An increase in prices concerned over 60 percent of Russians in February 2022, recorded as the most worrying problem in the society. An issue of unemployment growth was named as one of the most critical by nearly three out of ten survey participants. Besides political and economic matters, the deterioration of the environmental situation and a morality crisis were named among the most worrying topics.

blockgroupvulnerability OPPORTUNITY The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) publishes a set of percentiles that compare US geographies by vulnerability across household, socioeconomic, racial/ethnic and housing themes. These Social Vulnerability Indexes (SVI) were originally intended to to help public health officials and emergency response planners identify communities that will need support around an event. They are generally valuable for any public interest that wants to relate themselves to needy communities by geography. The SVI publication and its basis variables are provided at the Census tract level of geographic detail. The Census' American Community Survey is available down the to the block group level, however. Recasting the SVI methods at this lower level of geography allows it to be tied to thousands of other demographic variables available. Because the SVI relies on ACS variables only available at the tract level, a projection model needs to applied to approximate its results using blockgroup level ACS variables. The blockgroupvulnerability dataset casts a prediction for the CDCs logic for a new contribution to the Open Environments blockgroup series available on Harvard's dataverse platform. DATA The CDC's annual SVI publication starts with 23 simple derivations using 50 ACS Census variables. Next the SVI process ranks census geographies to calculate a rank for each, where Percentile Rank = (Rank-1) / (N-1). The SVI themes are then calculated at the tract level as a percentile rank of a sum of the percentile ranks of the first level ACS derived variables. Finally, the overall ranking is taken as the sum of the theme percentile rankings. The SVI data publication is keyed by geography (7 cols) where ultimately the Census Tract FIPS code is 2 State + 3 County + 4 Tract + 2 Tract Decimals eg, 56043000301 is 56 Wyoming, 043 Washakie County, Tract 3.01 republishes Census demographics called 'adjunct variables' including area, population, households and housing units from the ACS daytime population taken from LandScan 2020 estimates derives 23 SVI variables from 50 ACS 5 Year variables with each having an estimate (E_), estimate precentage (EP_), margin of error (M_), margin percentage (MP_) and flag variable (F_) for those greater than 90% or less than 10% provides the final 4 themes and a composite SVI percentile annually vars = ['ST', 'STATE', 'ST_ABBR', 'STCNTY', 'COUNTY', 'FIPS', 'LOCATION'] +\ ['SNGPNT','LIMENG','DISABL','AGE65','AGE17','NOVEH','MUNIT','MOBILE','GROUPQ','CROWD','UNINSUR','UNEMP','POV150','NOHSDP','HBURD','TWOMORE','OTHERRACE','NHPI','MINRTY','HISP','ASIAN','AIAN','AFAM','NOINT'] +\ ['TOTAL','THEME1','THEME2','THEME3','THEME4'] + \ ['AREA_SQMI', 'TOTPOP', 'DAYPOP', 'HU', 'HH'] knowns = vars + \ # Estimates, the result of calc against ACS vars [('E_'+v) for v in vars] + \ # Flag 0,1 whether this geog is in 90 percentile rank (its vulnerable) [('F_'+v) for v in vars] +\ # Margine of error for ACS calcs [('M_'+v) for v in vars] + \ # Margine of error for ACS calcs, as percentage [('MP_'+v) for v in vars] +\ # Estimates of ACS calcs, as percentage [('EP_'+v) for v in vars] + \ # Estimated percentile ranks [('EPL_'+v) for v in vars] + \ # Sum across var percentile ranks [('SPL_'+v) for v in vars]+ \ # Percentile rank of the sum of percentile ranks [('RPL_'+v) for v in vars] [c for c in svitract.columns if c not in knowns] The SVI themes range over [0,1] but the CDC uses -999 as an NA value; this is set for ~800 or 1% of tracts which have no total poulation. The themes are numbered: Socioeconomic Status – RPL_THEME1 Household Characteristics – RPL_THEME2 Racial & Ethnic Minority Status – RPL_THEME3 Housing Type & Transportation – RPL_THEME4 The themes with their variables and ACS sources are as follows: Unlike Census data, the CDC ranks Puerto Rico and Tribal tracts separately from the US otherwise. Theme SVI Variable ACS Table ACS Variables Socioeconomic E_UNINSUR S2701 S2701_C04_001E Socioeconomic E_UNEMP DP03 DP03_0005E Socioeconomic E_POV150 S1701 S1701_C01_040E Socioeconomic E_NOHSDP B06009 B06009_002E Socioeconomic E_HBURD S2503 S2503_C01_028E + S2503_C01_032E + S2503_C01_036E + S2503_C01_040E Household E_SNGPNT B11012 B11012_010E + B11012_015E Household E_LIMENG B16005 B16005_007E + B16005_008E + B16005_012E + B16005_013E + B16005_017E + B16005_018E + B16005_022E + B16005_023E + B16005_029E + B16005_030E + B16005_034E + B16005_035E + B16005_039E + B16005_040E + B16005_044E + B16005_045E Household E_DISABL DP02 DP02_0072E Household E_AGE65 S0101 S0101_C01_030E Household E_AGE17 B09001 B09001_001E Racial & Ethnic E_TWOMORE DP05 DP05_0083E Racial & Ethnic E_OTHERRACE DP05 DP05_0082E Racial & Ethnic E_NHPI DP05 DP05_0081E Racial & Ethnic E_MINRTY DP05 DP05_0071E + DP05_0078E + DP05_0079E + DP05_0080E + DP05_0081E + DP05_0082E + ... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A3edd5defce2f25c7501953ca3e77c4f15a8c71251352373a328794f961755c1c for complete metadata about this dataset.

Explore the dataset detailing the remaining Afghan refugee population in Pakistan as of December 31, 2020. This comprehensive dataset includes a summary of the refugee population, district-wise distribution, and breakdowns by ethnicity and gender. A valuable resource for researchers, policymakers, and humanitarian organizations seeking insights into the demographic composition and distribution of Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

Snapshot img

US Population Health Management (PHM) Market Size 2025-2029

The us population health management (phm) market size is forecast to increase by USD 6.04 billion at a CAGR of 7.4% between 2024 and 2029.

The Population Health Management (PHM) market in the US is experiencing significant growth, driven by the increasing adoption of healthcare IT solutions and analytics. These technologies enable healthcare providers to collect, analyze, and act on patient data to improve health outcomes and reduce costs. However, the high perceived costs associated with PHM solutions pose a challenge for some organizations, limiting their ability to fully implement and optimize these technologies. Despite this obstacle, the potential benefits of PHM, including improved patient care and population health, make it a strategic priority for many healthcare organizations. To capitalize on this opportunity, companies must focus on cost-effective solutions and innovative approaches to addressing the challenges of PHM implementation and optimization. By leveraging advanced analytics, cloud technologies, and strategic partnerships, organizations can overcome cost barriers and deliver better care to their patient populations.

What will be the size of the US Population Health Management (PHM) Market during the forecast period?

Explore in-depth regional segment analysis with market size data - historical 2019-2023 and forecasts 2025-2029 - in the full report.
Request Free Sample

The Population Health Management (PHM) market in the US is experiencing significant advancements, integrating various elements to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. Public health surveillance and data governance ensure accurate population health data, enabling healthcare leaders to identify health disparities and target interventions. Quality measures and health literacy initiatives promote transparency and patient activation, while data visualization and business intelligence facilitate data-driven decision-making. Behavioral health integration, substance abuse treatment, and mental health services address the growing need for holistic care, and outcome-based contracts incentivize providers to focus on patient outcomes. Health communication, community health workers, and patient portals enhance patient engagement, while wearable devices and mHealth technologies provide real-time data for personalized care plans. Precision medicine and predictive modeling leverage advanced analytics to tailor treatment approaches, and social service integration addresses the social determinants of health. Health data management, data storytelling, and healthcare innovation continue to drive market growth, transforming the industry and improving overall population health.

How is this market segmented?

The market research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2025-2029, as well as historical data from 2019-2023 for the following segments. ProductSoftwareServicesDeploymentCloudOn-premisesEnd-userHealthcare providersHealthcare payersEmployers and government bodiesGeographyNorth AmericaUS

By Product Insights

The software segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.

Population Health Management (PHM) software in the US gathers patient data from healthcare systems and utilizes advanced analytics tools, including data visualization and business intelligence, to predict health conditions and improve patient care. PHM software aims to enhance healthcare efficiency, reduce costs, and ensure quality patient care. By analyzing accurate patient data, PHM software enables the identification of community health risks, leading to proactive interventions and better health outcomes. The adoption of PHM software is on the rise in the US due to the growing emphasis on value-based care and the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases. Machine learning, artificial intelligence, and predictive analytics are integral components of PHM software, enabling healthcare payers to develop personalized care plans and improve care coordination. Data integration and interoperability facilitate seamless data sharing among various healthcare stakeholders, while data visualization tools help in making informed decisions. Public health agencies and healthcare providers leverage PHM software for population health research, disease management programs, and quality improvement initiatives. Cloud computing and data warehousing provide the necessary infrastructure for storing and managing large volumes of population health data. Healthcare regulations mandate the adoption of PHM software to ensure compliance with data privacy and security standards. PHM software also supports care management services, patient engagement platforms, and remote patient monitoring, empowering patients

Overview

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

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

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

The survey is focused on three core areas of research:

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

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

Queries

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

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

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

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

Margin of Error

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

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

About the Data

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

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

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

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

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

Attribution

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

AP Data Distributions

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

Historical population counts for municipalities in the State of Vermont (1791-2020) compiled by the Vermont Historical Society (years 1791-2010) then appended with 2020 Census counts.An attempt was made to convert counts to current town names to allow for analyses of population change of an area over time. The Historical Society notes, “For example, the census numbers from Kellyvale are counted as the town of Lowell because the name was changed in 1831. Cabot is included in Washington County records, even though it was in Caledonia County through the 1850 census.” This does create some issues where there are changes in geography such as boundary changes, annexations, and new incorporations (such as Rutland City splitting off from Rutland Town).The Historical Society collected the data from a variety of sources.The 1791-2010 data was extracted from PDF’s by VCGI Open Data Fellow Kendal Fortney in 2017.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Ancestry listed in this table refers to the total number of people who responded with a particular ancestry; for example, the estimate given for German represents the number of people who listed German as either their first or second ancestry. This table lists only the largest ancestry groups; see the Detailed Tables for more categories. Race and Hispanic origin groups are not included in this table because data for those groups come from the Race and Hispanic origin questions rather than the ancestry question (see Demographic Table)..Data for year of entry of the native population reflect the year of entry into the U.S. by people who were born in Puerto Rico or U.S. Island Areas or born outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent and who subsequently moved to the U.S..The category "with a broadband Internet subscription" refers to those who said "Yes" to at least one of the following types of Internet subscriptions: Broadband such as cable, fiber optic, or DSL; a cellular data plan; satellite; a fixed wireless subscription; or other non-dial up subscription types..An Internet "subscription" refers to a type of service that someone pays for to access the Internet such as a cellular data plan, broadband such as cable, fiber optic or DSL, or other type of service. This will normally refer to a service that someone is billed for directly for Internet alone or sometimes as part of a bundle.."With a computer" includes those who said "Yes" to at least one of the following types of computers: Desktop or laptop; smartphone; tablet or other portable wireless computer; or some other type of computer..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- ...

Note: For information on data collection, confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Due to operational changes for military installation enumeration, the 2020 Census of Guam data tables reporting housing, social, and economic characteristics do not include housing units or populations living on Guam's U.S. military installations in the table universe. As a result, impacted 2020 data tables should not be compared to 2010 and other past census data tables reporting the same characteristics. The Census Bureau advises data users to verify table universes are the same before comparing data across census years. For more information about operational changes and the impacts on Guam's data products, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Due to COVID-19 restrictions impacting data collection for the 2020 Census of Guam, data users should consider the following when using Guam's data products: 1) Data tables reporting social and economic characteristics do not include the group quarters population in the table universe. As a result, impacted 2020 data tables should not be compared to 2010 and other past census data tables reporting the same characteristics. The Census Bureau advises data users to verify table universes are the same before comparing data across census years. For more information about data collection limitations and the impacts on Guam's data products, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation. 2) Cells in data tables will display the letter "N" when those data are not statistically reliable. A list of the geographic areas and data tables that will not have data displayed due to data quality concerns can be found in the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation. 3) The Census Bureau advises that data users consider high allocation rates while using the 2020 Census of Guam's available characteristics data. Allocation rates -- a measure of item nonresponse -- are higher than past censuses. Final counts can be adversely impacted when an item's allocation rate is high, and bias can be introduced if the characteristics of the nonrespondents differ from those reported by respondents. Allocation rates for Guam's key population and housing characteristics can be found in the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation. .Note: For information on the codes used when processing the data in this table, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Explanation of Symbols: 1.An "-" means the statistic could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of observations. 2. An "-" following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.3. An "+" following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.4. An "N" means data are not displayed for the selected geographic area due to concerns with statistical reliability or an insufficient number of cases.5. An "(X)" means not applicable..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census, Guam.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.BackgroundThe British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey series began in 1983. The series is designed to produce annual measures of attitudinal movements to complement large-scale government surveys that deal largely with facts and behaviour patterns, and the data on party political attitudes produced by opinion polls. One of the BSA's main purposes is to allow the monitoring of patterns of continuity and change, and the examination of the relative rates at which attitudes, in respect of a range of social issues, change over time. Some questions are asked regularly, others less often. Funding for BSA comes from a number of sources (including government departments, the Economic and Social Research Council and other research foundations), but the final responsibility for the coverage and wording of the annual questionnaires rests with NatCen Social Research (formerly Social and Community Planning Research). The BSA has been conducted every year since 1983, except in 1988 and 1992 when core funding was devoted to the British Election Study (BES).Further information about the series and links to publications may be found on the NatCen Social Research British Social Attitudes webpage. BSA 2020 In 2020 the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic meant that the traditional face-to-face fieldwork was not feasible. In order to continue to deliver the survey and capture key attitudinal data during the pandemic, the 2020 BSA was transitioned to operate with a push-to-web design, with telephone opt-in to cover the offline population. The BSA 2020 report, including Key Findings, is available from the NatCen BSA website. Main Topics:Each year, the BSA interview questionnaire contains a number of 'core' questions, which are repeated in most years. In addition, a wide range of background and classificatory questions is included. The remainder of the questionnaire is devoted to a series of questions (modules) on a range of social, economic, political and moral issues - some are asked regularly, others less often. Cross-indexes of those questions asked more than once appear in the reports. In 2020 the questionnaire included the following sections: household composition; employment; politics; welfare; work and health; child maintenance; digital data; satisfaction with the NHS; the workplace and COVID-19; democracy; national identity; religion; ethnicity; disability; education; the EU referendum and general election; benefits and income; and pensions.

Note: For information on data collection, confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Due to operational changes for military installation enumeration, the 2020 Census of Guam data tables reporting housing, social, and economic characteristics do not include housing units or populations living on Guam's U.S. military installations in the table universe. As a result, impacted 2020 data tables should not be compared to 2010 and other past census data tables reporting the same characteristics. The Census Bureau advises data users to verify table universes are the same before comparing data across census years. For more information about operational changes and the impacts on Guam's data products, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Due to COVID-19 restrictions impacting data collection for the 2020 Census of Guam, data users should consider the following when using Guam's data products: 1) Data tables reporting social and economic characteristics do not include the group quarters population in the table universe. As a result, impacted 2020 data tables should not be compared to 2010 and other past census data tables reporting the same characteristics. The Census Bureau advises data users to verify table universes are the same before comparing data across census years. For more information about data collection limitations and the impacts on Guam's data products, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation. 2) Cells in data tables will display the letter "N" when those data are not statistically reliable. A list of the geographic areas and data tables that will not have data displayed due to data quality concerns can be found in the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation. 3) The Census Bureau advises that data users consider high allocation rates while using the 2020 Census of Guam's available characteristics data. Allocation rates -- a measure of item nonresponse -- are higher than past censuses. Final counts can be adversely impacted when an item's allocation rate is high, and bias can be introduced if the characteristics of the nonrespondents differ from those reported by respondents. Allocation rates for Guam's key population and housing characteristics can be found in the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation. .Explanation of Symbols: 1.An "-" means the statistic could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of observations. 2. An "-" following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.3. An "+" following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.4. An "N" means data are not displayed for the selected geographic area due to concerns with statistical reliability or an insufficient number of cases.5. An "(X)" means not applicable..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census, Guam.

BSA 2020

In 2020 the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic meant that the traditional face-to-face fieldwork was not feasible. In order to continue to deliver the survey and capture key attitudinal data during the pandemic, the 2020 BSA was transitioned to operate with a push-to-web design, with telephone opt-in to cover the offline population.

The BSA 2020 report, including Key Findings, is available from the NatCen BSA website.

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued on May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

The surveillance case definition for COVID-19, a nationally notifiable disease, was first described in a position statement from the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which was later revised. However, there is some variation in how jurisdictions implemented these case definitions. More information on how CDC collects COVID-19 case surveillance data can be found at FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were reported from state and local health departments through a robust process with the following steps:

• Aggregate county-level counts were obtained indirectly, via automated overnight web collection, or directly, via a data submission process.
• If more than one official county data source existed, CDC used a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source to retrieve the highest case and death counts, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• A CDC data team reviewed counts for congruency prior to integration and set up alerts to monitor for discrepancies in the data.
• CDC routinely compiled these data and post the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data were aggregated to obtain state- and territory- specific totals.
• Counting of cases and deaths is based on date of report and not on the date of symptom onset. CDC calculates rates in these data by using population estimates provided by the US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (2019 Vintage).
• COVID-19 aggregate case and death data are organized in a time series that includes cumulative number of cases and deaths as reported by a jurisdiction on a given date. New case and death counts are calculated as the week-to-week change in cumulative counts of cases and deaths reported (i.e., newly reported cases and deaths = cumulative number of cases/deaths reported this week minus the cumulative total reported the prior week.

This process was collaborative, with CDC and jurisdictions working together to ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 case and death numbers. County counts provided the most up-to-date numbers on cases and deaths by report date. Throughout data collection, CDC retrospectively updated counts to correct known data quality issues.

Description This archived public use dataset focuses on the cumulative and weekly case and death rates per 100,000 persons within various sociodemographic factors across all states and their counties. All resulting data are expressed as rates calculated as the number of cases or deaths per 100,000 persons in counties meeting various classification criteria using the US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (2019 Vintage).

Each county within jurisdictions is classified into multiple categories for each factor. All rates in this dataset are based on classification of counties by the characteristics of their population, not individual-level factors. This applies to each of the available factors observed in this dataset. Specific factors and their corresponding categories are detailed below.

Population-level factors Each unique population factor is detailed below. Please note that the “Classification” column describes each of the 12 factors in the dataset, including a data dictionary describing what each numeric digit means within each classification. The “Category” column uses numeric digits (2-6, depending on the factor) defined in the “Classification” column.

Metro vs. Non-Metro – “Metro_Rural” Metro vs. Non-Metro classification type is an aggregation of the 6 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Urban-Rural classifications, where “Metro” counties include Large Central Metro, Large Fringe Metro, Medium Metro, and Small Metro areas and “Non-Metro” counties include Micropolitan and Non-Core (Rural) areas. 1 – Metro, including “Large Central Metro, Large Fringe Metro, Medium Metro, and Small Metro” areas 2 – Non-Metro, including “Micropolitan, and Non-Core” areas

Urban/rural - “NCHS_Class” Urban/rural classification type is based on the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. Levels consist of:

1 Large Central Metro
2 Large Fringe Metro 3 Medium Metro 4 Small Metro 5 Micropolitan 6 Non-Core (Rural)

American Community Survey (ACS) data were used to classify counties based on their age, race/ethnicity, household size, poverty level, and health insurance status distributions. Cut points were generated by using tertiles and categorized as High, Moderate, and Low percentages. The classification “Percent non-Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander” is only available for “Hawaii” due to low numbers in this category for other available locations. This limitation also applies to other race/ethnicity categories within certain jurisdictions, where 0 counties fall into the certain category. The cut points for each ACS category are further detailed below:

Age 65 - “Age65”

1 Low (0-24.4%) 2 Moderate (>24.4%-28.6%) 3 High (>28.6%)

Non-Hispanic, Asian - “NHAA”

1 Low (<=5.7%) 2 Moderate (>5.7%-17.4%) 3 High (>17.4%)

Non-Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native - “NHIA”

1 Low (<=0.7%) 2 Moderate (>0.7%-30.1%) 3 High (>30.1%)

Non-Hispanic, Black - “NHBA”

1 Low (<=2.5%) 2 Moderate (>2.5%-37%) 3 High (>37%)

Hispanic - “HISP”

1 Low (<=18.3%) 2 Moderate (>18.3%-45.5%) 3 High (>45.5%)

Population in Poverty - “Pov”

1 Low (0-12.3%) 2 Moderate (>12.3%-17.3%) 3 High (>17.3%)

Population Uninsured- “Unins”

1 Low (0-7.1%) 2 Moderate (>7.1%-11.4%) 3 High (>11.4%)

Average Household Size - “HH”

1 Low (1-2.4) 2 Moderate (>2.4-2.6) 3 High (>2.6)

Community Vulnerability Index Value - “CCVI” COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI) scores are from Surgo Ventures, which range from 0 to 1, were generated based on tertiles and categorized as:

1 Low Vulnerability (0.0-0.4) 2 Moderate Vulnerability (0.4-0.6) 3 High Vulnerability (0.6-1.0)

Social Vulnerability Index Value – “SVI" Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) scores (vintage 2020), which also range from 0 to 1, are from CDC/ASTDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Service Program. Cut points for CCVI and SVI scores were generated based on tertiles and categorized as:

1 Low Vulnerability (0-0.333) 2 Moderate Vulnerability (0.334-0.666) 3 High Vulnerability (0.667-1)

For the study ´Topic-specific Information Behaviour on the COVID-19 Pandemic´, the market and opinion research institute INFO GmbH surveyed a total of 2,012 persons of the German-speaking resident population aged 16 and over from 6 to 25 November 2020 on behalf of the Press and Information Office of the Federal Government. The subject of the survey were attitudes of the population to the topic of the coronavirus pandemic, their information behaviour and handling of the topic as well as the reporting on the topic of the coronavirus pandemic. General questions: interest in politics; self-assessment of being politically informed; agreement with statements on disenchantment with politics (e.g. satisfied with politics in Germany all in all, parties only want the voters´ votes, they are not interested in their views, etc.); frequency of media use on political topics; statements on information processing (I specifically look for information on a political topic that interests me, I read through an article on a political event in its entirety, I read through a background report on a political topic in its entirety); perception of information from the federal government on selected information channels in recent months (e.g. federal government websites, interviews of government politicians on television, etc.); credibility of information from the federal government on political topics. 2. Current interest in the topic: currently most interesting political or social topic (open question); currently most annoying political or social topic (open question); previously greater interest in the currently most annoying topic. 3. Attitudes towards the topic of the coronavirus pandemic (e.g. the topic interests me, the topic is socially relevant, bores me, annoys me, etc.). 4. Information behaviour and dealing with the topic of the coronavirus pandemic: self-assessment of current level of information about the coronavirus pandemic; frequency of certain behaviours in dealing with this topic (have myself frequently searched for information on the topic, have watched video reports on the topic on the Internet or television, have read articles on the topic in newspapers or on the Internet in full, have only skimmed articles on the topic, have talked about the topic with friends or acquaintances, have tried to change the topic when talking about the topic, have avoided the topic as much as possible). 5. Coverage of the coronavirus pandemic: agreement with statements on media coverage (too detailed, too complicated, too extensive, I consider credible, balanced, correct, only aims to influence people, contains many opinions I disagree with, I feel it is one-sided, does not reflect my own opinion on the topic at all, distracts from other important issues); statements on opinions in social media (already expressed own opinion on the topic of the coronavirus pandemic in social media, only read opinions of others on this topic there, have not yet read any opinions on this topic in social media); statements on public discussion in social media (contains many opinions with which I do not agree, I perceive as one-sided, does not reflect my own opinion on the topic at all, I perceive as factual, I perceive as helpful to hear new arguments); credibility of the information of the federal government on the topic of the coronavirus pandemic. Demography: age (year of birth, average age, age groups); sex; education; vocational training; employment status; household size; number of children/adolescents under 16 in the household; federal state; former district classification Berlin (West/East); place of residence (West/East); Nielsen areas; city size; political orientation; migration background of the respondent or his/her parents; net household income. Additionally coded were: Respondent ID, weight; political disenchantment (rough cluster: not disenchanted with politics, disenchanted with politics); information processing (2-cluster: rather thorough, rather superficial); information processing (3-cluster: thorough, occasionally thorough, superficial).

The CDC\ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) is a tool, created by the Geospatial Research, Analysis and Services Program (GRASP), to help public health officials and emergency response planners identify and map the communities that will most likely need support before, during, and after a hazardous event. The tract-level SVI shows the relative vulnerability of the population of every U.S. Census tract. The county-level SVI shows the relative vulnerability of every U.S. county population. The SVI ranks tracts (or counties) on 16 social factors, described in detail in the documentation. The tract (or county) rankings for individual factors are further grouped into four related themes. Thus each enumeration unit receives a ranking for each Census variable and for each of the four themes, as well as an overall ranking.

Government census data on the population breakdown by race (%) for Onondaga county and those that surround it. Source: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts.

Note: For information on data collection, confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Due to operational changes for military installation enumeration, the 2020 Census of Guam data tables reporting housing, social, and economic characteristics do not include housing units or populations living on Guam's U.S. military installations in the table universe. As a result, impacted 2020 data tables should not be compared to 2010 and other past census data tables reporting the same characteristics. The Census Bureau advises data users to verify table universes are the same before comparing data across census years. For more information about operational changes and the impacts on Guam's data products, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Due to COVID-19 restrictions impacting data collection for the 2020 Census of Guam, data users should consider the following when using Guam's data products: 1) Data tables reporting social and economic characteristics do not include the group quarters population in the table universe. As a result, impacted 2020 data tables should not be compared to 2010 and other past census data tables reporting the same characteristics. The Census Bureau advises data users to verify table universes are the same before comparing data across census years. For more information about data collection limitations and the impacts on Guam's data products, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation. 2) Cells in data tables will display the letter "N" when those data are not statistically reliable. A list of the geographic areas and data tables that will not have data displayed due to data quality concerns can be found in the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation. 3) The Census Bureau advises that data users consider high allocation rates while using the 2020 Census of Guam's available characteristics data. Allocation rates -- a measure of item nonresponse -- are higher than past censuses. Final counts can be adversely impacted when an item's allocation rate is high, and bias can be introduced if the characteristics of the nonrespondents differ from those reported by respondents. Allocation rates for Guam's key population and housing characteristics can be found in the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation. .Explanation of Symbols: 1.An "-" means the statistic could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of observations. 2. An "-" following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.3. An "+" following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.4. An "N" means data are not displayed for the selected geographic area due to concerns with statistical reliability or an insufficient number of cases.5. An "(X)" means not applicable..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census, Guam.

we utilized data from two main sources: the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). American Community Survey (ACS):

Conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACS is an ongoing survey that provides detailed demographic and socio-economic data on the population and housing characteristics of the United States. The survey collects information on various topics such as income, education, employment, health insurance coverage, and housing costs and conditions. It offers more frequent and up-to-date information compared to the decennial census, with annual estimates produced based on a rolling sample of households. The ACS data is essential for policymakers, researchers, and communities to make informed decisions and address the evolving needs of the population.

CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI):

Created by ATSDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program (GRASP) and utilized by the CDC, the SVI is designed to identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events. SVI ranks U.S. Census tracts based on 15 social factors, including unemployment, minority status, and disability, and groups them into four related themes Each tract receives rankings for each Census variable and for each theme, as well as an overall ranking, indicating its relative vulnerability. SVI data provides insights into the social vulnerability of communities at both the tract and county levels, helping public health officials and emergency response planners allocate resources effectively.

In our utilization of these sources, we likely integrated data from both the ACS and the SVI to analyze and understand various socio-economic and demographic indicators at the state, county, and possibly tract levels. This integrated data would have been valuable for research, policymaking, and community planning purposes, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of social and economic dynamics across different geographical areas in the United States

Note: Due to limitations in the ArcGIS Pro environment, the data variable names may be truncated. Refer to the provided table for a clear understanding of the variables.CSV Variable NameShapefile Variable NameDescriptionStateNameStateNameName of the stateStateFipsStateFipsState-level FIPS codeState nameStateNameName of the stateCountyNameCountyNameName of the countyCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeState abbreviationStateFipsState abbreviationCountyFipsCountyFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCounty nameCountyNameName of the countyAREA_SQMIAREA_SQMITract area in square milesE_TOTPOPE_TOTPOPPopulation estimates, 2015-2019 ACSEP_POVEP_POVPercentage of persons below poverty estimateEP_UNEMPEP_UNEMPUnemployment Rate estimateEP_HBURDEP_HBURDHousing cost burdened occupied housing units with annual income less than $75,000EP_UNINSUREP_UNINSURUninsured in the total civilian noninstitutionalized population estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_PCIEP_PCIPer capita income estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_DISABLEP_DISABLPercentage of civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_SNGPNTEP_SNGPNTPercentage of single parent households with children under 18 estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_MINRTYEP_MINRTYPercentage minority (all persons except white, non-Hispanic) estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_LIMENGEP_LIMENGPercentage of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_MUNITEP_MUNITPercentage of housing in structures with 10 or more units estimateEP_MOBILEEP_MOBILEPercentage of mobile homes estimateEP_CROWDEP_CROWDPercentage of occupied housing units with more people than rooms estimateEP_NOVEHEP_NOVEHPercentage of households with no vehicle available estimateEP_GROUPQEP_GROUPQPercentage of persons in group quarters estimate, 2014-2018 ACSBelow_5_yrBelow_5_yrUnder 5 years: Percentage of Total populationBelow_18_yrBelow_18_yrUnder 18 years: Percentage of Total population18-39_yr18_39_yr18-39 years: Percentage of Total population40-64_yr40_64_yr40-64 years: Percentage of Total populationAbove_65_yrAbove_65_yrAbove 65 years: Percentage of Total populationPop_malePop_malePercentage of total population malePop_femalePop_femalePercentage of total population femaleWhitewhitePercentage population of white aloneBlackblackPercentage population of black or African American aloneAmerican_indianamerican_iPercentage population of American Indian and Alaska native aloneAsianasianPercentage population of Asian aloneHawaiian_pacific_islanderhawaiian_pPercentage population of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander aloneSome_othersome_otherPercentage population of some other race aloneMedian_tot_householdsmedian_totMedian household income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars) by household size – total householdsLess_than_high_schoolLess_than_Percentage of Educational attainment for the population less than 9th grades and 9th to 12th grade, no diploma estimateHigh_schoolHigh_schooPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of High school graduate (includes equivalency)Some_collegeSome_collePercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Some college, no degreeAssociates_degreeAssociatesPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of associate degreeBachelor’s_degreeBachelor_sPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Bachelor’s degreeMaster’s_degreeMaster_s_dPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Graduate or professional degreecomp_devicescomp_devicPercentage of Household having one or more types of computing devicesInternetInternetPercentage of Household with an Internet subscriptionBroadbandBroadbandPercentage of Household having Broadband of any typeSatelite_internetSatelite_iPercentage of Household having Satellite Internet serviceNo_internetNo_internePercentage of Household having No Internet accessNo_computerNo_computePercentage of Household having No computer

The global medical-social work services market is experiencing robust growth, driven by several key factors. An aging global population, increasing prevalence of chronic diseases requiring ongoing care, and a rising demand for integrated healthcare models are significantly boosting market expansion. The integration of social work into healthcare settings improves patient outcomes, reduces hospital readmissions, and enhances overall patient satisfaction, leading to increased investment in these services. Technological advancements, such as telehealth platforms and electronic health records, are also streamlining workflows and expanding access to medical-social work services. Based on industry reports and observed growth trends in related sectors, we estimate the 2025 market size to be approximately $150 billion, with a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7% projected from 2025 to 2033. This growth is further fueled by the increasing awareness of mental health issues and the expanding role of social workers in addressing social determinants of health, such as poverty, housing insecurity, and lack of access to resources. This contributes to a holistic approach to patient care, moving beyond purely clinical interventions. The market segmentation, encompassing services like patient intake screening, counseling, and education, across various settings including hospitals, nursing homes, and residential treatment centers, reflects the diverse applications and growing demand for this crucial healthcare support. While the market exhibits significant growth potential, some challenges remain. These include workforce shortages within the social work profession, particularly in underserved areas, reimbursement complexities, and the need for effective data integration across different healthcare systems. Despite these hurdles, the positive impact on patient care, increasing investment in healthcare infrastructure, and the growing emphasis on value-based care models will sustain and propel the market’s expansion throughout the forecast period. Competition among providers is intensifying, with established healthcare systems and specialized social work agencies vying for market share, driving innovation and service improvements. The market’s growth trajectory points to a continuously expanding role for medical-social work services in the future of healthcare.

California is home to 12 percent of the nation's population yet accounts for more than 20 percent of the people living in the nation’s hardest-to-count areas, according to the United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau). California's unique diversity, large population distributed across both urban and rural areas, and sheer geographic size present significant barriers to achieving a complete and accurate count. The state’s population is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever before, with about 18 percent of Californians speaking English “less than very well,” according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Because the 2020 Census online form was offered in only twelve non-English languages, which did not correspond with the top spoken language in California, and a paper questionnaire only in English and Spanish, many Californians may not have been able to access a census questionnaire or written guidance in a language they could understand. In order to earn the confidence of California’s most vulnerable populations, it was critical during the 2020 Census that media and trusted messengers communicate with them in their primary language and in accessible formats. An accurate count of the California population in each decennial census is essential to receive its equitable share of federal funds and political representation, through reapportionment and redistricting. It plays a vital role in many areas of public life, including important investments in health, education, housing, social services, highways, and schools. Without a complete count in the 2020 Census, the State faced a potential loss of congressional seats and billions of dollars in muchneeded federal funding. An undercount of California in 1990 cost an estimated $2 billion in federal funding. The potential loss of representation and critically needed funding could have long-term impacts; only with a complete count does California receive the share of funding the State deserves with appropriate representation at the federal, state, and local government levels. The high stakes and formidable challenges made this California Complete Count Census 2020 Campaign (Campaign) the most important to date. The 2020 Census brought an unprecedented level of new challenges to all states, beyond the California-specific hurdles discussed above. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau sought to collect data from households through an online form. While the implementation of digital forms sought to reduce costs and increase participation, its immediate impact is still unknown as of this writing, and it may have substantially changed how many households responded to the census. In addition, conditions such as the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a contentious political climate, ongoing mistrust and distrust of government, and rising concerns about privacy may have discouraged people to open their doors, or use computers, to participate. Federal immigration policy, as well as the months-long controversy over adding a citizenship question to the census, may have deterred households with mixed documentation status, recent immigrants, and undocumented immigrants from participating. In 2017, to prepare for the unique challenges of the 2020 Census, California leaders and advocates reflected on lessons learned from previous statewide census efforts and launched the development of a high-impact strategy to efficiently raise public awareness about the 2020 Census. Subsequently, the State established the California Complete Count – Census 2020 Office (Census Office) and invested a significant sum for the Campaign. The Campaign was designed to educate, motivate, and activate Californians to respond to the 2020 Census. It relied heavily on grassroots messaging and outreach to those least likely to fill out the census form. One element of the Campaign was the Language and Communication Access Plan (LACAP), which the Census Office developed to ensure that language and communication access was linguistically and culturally relevant and sensitive and provided equal and meaningful access for California’s vulnerable populations. The Census Office contracted with outreach partners, including community leaders and organizations, local government, and ethnic media, who all served as trusted messengers in their communities to deliver impactful words and offer safe places to share information and trusted messages. The State integrated consideration of hardest-to-count communities’ needs throughout the Campaign’s strategy at both the statewide and regional levels. The Campaign first educated, then motivated, and during the census response period, activated Californians to fill out their census form. The Census Office’s mission was to ensure that Californians get their fair share of resources and representation by encouraging the full participation of all Californians in the 2020 Census. This report focuses on the experience of the Census Office and partner organizations who worked to achieve the most complete count possible, presenting an evaluation of four outreach and communications strategies.

The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), is a longitudinal micro-data infrastructure created in response to a communication by the European Commission (2000) to the Council and the European Parliament, which identified population ageing and its social and economic challenges to growth and prosperity to be among the most pressing challenges of the 21st century in Europe. SHARE has also become one of the most prestigious social science infrastructures and was in 2011 the first to be appointed a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) by the European Council.The overarching objective of SHARE is to better understand the interactions between bio-medical factors, the socio-economic environment and policy interventions in the ageing European populations. SHARE aims to achieve this objective by providing a research infrastructure for fundamental science as well as a tool for policy evaluation and design. Initiated in 2002, SHARE is scheduled to launch, all in all, 10 data collection waves. At present eight waves have been fulfilled and seven waves are available to the research community.

Please also cite the following publications in addition to the SHARE acknowledgement:

Malter, F. and A. Börsch-Supan (Eds.) (2017). SHARE Wave 6: Panel innovations and collecting Dried Blood Spots. Munich: Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA). Börsch-Supan, A., Brandt, M., Hunkler, C., Kneip, T., Korbmacher, J., Malter, F., Schaan, B., Stuck, S. and Zuber, S. (2013). Data Resource Profile: The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). International Journal of Epidemiology DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyt088.