Quality of life is a measure of comfort, health, and happiness by a person or a group of people. Quality of life is determined by both material factors, such as income and housing, and broader considerations like health, education, and freedom. Each year, US & World News releases its “Best States to Live in” report, which ranks states on the quality of life each state provides its residents. In order to determine rankings, U.S. News & World Report considers a wide range of factors, including healthcare, education, economy, infrastructure, opportunity, fiscal stability, crime and corrections, and the natural environment. More information on these categories and what is measured in each can be found below:

Healthcare includes access, quality, and affordability of healthcare, as well as health measurements, such as obesity rates and rates of smoking. Education measures how well public schools perform in terms of testing and graduation rates, as well as tuition costs associated with higher education and college debt load. Economy looks at GDP growth, migration to the state, and new business. Infrastructure includes transportation availability, road quality, communications, and internet access. Opportunity includes poverty rates, cost of living, housing costs and gender and racial equality. Fiscal Stability considers the health of the government's finances, including how well the state balances its budget. Crime and Corrections ranks a state’s public safety and measures prison systems and their populations. Natural Environment looks at the quality of air and water and exposure to pollution.

This statistic shows a ranking of the best U.S. federal states to live in, according to selected metrics and based on a survey among more than 530,000 Americans. The survey was conducted between January 2011 and June 2012. The findings are presented as index scores composed of the scores regarding various parameters*. According to this index, Utah is the city with the highest liveability and life quality, as it scored 7.5 points.

This EnviroAtlas dataset portrays the percentage of population within different household income ranges for each Census Block Group (CBG), a threshold estimated to be an optimal household income for quality of life, and the percentage of households with income below this threshold. Data were compiled from the Census ACS (American Community Survey) 5-year Summary Data (2008-2012). This dataset was produced by the US EPA to support research and online mapping activities related to EnviroAtlas. EnviroAtlas (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas) allows the user to interact with a web-based, easy-to-use, mapping application to view and analyze multiple ecosystem services for the contiguous United States. The dataset is available as downloadable data (https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/EnviroAtlas) or as an EnviroAtlas map service. Additional descriptive information about each attribute in this dataset can be found in its associated EnviroAtlas Fact Sheet (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-fact-sheets).

In 2022, the United States' E-infrastructure index amounted to ******. By contrast, the Internet affordability index was only ******.

The dataset contains US counties ranking data based on measures of health outcomes and health determinants. The measures used to establish counties ranks are related to length and quality of life for health outcomes and to health behavior, clinical care, socioeconomic and physical environment factors for health determinants. US counties are described along with their FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standard) code and the US state they belong.

This dataset is a continuation of one created seven years earlier, QUALITY OF AMERICAN LIFE, 1971 (ICPSR 3508). In the 1978 study, a national sample was drawn that included many respondents from the 1971 study. The purpose of the study was to survey Americans about their perceived quality of life by measuring their perceptions of their socio-psychological condition, their needs and expectations from life, and the degree to which those needs were satisfied. The data, similar in scope and content of that in the 1971 survey, were collected via personal interviews from a nationwide probability sample of 3,692 persons 18 years of age and older during the summer of 1978. Closed and open-ended questions were used to probe respondents' satisfactions, dissatisfactions, aspirations, and disappointments in a variety of life domains, such as dwelling/neighborhood, local services (e.g., police, roads, and schools), public transportation, present personal life, life in the United States, education, occupation, job history/expectation, work life, housework, leisure activities, organizational affiliations, religious affiliation, health problems, financial situation, marriage (including widowhood, divorce, and separation), children/family life, and relationships with family and friends. In addition to broad questions about satisfaction with each of these domains and their importance to the respondents, specific sources of gratification and frustration were explored. Other questions focused on life as a whole and about the extent to which respondents felt they had control over their lives (e.g., rating of various aspects of life, (dis)satisfaction with life, personal efficacy, and social desirability measures). A major difference between this study and the earlier study is that the 1978 respondents were asked more detailed questions concerning their perceived financial status relative to their family, friends, and past personal financial status. Personal data include sex, age, race, ethnic background, childhood family stability, military service, and father's occupation and education. Observational data are included on housing and neighborhood characteristics as well as respondents' appearance, intelligence, and sincerity.

The purpose of this study was to survey Americans about perceived quality of life by measuring perceptions of their socio-psychological condition, their needs and expectations from life, and the degree to which those needs were satisfied. The data were collected via personal interviews from a nationwide probability sample of 2,164 persons 18 years of age and older during the summer of 1971. Closed and open-ended questions were used to probe respondents' satisfactions, dissatisfactions, aspirations, and disappointments in a variety of life domains, such as dwelling/neighborhood, local services (e.g., police, roads, and schools), public transportation, present personal life, life in the United States, education, occupation, job history/expectation, work life, housework, leisure activities, organizational affiliations, religious affiliation, health problems, financial situation, marriage (including widowhood, divorce, and separation), children/family life, and relationships with family and friends. In addition to broad questions about satisfaction with each of these domains and their importance to the respondents, specific sources of gratification and frustration are explored. Other questions focused on life as a whole and the extent to which respondents felt they had control over their lives (e.g., rating of various aspects of life, (dis)satisfaction with life, personal efficacy, and social desirability measures). Personal data include sex, age, race, ethnic background, childhood family stability, military service, and father's occupation and education. Observational data are included on housing and neighborhood characteristics as well as respondents' appearance, intelligence, and sincerity. An instructional subset of this study is also available (see ICPSR INSTRUCTIONAL SUBSET: QUALITY OF AMERICAN LIFE, 1971 [ICPSR 7516], also prepared by Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers.) It includes questions representative of the major areas covered in the original, longer survey. A related dataset, QUALITY OF AMERICAN LIFE, 1978 (ICPSR 7762), continues the survey conducted in 1971.

The U.S. Census defines Asian Americans as individuals having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1997). As a broad racial category, Asian Americans are the fastest-growing minority group in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The growth rate of 42.9% in Asian Americans between 2000 and 2010 is phenomenal given that the corresponding figure for the U.S. total population is only 9.3% (see Figure 1). Currently, Asian Americans make up 5.6% of the total U.S. population and are projected to reach 10% by 2050. It is particularly notable that Asians have recently overtaken Hispanics as the largest group of new immigrants to the U.S. (Pew Research Center, 2015). The rapid growth rate and unique challenges as a new immigrant group call for a better understanding of the social and health needs of the Asian American population.

In an April 2024 online survey, an overwhelming majority of respondents in the United States said that **** U.S. dollars per hour is not enough for the average American worker to have a decent quality of life. The U.S. federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. Since then, many states have raised the wage, with a number of states having more than doubled the federal minimum.

Users can obtain descriptions, maps, profiles, and ranks of U.S. metropolitan areas pertaining to quality of life, diversity, and opportunities for racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. BackgroundThe Diversity Data project operates a website for users to explore how U.S. metropolitan areas perform on evidence-based social measures affecting quality of life, diversity and opportunity for racial and ethnic groups in the United States. These indicators capture a broad definition of quality of life and health, including opportunities for good schools, housing, jobs, wages, health and social services, and safe neighborhoods. This is a useful resource for people inter ested in advocating for policy and social change regarding neighborhood integration, residential mobility, anti-discrimination in housing, urban renewal, school quality and economic opportunities. The Diversity Data project is an ongoing project of the Harvard School of Public Health (Department of Society, Human Development and Health). User FunctionalityUsers can obtain a description, profile and rank of U.S. metropolitan areas and compare ranks across metropolitan areas. Users can also generate maps which demonstrate the distribution of these measures across the United States. Demographic information is available by race/ethnicity. Data NotesData are derived from multiple sources including: the U.S. Census Bureau; National Center for Health Statistics' Vital Statistics Natality Birth Data; Natio nal Center for Education Statistics; Union CPS Utilities Data CD; National Low Income Housing Coalition; Freddie Mac Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index; Neighborhood Change Database; Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University; Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMD); Dr. Russ Lopez, Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health; HUD State of the Cities Data Systems; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; and Texas Transportation Institute. Years in which the data were collected are indicated with the measure. Information is available for metropolitan areas. The website does not indicate when the data are updated.

This survey, conducted by Gallup across the United States in January 2014, shows the extent of satisfaction among the U.S. population with various aspects regarding American life. 32 percent of respondents were satisfied with the income and wealth distribution, whereas 74 percent were satisfied in the overall quality of life in the United States.

In 2024, across all states in the United States, ********* was ranked first with a health index score of *****, followed by ************ and ************. The health index score was calculated by measuring 42 healthcare metrics relevant to health costs, access, and outcome.

Key quality of life indicators - housing costs, arts.

Estimated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) utilities by BMI, sex, and age, based on data from the Medical Expenditure Survey (MEPS) 2008-2016, adjusted for self-report bias using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Estimated means and 95% CI.

The social environment represents the external conditions under which people engage in social activity within their community. It includes aspects of social opportunity, leisure and recreation, education, access to health services, health status and participation in democratic processes. Fourteen indicators have been used to assess aspects of quality of the social environment.

BackgroundDisparities in healthcare access, driven by socioeconomic status and social determinants of health (SDOH), contribute to poor health outcomes. While prior studies established the relationship between SDOH and care access, fewer have explored their joint relationships with social satisfaction and health challenges across the lifespan. Rather than assessing direct associations between dental care utilization and physical or mental difficulties, this study examines broader interrelationships among SDOH, access to oral health care, and self-reported health challenges.MethodsA cross-sectional study using a lifespan approach–by examining participants within discrete age groups–was conducted on 127,886 individuals aged 18 years and older who participated in the All of Us research program and completed the “Basics”, “Overall Health” and “Health Care Access and Utilization” questionnaires. The distribution of participants' SDOH and self-reported health difficulties was presented and stratified by dental care utilization, income group and age across the lifespan. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between SDOH and access to oral health care.ResultsAcross age groups, a consistent trend of disadvantaged social determinants associated with lacking oral health care utilization was noted. Young participants (18–35 years old) were the most likely to report not having received oral health care within the past 12 months (32.2%), worse mental health (29.6%, fair/poor), emotional problems (31.8%), and difficulties in concentrating or remembering (18%). Notably, young adults who did not visit a dentist within 12 months were also more likely to report not visiting a medical doctor (18.1%), being unable to afford copayment (69%), and more frequently using emergency or urgent care (20.2%). No insurance coverage [odds ratio (OR) = 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52–1.84], annual income less than $35,000 (OR = 3.79, 95% CI: 3.58–4.01), and housing instability (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.32–1.44) were all significantly associated with lack of dental care.ConclusionThis study confirms that SDOH—particularly income and housing instability—significantly impact individuals' ability to afford and access healthcare services, including dental care. These disparities were most pronounced among the youngest age group. Our findings support future policy interventions aimed at integrating dental care into overall healthcare, especially during early adulthood.

1993 - 2010. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data are from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). All respondents to the BRFSS are non-institutionalized adults, 18 years old or older. HRQOL surveillance is used to identify unmet population health needs including recognizing trends, disparities, and determinants of health in the population. HRQOL surveillance data can be used to inform decision making, and program and policy development. To assure that the population is benefiting from public health programs, HRQOL surveillance data can be used for program evaluation. A compact set of HRQOL measures including a summary measure of unhealthy days have been developed and validated for population health surveillance and have been widely used since 1993.

WellSpan Health is a nonprofit integrated healthcare system serving 12 counties in south-central Pennsylvania and northern Maryland, a region marked by wide disparities in the demographic, social, and economic conditions of its people. Consequently, it is also marked by wide disparities in health status and health outcomes, including life expectancy. Beginning in the mid-1990s, WellSpan’s community health needs assessments identified numerous potential drivers of health disparities, and in recent years the hospital system has conducted increasingly sophisticated community health improvement plans to address disparities in ways compatible with the hospital system’s resources, capabilities, mission, and priorities. Because there is limited published information about how nonprofit health systems are implementing and evaluating community health improvement plans, we have documented key aspects of WellSpan’s progress including guiding principles and strategies, how pilot projects were identified and conducted, how community partnerships were developed and leveraged, and how data sources were used to guide decisions. WellSpan’s efforts have culminated in the recent adoption of a 30-year plan to improve overall life expectancy and quality of life and reduce disparities in these outcomes in the region served. The purpose of this paper is to share experiences and lessons learned during the multi-year effort leading to the development of this 30-year plan.

Americans are questioned indepth about their quality of life, consumerism, and ways their standard of living affects the environment and economic patterns.Questions focus on means of reducing consumption, health hazards, health foods, personal attitudes toward buying, and value system. Respondents are also asked about vacation travels, current political events, and status of women.

This dataset contains the data and figures associated with the publication “Aging in Latin America and the Caribbean: Social Protection and Quality of Life of Older Person”.