Abstract

The study included four separate surveys:

1. The LSMS survey of general population of Serbia in 2002

2. The survey of Family Income Support (MOP in Serbian) recipients in 2002 These two datasets are published together separately from the 2003 datasets.

3. The LSMS survey of general population of Serbia in 2003 (panel survey)

4. The survey of Roma from Roma settlements in 2003 These two datasets are published together.

Objectives

LSMS represents multi-topical study of household living standard and is based on international experience in designing and conducting this type of research. The basic survey was carried out in 2002 on a representative sample of households in Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija). Its goal was to establish a poverty profile according to the comprehensive data on welfare of households and to identify vulnerable groups. Also its aim was to assess the targeting of safety net programs by collecting detailed information from individuals on participation in specific government social programs. This study was used as the basic document in developing Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) in Serbia which was adopted by the Government of the Republic of Serbia in October 2003.

The survey was repeated in 2003 on a panel sample (the households which participated in 2002 survey were re-interviewed).

Analysis of the take-up and profile of the population in 2003 was the first step towards formulating the system of monitoring in the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). The survey was conducted in accordance with the same methodological principles used in 2002 survey, with necessary changes referring only to the content of certain modules and the reduction in sample size. The aim of the repeated survey was to obtain panel data to enable monitoring of the change in the living standard within a period of one year, thus indicating whether there had been a decrease or increase in poverty in Serbia in the course of 2003. [Note: Panel data are the data obtained on the sample of households which participated in the both surveys. These data made possible tracking of living standard of the same persons in the period of one year.]

Along with these two comprehensive surveys, conducted on national and regional representative samples which were to give a picture of the general population, there were also two surveys with particular emphasis on vulnerable groups. In 2002, it was the survey of living standard of Family Income Support recipients with an aim to validate this state supported program of social welfare. In 2003 the survey of Roma from Roma settlements was conducted. Since all present experiences indicated that this was one of the most vulnerable groups on the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, but with no ample research of poverty of Roma population made, the aim of the survey was to compare poverty of this group with poverty of basic population and to establish which categories of Roma population were at the greatest risk of poverty in 2003. However, it is necessary to stress that the LSMS of the Roma population comprised potentially most imperilled Roma, while the Roma integrated in the main population were not included in this study.

Geographic coverage

The surveys were conducted on the whole territory of Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample frame for both surveys of general population (LSMS) in 2002 and 2003 consisted of all permanent residents of Serbia, without the population of Kosovo and Metohija, according to definition of permanently resident population contained in UN Recommendations for Population Censuses, which were applied in 2002 Census of Population in the Republic of Serbia. Therefore, permanent residents were all persons living in the territory Serbia longer than one year, with the exception of diplomatic and consular staff.

The sample frame for the survey of Family Income Support recipients included all current recipients of this program on the territory of Serbia based on the official list of recipients given by Ministry of Social affairs.

The definition of the Roma population from Roma settlements was faced with obstacles since precise data on the total number of Roma population in Serbia are not available. According to the last population Census from 2002 there were 108,000 Roma citizens, but the data from the Census are thought to significantly underestimate the total number of the Roma population. However, since no other more precise data were available, this number was taken as the basis for estimate on Roma population from Roma settlements. According to the 2002 Census, settlements with at least 7% of the total population who declared itself as belonging to Roma nationality were selected. A total of 83% or 90,000 self-declared Roma lived in the settlements that were defined in this way and this number was taken as the sample frame for Roma from Roma settlements.

Planned sample: In 2002 the planned size of the sample of general population included 6.500 households. The sample was both nationally and regionally representative (representative on each individual stratum). In 2003 the planned panel sample size was 3.000 households. In order to preserve the representative quality of the sample, we kept every other census block unit of the large sample realized in 2002. This way we kept the identical allocation by strata. In selected census block unit, the same households were interviewed as in the basic survey in 2002. The planned sample of Family Income Support recipients in 2002 and Roma from Roma settlements in 2003 was 500 households for each group.

Sample type: In both national surveys the implemented sample was a two-stage stratified sample. Units of the first stage were enumeration districts, and units of the second stage were the households. In the basic 2002 survey, enumeration districts were selected with probability proportional to number of households, so that the enumeration districts with bigger number of households have a higher probability of selection. In the repeated survey in 2003, first-stage units (census block units) were selected from the basic sample obtained in 2002 by including only even numbered census block units. In practice this meant that every second census block unit from the previous survey was included in the sample. In each selected enumeration district the same households interviewed in the previous round were included and interviewed. On finishing the survey in 2003 the cases were merged both on the level of households and members.

Stratification: Municipalities are stratified into the following six territorial strata: Vojvodina, Belgrade, Western Serbia, Central Serbia (Šumadija and Pomoravlje), Eastern Serbia and South-east Serbia. Primary units of selection are further stratified into enumeration districts which belong to urban type of settlements and enumeration districts which belong to rural type of settlement.

The sample of Family Income Support recipients represented the cases chosen randomly from the official list of recipients provided by Ministry of Social Affairs. The sample of Roma from Roma settlements was, as in the national survey, a two-staged stratified sample, but the units in the first stage were settlements where Roma population was represented in the percentage over 7%, and the units of the second stage were Roma households. Settlements are stratified in three territorial strata: Vojvodina, Beograd and Central Serbia.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

In all surveys the same questionnaire with minimal changes was used. It included different modules, topically separate areas which had an aim of perceiving the living standard of households from different angles. Topic areas were the following: 1. Roster with demography. 2. Housing conditions and durables module with information on the age of durables owned by a household with a special block focused on collecting information on energy billing, payments, and usage. 3. Diary of food expenditures (weekly), including home production, gifts and transfers in kind. 4. Questionnaire of main expenditure-based recall periods sufficient to enable construction of annual consumption at the household level, including home production, gifts and transfers in kind. 5. Agricultural production for all households which cultivate 10+ acres of land or who breed cattle. 6. Participation and social transfers module with detailed breakdown by programs 7. Labour Market module in line with a simplified version of the Labour Force Survey (LFS), with special additional questions to capture various informal sector activities, and providing information on earnings 8. Health with a focus on utilization of services and expenditures (including informal payments) 9. Education module, which incorporated pre-school, compulsory primary education, secondary education and university education. 10. Special income block, focusing on sources of income not covered in other parts (with a focus on remittances).

Response rate

During field work, interviewers kept a precise diary of interviews, recording both successful and unsuccessful visits. Particular attention was paid to reasons why some households were not interviewed. Separate marks were given for households which were not interviewed due to refusal and for cases when a given household could not be found on the territory of the chosen census block.

In 2002 a total of 7,491 households were contacted. Of this number a total of 6,386 households in 621 census rounds were interviewed. Interviewers did not manage to collect the data for 1,106 or 14.8% of selected households. Out of this number 634 households

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). For Wave 1 (baseline), the study sampled over 150,000 mailing addresses across the United States to create a national sample of people who do and 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 the Youth 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 Units (PSUs) and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with Wave 4 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 1 Cohort who were in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 4. This combined set of Wave 4 participants, 52,731 participants in total, forms the Wave 4 Cohort. At Wave 7, a probability sample of 14,863 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 9 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 7. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 or Wave 4 in the same sampled PSUs and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This second replenishment sample was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with Wave 7 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 4 Cohort who were at least age 15 and in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 7. This combined set of Wave 7 participants, 46,169 participants in total, forms the Wave 7 Cohort. Please refer to the Restricted-Use Files User Guide that provides further details about children designated as "shadow youth" and the formation of the Wave 1, Wave 4, and Wave 7 Cohorts. Dataset 0001 (DS0001) contains the data from the Public-Use File Master Linkage File (PUF-MLF). This file contains 93 variables and 82,139 cases. The file provides a master list of every person's unique identification number and what type of respondent they were in each wave for data that are available in the Public-Use Files and Special Collection Public-Use Files. Dataset 0002 (DS0002) contains the data from the Restricted-Use File Master Linkage File (RUF-MLF). This file contains 202 variables and 82,139 cases. The file provides a master list of every person's unique identification number and what type of respondent they were in each wave for data that are available in the Restricted-Use Files, Special Collection Restricted-Use Files, and Biomarker Restricted-Use Files.

Characteristics of the study and population samples.

The primary article (cited below under "Related works") introduces social work researchers to discrete choice experiments (DCEs) for studying stakeholder preferences. The article includes an online supplement with a worked example demonstrating DCE design and analysis with realistic simulated data. The worked example focuses on caregivers' priorities in choosing treatment for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This dataset includes the scripts (and, in some cases, Excel files) that we used to identify appropriate experimental designs, simulate population and sample data, estimate sample size requirements for the multinomial logit (MNL, also known as conditional logit) and random parameter logit (RPL) models, estimate parameters using the MNL and RPL models, and analyze attribute importance, willingness to pay, and predicted uptake. It also includes the associated data files (experimental designs, data generation parameters, simulated population data and parameters, ..., In the worked example, we used simulated data to examine caregiver preferences for 7 treatment attributes (medication administration, therapy location, school accommodation, caregiver behavior training, provider communication, provider specialty, and monthly out-of-pocket costs) identified by dosReis and colleagues in a previous DCE. We employed an orthogonal design with 1 continuous variable (cost) and 12 dummy-coded variables (representing the levels of the remaining attributes, which were categorical). Using the parameter estimates published by dosReis et al., with slight adaptations, we simulated utility values for a population of 100,000 people, then selected a sample of 500 for analysis. Relying on random utility theory, we used the mlogit package in R to estimate the MNL and RPL models, using 5,000 Halton draws for simulated maximum likelihood estimation of the RPL model. In addition to estimating the utility parameters, we measured the relative importance of each attribute, esti..., , # Data from: How to Use Discrete Choice Experiments to Capture Stakeholder Preferences in Social Work Research

Access this dataset on Dryad

This dataset supports the worked example in:

Ellis, A. R., Cryer-Coupet, Q. R., Weller, B. E., Howard, K., Raghunandan, R., & Thomas, K. C. (2024). How to use discrete choice experiments to capture stakeholder preferences in social work research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1086/731310

The referenced article introduces social work researchers to discrete choice experiments (DCEs) for studying stakeholder preferences. In a DCE, researchers ask participants to complete a series of choice tasks: hypothetical situations in which each participant is presented with alternative scenarios and selects one or more. For example, social work researchers may want to know how parents and other caregivers pr...

Population, sample and sub-sample sizes for scientific areas in EXP1.

Median and inter-quartile range or absolute number and proportion. See S1 Table for more details.

This dataset includes NCBI identifiers and sample descriptions from the common garden experiment containing three populations of T. rotula.

This data set contains sea turtle length and weight measurements, sex ratios, species composition, capture and release locations, tagging information, and information on biological samples collected for loggerhead, green, and Kemp's Ridley sea turtle populations in the coastal waters of North Carolina. Sea turtles were double-tagged with Inconel Style 681 tags (National Band and Tag Company, Newport, Kentucky, USA) applied to the trailing edge of each rear flipper. Beginning in 1995, all turtles were additionally tagged with 125 kHz unencrypted Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags (Destron-Fearing Corp., South St. Paul, Minnesota, USA), injected subcutaneously above the second-most proximal scale of the trailing margin of the left front flipper to ensure identification of the turtle in the event that both Inconel tags were lost. SCL and CCL (notch-to-tip and notch-to-notch) along with SCW and CCW were measured and recorded to the nearest 0.1 cm. Blood samples were collected from the dorsal cervical sinus of the turtle, and skin samples were collected from the trailing edge of the rear flippers. Scute scrapings were collected from the edge of the carapace

Background Investigating the validity of the self-reported values of weight allows for the proper assessment of studies using questionnaire-derived data. The study examined the accuracy of gender-specific self-reported weight in a sample of adults. The effects of age, education, race and ethnicity, income, general health and medical status on the degree of discrepancy (the difference between self-reported weight and measured weight) are similarly considered. Methods The analysis used data from the US Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Self-reported and measured weights were abstracted and analyzed according to sex, age, measured weight, self-reported weight, and body mass index (BMI). A proportional odds model was applied. Results The weight discrepancy was positively associated with age, and negatively associated with measured weight and BMI. Ordered logistic regression modeling showed age, race-ethnicity, education, and BMI to be associated with the degree of discrepancy in both sexes. In men, additional predictors were consumption of more than 100 cigarettes and the desire to change weight. In women, marital status, income, activity level, and the number of months since the last doctor's visit were important. Conclusions Predictors of the degree of weight discrepancy are gender-specific, and require careful consideration when examined.

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 (CNP) 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 CNP 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 CNP 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 CNP at the time of Wave 7. This combined set of Wave 7 participants, 46,169 participants in total, forms the Wave 7 Cohort. Please refer to the Restricted-Use Files User Guide that provides further details about children designated as "shadow youth" and the formation of the Wave 1, Wave 4, and Wave 7 Cohorts. 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 respondents and augment the analyses of the characteristics of tobacco products used

The GESIS Panel provides a probability-based mixed-mode access panel infrastructure located at GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Mannheim, Germany. The project offers the social science community an opportunity to collect survey data from a representative sample of the German population. Submitted study proposals are evaluated based on a scientific review process.

Panel members were initially recruited in 2013 in face-to-face interviews followed by a self-administered profile survey. The mode was chosen by the participants. All participants of the profile survey are considered as members of the panel and invited to the bi-monthly regular waves. The starting cohort encompassed 4900 panelists at the beginning of 2014.

In order to compensate for panel attrition, a refreshment sample was drawn in 2016, using the General Social Survey (ALLBUS) interview as vehicle. The initial cohort encompasses German speaking respondents aged between 18 and 70 years (at the time of recruitment) and permanently residing in Germany, whereas the second cohort includes respondents from the age of 18 without upper restriction.

In 2018 a third recruitment sample was drawn, which was integrated with the wave ge. The third cohort also includes respondents aged 18 and over without an upper limit. Retroactively, cases up to and including wave fc (third wave from 2018) were added to the data. The Data Manual (ZA5664-65_sd_data-manual) has been reissued and there is a corresponding recruitment report (ZA5664-65_mb_recruitment2018).

The ALLBUS Sample is based on a disproportional sampling of respondents from the western and eastern part of Germany. A design weight that enables integration of the two recruitment cohorts is included into the dataset. For more details, please see the methods reports of the recruitment processes and die GESIS Panel reference paper (Bosnjak et al., 2017).

In March 2020, a special GESIS panel survey was conducted on the SARS-CoV-2 resp. COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak in Germany.

In 2021, the fourth recruitment sample was drawn using the German International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), which was integrated with wave ja. The fourth cohort also includes respondents aged 18 and older with no upper limit. For more information, see the corresponding recruitment report (ZA5664-65_r_i12.pdf).

In 2023, the fifth recruitment sample was drawn using the German European Social Survey (ESS Round 11), which was integrated with the wave la. The fifth cohort includes respondents aged 18 and over with no upper limit. For more information, see the corresponding recruitment report (ZA5664-65_r_k12.pdf).

GESIS Panel Demographic Dataset Starting with version 43-0-0 the longitudinal demographic dataset became part of the dissemination package. The dataset is a longitudinal dataset (long format), with harmonized measurements on demographic variables: Respondent ID; timepoint of survey; corresponding wave; survey year; recruitment cohort; sex of respondent; year of birth; month of birth; highest level of education; personal net income; household net income; marital status; AAPOR disposition code; mode of invitation; mode of participation.

Evaluating the factors that drive patterns of population differentiation in plants is critical for understanding several biological processes such as local adaptation and incipient speciation. Previous studies have given conflicting results regarding the significance of pollination mode, seed dispersal mode, mating system, growth form, and latitudinal region in shaping patterns of genetic structure, as estimated by FST values, and no study to date has tested their relative importance together across a broad scale. Here we assembled a 337-species dataset for seed plants from publications with data on FST from nuclear markers and species traits, including variables pertaining to the sampling scheme of each study. We used species traits, while accounting for sampling variables, to perform phylogenetic multiple regressions. Results demonstrated that FST values were higher for tropical, mixed-mating, non-woody species pollinated by small insects, indicating greater population differentiation, and lower for temperate, outcrossing trees pollinated by wind. Among the factors we tested, latitudinal region explained the largest portion of variance, followed by pollination mode, mating system and growth form, while seed dispersal mode did not significantly relate to FST. Our analyses provide the most robust and comprehensive evaluation to date of the main ecological factors predicted to drive population differentiation in seed plants, with important implications for understanding the basis of their genetic divergence. Our study supports previous findings showing greater population differentiation in tropical regions and is the first that we are aware of to robustly demonstrate greater population differentiation in species pollinated by small insects.

Methods The main dataset was collected from a systematic literature review in google scholar. From the manuscript:

"We constructed an FST dataset through a systematic search in google scholar (key words: “plant” AND —the following words, each in a separate search— “genetic structure”, “population differentiation”, “population genetics”, “genetic diversity”, “population gene flow”) for articles published up until June 2018. The search yielded thousands of studies, which we reduced to 356 peer-reviewed publications on seed plants that determined population genetic structure (FST) based on nuclear markers. When multiple studies reported FST values for the same species, we recorded the FST from the study with the largest geographic range, as this may better represent the genetic diversity found in the species (Cavers et al., 2005). By this criterion, we compiled a dataset that included 337 unique species. We extracted information for the predictor variables directly from the publications, and infrequently complemented this, where necessary, with information from peer-reviewed literature on the studied species (see Appendix S1 and Table S1 in Supporting Information). Predictor variables were included in multiple regressions to explain variation in FST values (see section FST models). We also included three factors that pertained to the sampling scheme of each study and that can potentially affect FST (Nybom, 2004; Nybom & Bartish, 2000): genetic marker used, maximum distance between populations, mean sample size per population. We used them to construct a null model to be compared against models with our factors of interest. Factors of interest consisted of five categorical variables with 2–4 levels: mating system (outcrossing, mixed-mating), growth form (non-woody, shrub, tree), pollination mode (large insects, small insects, vertebrates, wind), seed dispersal mode (animal, gravity, wind), and latitudinal region (tropics, sub-tropics, temperate)."

A database based on a random sample of the noninstitutionalized population of the United States, developed for the purpose of studying the effects of demographic and socio-economic characteristics on differentials in mortality rates. It consists of data from 26 U.S. Current Population Surveys (CPS) cohorts, annual Social and Economic Supplements, and the 1980 Census cohort, combined with death certificate information to identify mortality status and cause of death covering the time interval, 1979 to 1998. The Current Population Surveys are March Supplements selected from the time period from March 1973 to March 1998. The NLMS routinely links geographical and demographic information from Census Bureau surveys and censuses to the NLMS database, and other available sources upon request. The Census Bureau and CMS have approved the linkage protocol and data acquisition is currently underway. The plan for the NLMS is to link information on mortality to the NLMS every two years from 1998 through 2006 with research on the resulting database to continue, at least, through 2009. The NLMS will continue to incorporate data from the yearly Annual Social and Economic Supplement into the study as the data become available. Based on the expected size of the Annual Social and Economic Supplements to be conducted, the expected number of deaths to be added to the NLMS through the updating process will increase the mortality content of the study to nearly 500,000 cases out of a total number of approximately 3.3 million records. This effort would also include expanding the NLMS population base by incorporating new March Supplement Current Population Survey data into the study as they become available. Linkages to the SEER and CMS datasets are also available. Data Availability: Due to the confidential nature of the data used in the NLMS, the public use dataset consists of a reduced number of CPS cohorts with a fixed follow-up period of five years. NIA does not make the data available directly. Research access to the entire NLMS database can be obtained through the NIA program contact listed. Interested investigators should email the NIA contact and send in a one page prospectus of the proposed project. NIA will approve projects based on their relevance to NIA/BSR''s areas of emphasis. Approved projects are then assigned to NLMS statisticians at the Census Bureau who work directly with the researcher to interface with the database. A modified version of the public use data files is available also through the Census restricted Data Centers. However, since the database is quite complex, many investigators have found that the most efficient way to access it is through the Census programmers. * Dates of Study: 1973-2009 * Study Features: Longitudinal * Sample Size: ~3.3 Million Link: *ICPSR: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/00134

Understanding Society, (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex and the survey research organisations Verian Group (formerly Kantar Public) and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991.

The Understanding Society: Calendar Year Dataset, 2023, is designed for analysts to conduct cross-sectional analysis for the 2023 calendar year. The Calendar Year datasets combine data collected in a specific year from across multiple waves and these are released as separate calendar year studies, with appropriate analysis weights, starting with the 2020 Calendar Year dataset. Each subsequent year, an additional yearly study is released.

The Calendar Year data is designed to enable timely cross-sectional analysis of individuals and households in a calendar year. Such analysis can however, only involve variables that are collected in every wave (excluding rotating content which is only collected in some of the waves). Due to overlapping fieldwork the data files combine data collected in the three waves that make up a calendar year. Analysis cannot be restricted to data collected in one wave during a calendar year, as this subset will not be representative of the population. Further details and guidance on this study can be found in the xxxx_main_survey_calendar_year_user_guide_2023.

These calendar year datasets should be used for cross-sectional analysis only. For those interested in longitudinal analyses using Understanding Society please access the main survey datasets: Safeguarded (End User Licence) version or Safeguarded/Special Licence version.

Understanding Society: the UK Household Longitudinal Study, started in 2009 with a general population sample (GPS) of UK residents living in private households of around 26,000 households and an ethnic minority boost sample (EMBS) of 4,000 households. All members of these responding households and their descendants became part of the core sample who were eligible to be interviewed every year. Anyone who joined these households after this initial wave, were also interviewed as long as they lived with these core sample members to provide the household context. At each annual interview, some basic demographic information was collected about every household member, information about the household is collected from one household member, all 16+ year old household members are eligible for adult interviews, 10-15 year old household members are eligible for youth interviews, and some information is collected about 0-9 year olds from their parents or guardians. Since 1991 until 2008/9 a similar survey, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), was fielded. The surviving members of this survey sample were incorporated into Understanding Society in 2010. In 2015, an immigrant and ethnic minority boost sample (IEMBS) of around 2,500 households was added. In 2022 a GPS boost sample (GPS2) of around 5,700 households was added. To know more about the sample design, following rules, interview modes, incentives, consent, questionnaire content please see the study overview and user guide.

Co-funders

In addition to the Economic and Social Research Council, co-funders for the study included the Department of Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, the Department for Transport, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Community and Local Government, the Department of Health, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs, and the Food Standards Agency.

End User Licence and Special Licence versions:

There are two versions of the Calendar Year 2023 data. One is available under the standard End User Licence (EUL) agreement, and the other is a Special Licence (SL) version. The SL version contains month and year of birth variables instead of just age, more detailed country and occupation coding for a number of variables and various income variables have not been top-coded (see document '9471_eul_vs_sl_variable_differences' for more details). Users are advised to first obtain the standard EUL version of the data to see if they are sufficient for their research requirements. The SL data have more restrictive access conditions; prospective users of the SL version will need to complete an extra application form and demonstrate to the data owners exactly why they need access to the additional variables in order to get permission to use that version. The main longitudinal versions of the Understanding Society study may be found under SNs 6614 (Safeguarded (EUL)) and 6931 (Safeguarded/SL).

Low- and Medium-level geographical identifiers produced for the mainstage longitudinal dataset can be used with this Calendar Year 2023 dataset, subject to SL access conditions. See the User Guide for further details.

Suitable data analysis software

These data are provided by the depositor in Stata format. Users are strongly advised to analyse them in Stata. Transfer to other formats may result in unforeseen issues. Stata SE or MP software is needed to analyse the larger files, which contain about 1,800 variables.

Abstract (en): Summary File 4 (SF 4) from the United States 2000 Census contains the sample data, which is the information compiled from the questions asked of a sample of all people and housing units. Population items include basic population totals: urban and rural, households and families, marital status, grandparents as caregivers, language and ability to speak English, ancestry, place of birth, citizenship status, year of entry, migration, place of work, journey to work (commuting), school enrollment and educational attainment, veteran status, disability, employment status, industry, occupation, class of worker, income, and poverty status. Housing items include basic housing totals: urban and rural, number of rooms, number of bedrooms, year moved into unit, household size and occupants per room, units in structure, year structure built, heating fuel, telephone service, plumbing and kitchen facilities, vehicles available, value of home, monthly rent, and shelter costs. In Summary File 4, the sample data are presented in 213 population tables (matrices) and 110 housing tables, identified with "PCT" and "HCT" respectively. Each table is iterated for 336 population groups: the total population, 132 race groups, 78 American Indian and Alaska Native tribe categories (reflecting 39 individual tribes), 39 Hispanic or Latino groups, and 86 ancestry groups. The presentation of SF4 tables for any of the 336 population groups is subject to a population threshold. That is, if there are fewer than 100 people (100-percent count) in a specific population group in a specific geographic area, and there are fewer than 50 unweighted cases, their population and housing characteristics data are not available for that geographic area in SF4. For the ancestry iterations, only the 50 unweighted cases test can be performed. See Appendix H: Characteristic Iterations, for a complete list of characteristic iterations. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.. All persons in housing units in the District of Columbia in 2000. 2013-05-25 Multiple Census data file segments were repackaged for distribution into a single zip archive per dataset. No changes were made to the data or documentation.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 342 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 341 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 340 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 339 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 338 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads. Because of the number of files per state in Summary File 4, ICPSR has given each state its own ICPSR study number in the range ICPSR 13512-13563. The study number for the national file is 13570. Data for each state are being released as they become available.The data are provided in 38 segments (files) per iteration. These segments are PCT1-PCT4, PCT5-PCT16, PCT17-PCT34, PCT35-PCT37, PCT38-PCT45, PCT46-PCT49, PCT50-PCT61, PCT62-PCT67, PCT68-PCT71, PCT72-PCT76, PCT77-PCT78, PCT79-PCT81, PCT82-PCT84, PCT85-PCT86 (partial), PCT86 (partial), PCT87-PCT103, PCT104-PCT120, PCT121-PCT131, PCT132-PCT137, PCT138-PCT143, PCT144, PCT145-PCT150, PCT151-PCT156, PCT157-PCT162, PCT163-PCT208, PCT209-PCT213, HCT1-HCT9, HCT10-HCT18, HCT19-HCT22, HCT23-HCT25, HCT26-HCT29, HCT30-HCT39, HCT40-HCT55, HCT56-HCT61, HCT62-HCT70, HCT71-HCT81, HCT82-HCT86, and HCT87-HCT110. The iterations are Parts 1-336, the Geographic Header File is Part 337. The Geographic Header File is in fixed-format ASCII and the table files are in comma-delimited ASCII format. A merged iteration will have 7,963 variables.For Parts 251-336, the part names contain numbers within parentheses that refer to the Ancestry Code List (page G1 of the codebook).

Additional file 1 : Supplementary Table 1. Table containing prevalence estimates and, the estimated required number of tests, and the expected proportion incorrectly classified patients for all parameter combinations. Se = sensitivity. Sp = specificity. N = number of samples. k = pooling level. P = true prevalence. p 2.5%, p 50.0%, p 97.5% = 2.5, 50 and 97.5 quantile of estimated prevalence. T 2.5%, T 50.0%, T 97.5% = 2.5, 50 and 97.5 quantile of estimated number of tests required to get individual-level diagnoses. E(S) = Expected number of tests saved when compared to testing individually for this N. E(inc) = Expected percentage of patients that are diagnosed incorrectly at this parameter combination. [Excel file].

Data are shown as n or median (interquartile range).BMI, body mass index; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.Clinical characteristics of the study sample population.

Longitudinal data set of a nationally representative sample of the population aged 65 and over in Japan, comparable to that collected in the US and other countries. The first two waves of data are now available to the international research community. The sample is refreshed with younger members at each wave so it remains representative of the population at each wave. The study was designed primarily to investigate health status of the Japanese elderly and changes in health status over time. An additional aim is to investigate the impact of long-term care insurance system on the use of services by the Japanese elderly and to investigate the relationship between co-residence and the use of long term care. While the focus of the survey is health and health service utilization, other topics relevant to the aging experience are included such as intergenerational exchange, living arrangements, caregiving, and labor force participation. The initial questionnaire was designed to be comparable to the (US) Longitudinal Study of Aging II (LSOAII), and to the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD, a pre-1924 birth cohort) sample of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), which has now been merged with the HRS. The sample was selected using a multistage stratified sampling method to generate 340 primary sampling units (PSUs). The sample of individuals was selected for the most part by using the National Residents Registry System, considered to be universal and accurate because it is a legal requirement to report any move to local authorities within two weeks. From each of the 340 PSUs, 6-11 persons aged 65-74 were selected and 8-12 persons aged 75+ were sampled. The population 75+ was oversampled by a factor of 2. Weights have been developed for respondents to the first wave of the survey to reflect sampling probabilities. Weights for the second wave are under development. With these weights, the sample should be representative of the 65+ Japanese population. In fall 1999, 4,997 respondents aged 65+ were interviewed, 74.6 percent of the initial target. Twelve percent of responses were provided by proxies, because of physical or mental health problems. The second wave of data was collected in November 2001. The third wave was collected in November 2003. Questionnaire topics include family structure, and living arrangements; subjects'''' parents/spouse''''s parents/children; socioeconomic status; intergenerational exchange; health behaviors, chronic conditions, physical functioning; activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living; functioning in the community; mental health depression measures; vision and hearing; dental health; health care and other service utilization. A CD is available which include the codebook and data files for the first and second waves of the national sample. The third wave of data will be released at a later date. * Dates of Study: 1999-2003 * Study Features: Longitudinal, International * Sample Size: ** 4,997 Nov/Dec 1999 Wave 1 ** 3,992 Nov 2001 Wave 2 ** Nov 2003 Wave 3 Link: * ICPSR: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/00156

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

Web-based experimentation with uncompensated and unsupervised samples allows for a larger and more diverse sample population, more generalizable results, and faster theory to experiment cycle. Given that participants are unsupervised, it is still unknown whether the data collected in such settings would be of sufficiently high quality to support robust conclusions. Therefore, we investigated the feasibility of conducting such experiments online using virtual environment technologies. We conducted a conceptual replication of two prior experiments that have been conducted in virtual environments. Our results replicate findings previously obtained in conventional laboratory settings. These results hold across different device types of participants (ranging from desktop, through mobile devices to immersive virtual reality headsets), suggesting that experiments can be conducted online with uncompensated samples in virtual environments. This dataset contains the dataset used for these analyses.