered in Chicago) through the Saturday prior to the dataset being updated.

Population counts are from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-year estimates.

Coverage percentages are calculated based on the cumulative number of people in each population subgroup (age group by race-ethnicity within an HCEZ) who have each vaccination status as of the date, divided by the estimated number of people in that subgroup.

Actual counts may exceed population estimates and lead to >100% coverage, especially in small race-ethnicity subgroups of each age group within an HCEZ. All coverage percentages are capped at 99%.

All data are provisional and subject to change. Information is updated as additional details are received and it is, in fact, very common for recent dates to be incomplete and to be updated as time goes on. At any given time, this dataset reflects data currently known to CDPH.

Numbers in this dataset may differ from other public sources due to when data are reported and how City of Chicago boundaries are defined.

CDPH uses the most complete data available to estimate COVID-19 vaccination coverage among Chicagoans, but there are several limitations that impact its estimates. Data reported in I-CARE only includes doses administered in Illinois and some doses administered outside of Illinois reported historically by Illinois providers. Doses administered by the federal Bureau of Prisons and Department of Defense are also not currently reported in I-CARE. The Veterans Health Administration began reporting doses in I-CARE beginning September 2022. Due to people receiving vaccinations that are not recorded in I-CARE that can be linked to their record, such as someone receiving a vaccine dose in another state, the number of people with a completed series or a booster dose is underesti

The American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains a sample of responses to the ACS. The ACS PUMS dataset includes variables for nearly every question on the survey, as well as many new variables that were derived after the fact from multiple survey responses (such as poverty status).Each record in the file represents a single person, or, in the household-level dataset, a single housing unit. In the person-level file, individuals are organized into households, making possible the study of people within the contexts of their families and other household members. Individuals living in Group Quarters, such as nursing facilities or college facilities, are also included on the person file. ACS PUMS data are available at the nation, state, and Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) levels. PUMAs are special non-overlapping areas that partition each state into contiguous geographic units containing roughly 100,000 people each. ACS PUMS files for an individual year, such as 2020, contain data on approximately one percent of the United States population

This file contains COVID-19 death counts, death rates, and percent of total deaths by jurisdiction of residence. The data is grouped by different time periods including 3-month period, weekly, and total (cumulative since January 1, 2020). United States death counts and rates include the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and New York City. New York state estimates exclude New York City. Puerto Rico is included in HHS Region 2 estimates. Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1. Number of deaths reported in this file are the total number of COVID-19 deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and may not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Counts of deaths occurring before or after the reporting period are not included in the file. Data during recent periods are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death. Death counts should not be compared across states. Data timeliness varies by state. Some states report deaths on a daily basis, while other states report deaths weekly or monthly. The ten (10) United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regions include the following jurisdictions. Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; Region 2: New Jersey, New York, New York City, Puerto Rico; Region 3: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia; Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee; Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin; Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska; Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming; Region 9: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada; Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington. Rates were calculated using the population estimates for 2021, which are estimated as of July 1, 2021 based on the Blended Base produced by the US Census Bureau in lieu of the April 1, 2020 decennial population count. The Blended Base consists of the blend of Vintage 2020 postcensal population estimates, 2020 Demographic Analysis Estimates, and 2020 Census PL 94-171 Redistricting File (see https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/2020-2021/methods-statement-v2021.pdf). Rates are based on deaths occurring in the specified week/month and are age-adjusted to the 2000 standard population using the direct method (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-08-508.pdf). These rates differ from annual age-adjusted rates, typically presented in NCHS publications based on a full year of data and annualized weekly/monthly age-adjusted rates which have been adjusted to allow comparison with annual rates. Annualization rates presents deaths per year per 100,000 population that would be expected in a year if the observed period specific (weekly/monthly) rate prevailed for a full year. Sub-national death counts between 1-9 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS data confidentiality standards. Rates based on death counts less than 20 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS standards of reliability as specified in NCHS Data Presentation Standards for Proportions (available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_175.pdf.).

This is the monthly data for U.S. employment and unemployment by state including some numbers for Puerto Rico. This dataset was accessed on April 7th 2008. The data for February 2008 are preliminary. The data presented are seasonally adjusted although the unadjusted numbers are also available. Unavailable data are represented as -1. The dataset is taken from Tables 3 and 5 from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. It includes the civilian labor force, the unemployed in numbers and percentages, and employment by industry. Data from table 3 "refer to place of residence. Data for Puerto Rico are derived from a monthly household survey similar to the Current Population Survey. Area definitions are based on Office of Management and Budget Bulletin No. 08-01, dated November 20, 2007, and are available at http://www.bls.gov/lau/lausmsa.htm. Estimates for the latest month are subject to revision the following month". Data from table 5 "are counts of jobs by place of work. Estimates are currently projected from 2007 benchmark levels. Estimates subsequent to the current benchmarks are provisional and will be revised when new information becomes available. Data reflect the conversion to the 2007 version of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as the basis for the assignment and tabulation of economic data by industry, replacing NAICS 2002. For more details, see http://www.bls.gov/sae/saenaics07.htm.

Coverage of Social Insurance Programs in Richest Quintile

Percent of Population Eligible

By data.world's Admin [source]

About this dataset

This dataset offers a unique insight into the coverage of social insurance programs for the wealthiest quintile of populations around the world. It reveals how many individuals in each country are receiving support from old age contributory pensions, disability benefits, and social security and health insurance benefits such as occupational injury benefits, paid sick leave, maternity leave, and more. This data provides an invaluable resource to understand the health and well-being of those most financially privileged in society – often having greater impact on decision making than other groups. With up-to-date figures from 2019-05-11 this dataset is invaluable in uncovering where there is work to be done for improved healthcare provision in each country across the world

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

• Understand the context: Before you begin analyzing this dataset, it is important to understand the information that it provides. Take some time to read the description of what is included in the dataset, including a clear understanding of the definitions and scope of coverage provided with each data point.

• Examine the data: Once you have a general understanding of this dataset's contents, take some time to explore its contents in more depth. What specific questions does this dataset help answer? What kind of insights does it provide? Are there any missing pieces?

• Clean & Prepare Data: After you've preliminarily examined its content, start preparing your data for further analysis and visualization. Clean up any formatting issues or irregularities present in your data set by correcting typos and eliminating unnecessary rows or columns before working with your chosen programming language (I prefer R for data manipulation tasks). Additionally, consider performing necessary transformations such as sorting or averaging values if appropriate for the findings you wish to draw from your analysis.

• Visualize Results: Once you've cleaned and prepared your data, use visualizations such as charts, graphs or tables to reveal patterns within it that support specific conclusions about how insurance coverage under social programs vary among different groups within society's quintiles - based on age groups etc.. This type of visualization allows those who aren't familiar with programming to process complex information quickly and accurately than when displayed numerically in tabular form only!

5 Final Analysis & Export Results: Finally export your visuals into presentation-ready formats (e.g., PDFs) which can be shared with colleagues! Additionally use these results as part of a narrative conclusion report providing an accurate assessment and meaningful interpretation about how social insurance programs vary between different members within society's quintiles (i..e., accordingest vs poorest), along with potential policy implications relevant for implementing effective strategies that improve access accordingly!

Research Ideas

• Analyzing the effectiveness of social insurance programs by comparing the coverage levels across different geographic areas or socio-economic groups;
• Estimating the economic impact of social insurance programs on local and national economies by tracking spending levels and revenues generated;
• Identifying potential problems with access to social insurance benefits, such as racial or gender disparities in benefit coverage

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) - Public Domain Dedication No Copyright - You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. See Other Information.

Columns

File: coverage-of-social-insurance-programs-in-richest-quintile-of-population-1.csv

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. If you use this dataset in your research, please credit data.world's Admin.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of asthma (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to asthma (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with asthma was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with asthma was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with asthma, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have asthmaB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have asthmaAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have asthma, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from asthma, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with asthma within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of asthma, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of asthma.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

Series Name: Proportion of population below international poverty line (percent)Series Code: SI_POV_DAY1Release Version: 2021.Q2.G.03 This dataset is the part of the Global SDG Indicator Database compiled through the UN System in preparation for the Secretary-General's annual report on Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.Indicator 1.1.1: Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographic location (urban/rural)Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a dayGoal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhereFor more information on the compilation methodology of this dataset, see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/

Abstract

Round 1 of the Afrobarometer survey was conducted from July 1999 through June 2001 in 12 African countries, to solicit public opinion on democracy, governance, markets, and national identity. The full 12 country dataset released was pieced together out of different projects, Round 1 of the Afrobarometer survey,the old Southern African Democracy Barometer, and similar surveys done in West and East Africa.

The 7 country dataset is a subset of the Round 1 survey dataset, and consists of a combined dataset for the 7 Southern African countries surveyed with other African countries in Round 1, 1999-2000 (Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe). It is a useful dataset because, in contrast to the full 12 country Round 1 dataset, all countries in this dataset were surveyed with the identical questionnaire

Geographic coverage

Botswana Lesotho Malawi Namibia South Africa Zambia Zimbabwe

Analysis unit

Basic units of analysis that the study investigates include: individuals and groups

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A new sample has to be drawn for each round of Afrobarometer surveys. Whereas the standard sample size for Round 3 surveys will be 1200 cases, a larger sample size will be required in societies that are extremely heterogeneous (such as South Africa and Nigeria), where the sample size will be increased to 2400. Other adaptations may be necessary within some countries to account for the varying quality of the census data or the availability of census maps.

The sample is designed as a representative cross-section of all citizens of voting age in a given country. The goal is to give every adult citizen an equal and known chance of selection for interview. We strive to reach this objective by (a) strictly applying random selection methods at every stage of sampling and by (b) applying sampling with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible. A randomly selected sample of 1200 cases allows inferences to national adult populations with a margin of sampling error of no more than plus or minus 2.5 percent with a confidence level of 95 percent. If the sample size is increased to 2400, the confidence interval shrinks to plus or minus 2 percent.

Sample Universe

The sample universe for Afrobarometer surveys includes all citizens of voting age within the country. In other words, we exclude anyone who is not a citizen and anyone who has not attained this age (usually 18 years) on the day of the survey. Also excluded are areas determined to be either inaccessible or not relevant to the study, such as those experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters, as well as national parks and game reserves. As a matter of practice, we have also excluded people living in institutionalized settings, such as students in dormitories and persons in prisons or nursing homes.

What to do about areas experiencing political unrest? On the one hand we want to include them because they are politically important. On the other hand, we want to avoid stretching out the fieldwork over many months while we wait for the situation to settle down. It was agreed at the 2002 Cape Town Planning Workshop that it is difficult to come up with a general rule that will fit all imaginable circumstances. We will therefore make judgments on a case-by-case basis on whether or not to proceed with fieldwork or to exclude or substitute areas of conflict. National Partners are requested to consult Core Partners on any major delays, exclusions or substitutions of this sort.

Sample Design

The sample design is a clustered, stratified, multi-stage, area probability sample.

To repeat the main sampling principle, the objective of the design is to give every sample element (i.e. adult citizen) an equal and known chance of being chosen for inclusion in the sample. We strive to reach this objective by (a) strictly applying random selection methods at every stage of sampling and by (b) applying sampling with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible.

In a series of stages, geographically defined sampling units of decreasing size are selected. To ensure that the sample is representative, the probability of selection at various stages is adjusted as follows:

The sample is stratified by key social characteristics in the population such as sub-national area (e.g. region/province) and residential locality (urban or rural). The area stratification reduces the likelihood that distinctive ethnic or language groups are left out of the sample. And the urban/rural stratification is a means to make sure that these localities are represented in their correct proportions. Wherever possible, and always in the first stage of sampling, random sampling is conducted with probability proportionate to population size (PPPS). The purpose is to guarantee that larger (i.e., more populated) geographical units have a proportionally greater probability of being chosen into the sample. The sampling design has four stages

A first-stage to stratify and randomly select primary sampling units;

A second-stage to randomly select sampling start-points;

A third stage to randomly choose households;

A final-stage involving the random selection of individual respondents

We shall deal with each of these stages in turn.

STAGE ONE: Selection of Primary Sampling Units (PSUs)

The primary sampling units (PSU's) are the smallest, well-defined geographic units for which reliable population data are available. In most countries, these will be Census Enumeration Areas (or EAs). Most national census data and maps are broken down to the EA level. In the text that follows we will use the acronyms PSU and EA interchangeably because, when census data are employed, they refer to the same unit.

We strongly recommend that NIs use official national census data as the sampling frame for Afrobarometer surveys. Where recent or reliable census data are not available, NIs are asked to inform the relevant Core Partner before they substitute any other demographic data. Where the census is out of date, NIs should consult a demographer to obtain the best possible estimates of population growth rates. These should be applied to the outdated census data in order to make projections of population figures for the year of the survey. It is important to bear in mind that population growth rates vary by area (region) and (especially) between rural and urban localities. Therefore, any projected census data should include adjustments to take such variations into account.

Indeed, we urge NIs to establish collegial working relationships within professionals in the national census bureau, not only to obtain the most recent census data, projections, and maps, but to gain access to sampling expertise. NIs may even commission a census statistician to draw the sample to Afrobarometer specifications, provided that provision for this service has been made in the survey budget.

Regardless of who draws the sample, the NIs should thoroughly acquaint themselves with the strengths and weaknesses of the available census data and the availability and quality of EA maps. The country and methodology reports should cite the exact census data used, its known shortcomings, if any, and any projections made from the data. At minimum, the NI must know the size of the population and the urban/rural population divide in each region in order to specify how to distribute population and PSU's in the first stage of sampling. National investigators should obtain this written data before they attempt to stratify the sample.

Once this data is obtained, the sample population (either 1200 or 2400) should be stratified, first by area (region/province) and then by residential locality (urban or rural). In each case, the proportion of the sample in each locality in each region should be the same as its proportion in the national population as indicated by the updated census figures.

Having stratified the sample, it is then possible to determine how many PSU's should be selected for the country as a whole, for each region, and for each urban or rural locality.

The total number of PSU's to be selected for the whole country is determined by calculating the maximum degree of clustering of interviews one can accept in any PSU. Because PSUs (which are usually geographically small EAs) tend to be socially homogenous we do not want to select too many people in any one place. Thus, the Afrobarometer has established a standard of no more than 8 interviews per PSU. For a sample size of 1200, the sample must therefore contain 150 PSUs/EAs (1200 divided by 8). For a sample size of 2400, there must be 300 PSUs/EAs.

These PSUs should then be allocated proportionally to the urban and rural localities within each regional stratum of the sample. Let's take a couple of examples from a country with a sample size of 1200. If the urban locality of Region X in this country constitutes 10 percent of the current national population, then the sample for this stratum should be 15 PSUs (calculated as 10 percent of 150 PSUs). If the rural population of Region Y constitutes 4 percent of the current national population, then the sample for this stratum should be 6 PSU's.

The next step is to select particular PSUs/EAs using random methods. Using the above example of the rural localities in Region Y, let us say that you need to pick 6 sample EAs out of a census list that contains a total of 240 rural EAs in Region Y. But which 6? If the EAs created by the national census bureau are of equal or roughly equal population size, then selection is relatively straightforward. Just number all EAs consecutively, then make six selections using a table of random numbers. This procedure, known as simple random sampling (SRS), will

This dataset contains information on antibody testing for COVID-19: the number of people who received a test, the number of people with positive results, the percentage of people tested who tested positive, and the rate of testing per 100,000 people, stratified by ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) neighborhood poverty group. These data can also be accessed here: https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/totals/antibody-by-poverty.csv Exposure to COVID-19 can be detected by measuring antibodies to the disease in a person’s blood, which can indicate that a person may have had an immune response to the virus. Antibodies are proteins produced by the body’s immune system that can be found in the blood. People can test positive for antibodies after they have been exposed, sometimes when they no longer test positive for the virus itself. It is important to note that the science around COVID-19 antibody tests is evolving rapidly and there is still much uncertainty about what individual antibody test results mean for a single person and what population-level antibody test results mean for understanding the epidemiology of COVID-19 at a population level. These data only provide information on people tested. People receiving an antibody test do not reflect all people in New York City; therefore, these data may not reflect antibody prevalence among all New Yorkers. Increasing instances of screening programs further impact the generalizability of these data, as screening programs influence who and how many people are tested over time. Examples of screening programs in NYC include: employers screening their workers (e.g., hospitals), and long-term care facilities screening their residents. In addition, there may be potential biases toward people receiving an antibody test who have a positive result because people who were previously ill are preferentially seeking testing, in addition to the testing of persons with higher exposure (e.g., health care workers, first responders.) Neighborhood-level poverty groups were classified in a manner consistent with Health Department practices to describe and monitor disparities in health in NYC. Neighborhood poverty measures are defined as the percentage of people earning below the Federal Poverty Threshold (FPT) within a ZCTA. The standard cut-points for defining categories of neighborhood-level poverty in NYC are: • Low: <10% of residents in ZCTA living below the FPT • Medium: 10% to <20% • High: 20% to <30% • Very high: ≥30% residents living below the FPT The ZCTAs used for classification reflect the first non-missing address within NYC for each person reported with an antibody test result. Rates were calculated using interpolated intercensal population estimates updated in 2019. These rates differ from previously reported rates based on the 2000 Census or previous versions of population estimates. The Health Department produced these population estimates based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau and NYC Department of City Planning. Rates for poverty were calculated using direct standardization for age at diagnosis and weighting by the US 2000 standard population. Antibody tests are categorized based on the date of specimen collection and are aggregated by full weeks starting each Sunday and ending on Saturday. For example, a person whose blood was collected for antibody testing on Wednesday, May 6 would be categorized as tested during the week ending May 9. A person tested twice in one week would only be counted once in that week. This dataset includes testing data beginning April 5, 2020. Data are updated daily, and the dataset preserves historical records and source data changes, so each extract date reflects the current copy of the data as of that date. For example, an extract date of 11/04/2020 and extract date of 11/03/2020 will both contain all records as they were as of that extract date. Without filtering or grouping by extract date, an analysis will almost certain

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of cancer (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to cancer (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with cancer was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with cancer was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with cancer, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have cancerB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have cancerAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have cancer, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from cancer, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with cancer within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of cancer, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of cancer.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.MSOA boundaries: © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021.Population data: Mid-2019 (June 30) Population Estimates for Middle Layer Super Output Areas in England and Wales. © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown Copyright 2020.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital; © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. © Crown Copyright 2020.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.