The goal of the Chicago Women's Health Risk Study (CWHRS) was to develop a reliable and validated profile of risk factors directly related to lethal or life-threatening outcomes in intimate partner violence, for use in agencies and organizations working to help women in abusive relationships. Data were collected to draw comparisons between abused women in situations resulting in fatal outcomes and those without fatal outcomes, as well as a baseline comparison of abused women and non-abused women, taking into account the interaction of events, circumstances, and interventions occurring over the course of a year or two. The CWHRS used a quasi-experimental design to gather survey data on 705 women at the point of service for any kind of treatment (related to abuse or not) sought at one of four medical sites serving populations in areas with high rates of intimate partner homicide (Chicago Women's Health Center, Cook County Hospital, Erie Family Health Center, and Roseland Public Health Center). Over 2,600 women were randomly screened in these settings, following strict protocols for safety and privacy. One goal of the design was that the sample would not systematically exclude high-risk but understudied populations, such as expectant mothers, women without regular sources of health care, and abused women in situations where the abuse is unknown to helping agencies. To accomplish this, the study used sensitive contact and interview procedures, developed sensitive instruments, and worked closely with each sample site. The CWHRS attempted to interview all women who answered "yes -- within the past year" to any of the three screening questions, and about 30 percent of women who did not answer yes, provided that the women were over age 17 and had been in an intimate relationship in the past year. In total, 705 women were interviewed, 497 of whom reported that they had experienced physical violence or a violent threat at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year (the abused, or AW, group). The remaining 208 women formed the comparison group (the non-abused, or NAW, group). Data from the initial interview sections comprise Parts 1-8. For some women, the AW versus NAW interview status was not the same as their screening status. When a woman told the interviewer that she had experienced violence or a violent threat in the past year, she and the interviewer completed a daily calendar history, including details of important events and each violent incident that had occurred the previous year. The study attempted to conduct one or two follow-up interviews over the following year with the 497 women categorized as AW. The follow-up rate was 66 percent. Data from this part of the clinic/hospital sample are found in Parts 9-12. In addition to the clinic/hospital sample, the CWHRS collected data on each of the 87 intimate partner homicides occurring in Chicago over a two-year period that involved at least one woman age 18 or older. Using the same interview schedule as for the clinic/hospital sample, CWHRS interviewers conducted personal interviews with one to three "proxy respondents" per case, people who were knowledgeable and credible sources of information about the couple and their relationship, and information was compiled from official or public records, such as court records, witness statements, and newspaper accounts (Parts 13-15). In homicides in which a woman was the homicide offender, attempts were made to contact and interview her. This "lethal" sample, all such homicides that took place in 1995 or 1996, was developed from two sources, HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO, 1965-1995 (ICPSR 6399) and the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office. Part 1 includes demographic variables describing each respondent, such as age, race and ethnicity, level of education, employment status, screening status (AW or NAW), birthplace, and marital status. Variables in Part 2 include details about the woman's household, such as whether she was homeless, the number of people living in the household and details about each person, the number of her children or other children in the household, details of any of her children not living in her household, and any changes in the household structure over the past year. Variables in Part 3 deal with the woman's physical and mental health, including pregnancy, and with her social support network and material resources. Variables in Part 4 provide information on the number and type of firearms in the household, whether the woman had experienced power, control, stalking, or harassment at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year, whether she had experienced specific types of violence or violent threats at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year, and whether she had experienced symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder related to the incidents in the past month. Variables in Part 5 specify the partner or partners who were responsible for the incidents in the past year, record the type and length of the woman's relationship with each of these partners, and provide detailed information on the one partner she chose to talk about (called "Name"). Variables in Part 6 probe the woman's help-seeking and interventions in the past year. Variables in Part 7 include questions comprising the Campbell Danger Assessment (Campbell, 1993). Part 8 assembles variables pertaining to the chosen abusive partner (Name). Part 9, an event-level file, includes the type and the date of each event the woman discussed in a 12-month retrospective calendar history. Part 10, an incident-level file, includes variables describing each violent incident or threat of violence. There is a unique identifier linking each woman to her set of events or incidents. Part 11 is a person-level file in which the incidents in Part 10 have been aggregated into totals for each woman. Variables in Part 11 include, for example, the total number of incidents during the year, the number of days before the interview that the most recent incident had occurred, and the severity of the most severe incident in the past year. Part 12 is a person-level file that summarizes incident information from the follow-up interviews, including the number of abuse incidents from the initial interview to the last follow-up, the number of days between the initial interview and the last follow-up, and the maximum severity of any follow-up incident. Parts 1-12 contain a unique identifier variable that allows users to link each respondent across files. Parts 13-15 contain data from official records sources and information supplied by proxies for victims of intimate partner homicides in 1995 and 1996 in Chicago. Part 13 contains information about the homicide incidents from the "lethal sample," along with outcomes of the court cases (if any) from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. Variables for Part 13 include the number of victims killed in the incident, the month and year of the incident, the gender, race, and age of both the victim and offender, who initiated the violence, the severity of any other violence immediately preceding the death, if leaving the relationship triggered the final incident, whether either partner was invading the other's home at the time of the incident, whether jealousy or infidelity was an issue in the final incident, whether there was drug or alcohol use noted by witnesses, the predominant motive of the homicide, location of the homicide, relationship of victim to offender, type of weapon used, whether the offender committed suicide after the homicide, whether any criminal charges were filed, and the type of disposition and length of sentence for that charge. Parts 14 and 15 contain data collected using the proxy interview questionnaire (or the interview of the woman offender, if applicable). The questionnaire used for Part 14 was identical to the one used in the clinic sample, except for some extra questions about the homicide incident. The data include only those 76 cases for which at least one interview was conducted. Most variables in Part 14 pertain to the victim or the offender, regardless of gender (unless otherwise labeled). For ease of analysis, Part 15 includes the same 76 cases as Part 14, but the variables are organized from the woman's point of view, regardless of whether she was the victim or offender in the homicide (for the same-sex cases, Part 15 is from the woman victim's point of view). Parts 14 and 15 can be linked by ID number. However, Part 14 includes five sets of variables that were asked only from the woman's perspective in the original questionnaire: household composition, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), social support network, personal income (as opposed to household income), and help-seeking and intervention. To avoid redundancy, these variables appear only in Part 14. Other variables in Part 14 cover information about the person(s) interviewed, the victim's and offender's age, sex, race/ethnicity, birthplace, employment status at time of death, and level of education, a scale of the victim's and offender's severity of physical abuse in the year prior to the death, the length of the relationship between victim and offender, the number of children belonging to each partner, whether either partner tried to leave and/or asked the other to stay away, the reasons why each partner tried to leave, the longest amount of time each partner stayed away, whether either or both partners returned to the relationship before the death, any known physical or emotional problems sustained by victim or offender, including the four-item Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) scale of depression, drug and alcohol use of the victim and offender, number and type of guns in the household of the victim and offender, Scales of Power and Control (Johnson, 1996) or Stalking and Harassment (Sheridan, 1992) by either intimate partner in the year prior to the death, a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)

Abstract (en): These data examine the relationships between childhood abuse and/or neglect and later criminal and violent criminal behavior. In particular, the data focus on whether being a victim of violence and/or neglect in early childhood leads to being a criminal offender in adolescence or early adulthood and whether a relationship exists between childhood abuse or neglect and arrests as a juvenile, arrests as an adult, and arrests for violent offenses. For this data collection, adult and juvenile criminal histories of sampled cases with backgrounds of abuse or neglect were compared to those of a matched control group with no official record of abuse or neglect. Variables contained in Part 1 include demographic information (age, race, sex, and date of birth). In Part 2, information is presented on the abuse/neglect incident (type of abuse or neglect, duration of the incident, whether the child was removed from the home and, if so, for how long, results of the placement, and whether the individual was still alive). Part 3 contains family information (with whom the child was living at the time of the incident, family disruptions, and who reported the abuse or neglect) and data on the perpetrator of the incident (relation to the victim, age, race, sex, and whether living in the home of the victim). Part 4 contains information on the charges filed within adult arrest incidents (occasion for arrest, multiple counts of the same type of charge, year and location of arrest, and type of offense or charge), and Part 5 includes information on the charges filed within juvenile arrest incidents (year of juvenile charge, number of arrests, and type of offense or charge). The unit of analysis for Parts 1 through 3 is the individual at age 11 or younger, for Part 4 the charge within the adult arrest incident, and for Part 5 the charge within the juvenile arrest incident. 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: Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. All children under 12 years of age during the period 1967-1972 in a metropolitan area in the Midwest. Prospective cohorts research design matched with a control group cohort. 2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 6 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (86-IJ-CX-0033). (1) The data contain duplicate case numbers. (2) Parts 2 and 3 appear to contain a large amount of missing data. (3) The data apply only to reported and substantiated cases of childhood victimization. (4) Misdemeanor criminal behavior for individuals may not show up in the records checked.

The goal of this project was to gain a better understanding of risk factors associated with male-perpetrated domestic violence, partner's mental distress, and child behavior problems. The researchers sought to demonstrate that two important social and health problems, domestic violence and trauma-related psychological distress, were connected. The project was organized into four studies, each of which addressed a specific objective: (1) Variables characterizing the perpetrator's family of procreation were used to determine the pattern of relationships among marital and family functioning, perpetrator-to-partner violence, partner's mental distress, and child behavior problems. (2) The perpetrator's early background and trauma history were studied to establish the degree to which the perpetrator's family of origin characteristics and experiences, childhood antisocial behavior, exposure to stressors in the Vietnam war zone, and subsequent post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology related to perpetrator-to-partner family violence. (3) The perpetrator's degree of mental distress was examined to ascertain the ways in which the current mental distress of the perpetrator was associated with marital and family functioning, violence, and current mental distress of the partner. (4) Developmental and intergenerational perspectives on violence were used to model a network of relationships explaining the potential transmission of violence across generations, commencing with the perpetrator's accounts of violence within the family of origin and terminating with reports of child behavior problems within the family of procreation. Data for this study came from the congressionally-mandated National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study (NVVRS) (Kulka et al., 1990), which sought to document the current and long-term psychological status of those who served one or more tours of duty in the Vietnam theater of operations sometime between August 5, 1964, and May 7, 1975, compared to their peers who served elsewhere in the military during that era and to a comparable group who never experienced military service. This study relied upon data from the National Survey and Family Interview components of the larger NVVRS. Data were collected through face-to-face structured interviews, with some supplementary self-report paper-and-pencil measures. The interview protocol was organized into 16 parts, including portions requesting information on childhood experiences and early delinquent behaviors, military service history, legal problems in the family of origin and postwar period, stressful life events, social support systems, marital and family discord and abusive behaviors, and physical and mental health. This study emphasized four categories of explanatory variables: (1) the perpetrator's accounts of family of origin characteristics and experiences, (2) the perpetrator's conduct and behavior problems prior to age 15, (3) the perpetrator's exposure to war-zone stressors, and (4) mental distress of the perpetrator, with attention to PTSD symptomatology and alcohol abuse. Additionally, the project incorporated four clusters of family of procreation criterion variables: (1) marital and family functioning, (2) perpetrator-to- partner violence, (3) partner mental distress, and (4) child behavior problems. Variables include child abuse, family histories of substance abuse, criminal activity, or mental health problems, relationship as a child with parents, misbehavior as a child, combat experience, fear for personal safety during combat, alcohol use and abuse, emotional well-being including stress, guilt, relationships with others, panic, and loneliness, acts of physical and verbal violence toward partner, children's emotional and behavioral problems, problem-solving, decision-making, and communication in family, and family support.

Analysis of ‘Drug Consumptions (UCI)’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/obeykhadija/drug-consumptions-uci on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Context

Data Set Information:

Database contains records for 1885 respondents. For each respondent 12 attributes are known: Personality measurements which include NEO-FFI-R (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness), BIS-11 (impulsivity), and ImpSS (sensation seeking), level of education, age, gender, country of residence and ethnicity. All input attributes are originally categorical and are quantified. After quantification values of all input features can be considered as real-valued. In addition, participants were questioned concerning their use of 18 legal and illegal drugs (alcohol, amphetamines, amyl nitrite, benzodiazepine, cannabis, chocolate, cocaine, caffeine, crack, ecstasy, heroin, ketamine, legal highs, LSD, methadone, mushrooms, nicotine and volatile substance abuse and one fictitious drug (Semeron) which was introduced to identify over-claimers. For each drug they have to select one of the answers: never used the drug, used it over a decade ago, or in the last decade, year, month, week, or day.

Detailed description of database and process of data quantification are presented in E. Fehrman, A. K. Muhammad, E. M. Mirkes, V. Egan and A. N. Gorban, "The Five Factor Model of personality and evaluation of drug consumption risk.," arXiv [Web Link], 2015 Paper above solve binary classification problem for all drugs. For most of drugs sensitivity and specificity are greater than 75%

Since all of the features have been quantified into real values please refer to the link to the original dataset to get more clarity on categorical variables. For example, for EScore (extraversion) 9 people scored 55 which corresponds to a quantified (real) value of in the dataset 2.57309. I have also converted some variables back into their categorical values which are included in the drug_consumption.csv file Original Dataset

Content

Feature Attributes for Quantified Data: 1. ID: is a number of records in an original database. Cannot be related to the participant. It can be used for reference only. 2. Age (Real) is the age of participant 3. Gender: Male or Female 4. Education: level of education of participant 5. Country: country of origin of the participant 6. Ethnicity: ethnicity of participant 7. Nscore (Real) is NEO-FFI-R Neuroticism 8. Escore (Real) is NEO-FFI-R Extraversion 9. Oscore (Real) is NEO-FFI-R Openness to experience. 10. Ascore (Real) is NEO-FFI-R Agreeableness. 11. Cscore (Real) is NEO-FFI-R Conscientiousness. 12. Impulsive (Real) is impulsiveness measured by BIS-11 13. SS (Real) is sensation seeing measured by ImpSS 14. Alcohol: alcohol consumption 15. Amphet: amphetamines consumption 16. Amyl: nitrite consumption 17. Benzos: benzodiazepine consumption 18. Caff: caffeine consumption 19. Cannabis: marijuana consumption 20. Choc: chocolate consumption 21. Coke: cocaine consumption 22. Crack: crack cocaine consumption 23. Ecstasy: ecstasy consumption 24. Heroin: heroin consumption 25. Ketamine: ketamine consumption 26. Legalh: legal highs consumption 27. LSD: LSD consumption 28. Meth: methadone consumption 29. Mushroom: magic mushroom consumption 30. Nicotine: nicotine consumption 31. Semer: class of fictitious drug Semeron consumption (i.e. control) 32. VSA: class of volatile substance abuse consumption

Rating's for Drug Use: - CL0 Never Used - CL1 Used over a Decade Ago - CL2 Used in Last Decade - CL3 Used in Last Year 59 - CL4 Used in Last Month - CL5 Used in Last Week - CL6 Used in Last Day

Acknowledgements

1. Elaine Fehrman, Men's Personality Disorder and National Women's Directorate, Rampton Hospital, Retford, Nottinghamshire, DN22 0PD, UK, Elaine.Fehrman@nottshc.nhs.uk

2. Vincent Egan, Department of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK, Vincent.Egan@nottingham.ac.uk

3. Evgeny M. Mirkes Department of Mathematics, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK, em322@le.ac.uk

Inspiration

Problem which can be solved: - Seven class classifications for each drug separately. - Problem can be transformed to binary classification by union of part of classes into one new class. For example, "Never Used", "Used over a Decade Ago" form class "Non-user" and all other classes form class "User". - The best binarization of classes for each attribute. - Evaluation of risk to be drug consumer for each drug.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Einstellungen zu Aids und Drogen. Themen: 1. Drogen: Registrierung des Befragten imWahlregister; Einstufung von Drogenabhängigkeit als Problemder Reife, als soziales Problem, als Gesundheitsproblem, alsmoralisches Problem, als kriminelles oder ökonomischesProblem; primäre Folgen des Drogenkonsums; Hauptgründe fürDrogenkonsum; Bekanntheitsgrad bzw. eigene Nähe zuausgewählten Drogen; Einstufung dieser Drogen alsgesundheitsgefährlich; Einstiegsalter beim Drogenkonsum;vermutete Konsumhäufigkeit von Drogen auf der Straße, inSchulen bzw. Universitäten, auf Parties, in Kneipen bzw.Diskotheken, bei Konzerten, in Sportklubs, in Freizeitzentrenund im Urlaub; eigene Zugangsmöglichkeit zu Drogen;potentielle Möglichkeiten zur eigenen Drogenbeschaffung;Vorschläge zur Beseitigung des Drogenproblems; präferierteAnsprechpartner zur Information über Drogen; Beurteilung derGefährlichkeit von Medikamenten im Vergleich zu Drogen;Einstellung zur Freigabe von Urintests zur Aufdeckung vonDrogenkonsumenten durch die Polizei, den Arbeitgeber,Versicherungen usw. 2. Einstellung zu Aids: Bedeutung des Themas Aids (Skala);Ansteckungsmöglichkeiten und Risikogruppen; Furcht vorBluttransfusion, Blutspenden, Spritzen oder Operationenaufgrund der Aidsgefährdung; wichtigste Möglichkeiten zurEindämmung oder Beseitigung von Aids; Beurteilung dernationalen Anstrengungen auf diesen Gebieten und Befürwortungvon gemeinsamen Anstrengungen über die Europäische Union zumKampf gegen Aids; wichtigste Vorsichtsmaßnahmen zum effektivenSchutz gegen Aids; persönliche Veränderung desSexualverhaltens und gesellschaftlicher Gewohnheiten durchAids. Demographie: Nationalität; Familienstand; Alter bei Ende derAusbildung; Geschlecht; Alter; Anzahl der Personen im Haushalt;Selbsteinstufung auf einem Links-Rechts-Kontinuum; Anzahl der Kinder imHaushalt; Selbsteinschätzung der sozialen Position; Religiosität(Konfession, Kirchgangshäufigkeit); berufliche Position; monatlichesHaushaltseinkommen; Haupteinkommensquelle. Zusätzlich verkodet wurden: Interviewdatum und Interviewbeginn;Interviewdauer; Anzahl der beim Interview anwesenden Personen;Kooperationsbereitschaft des Befragten; Ortsgröße; Region; Intervieweridentifikation; Telefonbesitz. In Luxemburg, Belgien und Finnland: Interviewsprache. Attitudes towards AIDS and drugs. Topics: 1. Drugs: registration of respondent in the election register;classification of drug addiction as problem of maturity, socialproblem, health problem, moral problem, criminal or economic problem;primary consequences of use of drugs; major reasons for use of drugs;degree of familiarity or personal proximity to selected drugs;classification of these drugs as dangerous to health; age at start ofuse of drugs; assumed frequency of use of drugs on the street, inschools or universities, at parties, in pubs or discotheques, atconcerts, in sport clubs, in leisure centers and on vacation; personalopportunities of access to drugs; potential possibilities of personallyobtaining drugs; recommendations on elimination of the drug problem;preferred contact for information about drugs; judgement on danger ofmedications in comparison with drugs; attitude to permitting urinetests to expose drug users by the police, employers, insurancecompanies etc. 2. Attitude to AIDS: significance of the topic AIDS (scale);possibilities of infection and risk groups; fear of blood transfusion,blood donations, injections or operations due to risk of AIDS; mostimportant possibilities to contain or eliminate AIDS; judgement onnational efforts in these areas and approval of common efforts throughthe European Union in the fight against AIDS; most important preventivemeasures for effective protection against AIDS; personal change ofsexual practices and social habits from AIDS. 3. Miscellaneous: self-classification on a left-right continuum;religiousness; possession of a telephone. Also encoded were: date of interview; time of start of interview; length of interview; number of persons present during interview; willingness of respondent to cooperate.

Interpersonal violence is a significant public health and human rights concern. People living with severe mental illness are especially vulnerable. The Sustainable Development Goals 2030 Agenda aims to end violence. To this end, we gathered information on the prevalence and factors associated with interpersonal violence among one of the most impacted groups: individuals with severe mental illness at Butabika Hospital in Kampala, Uganda. We conducted a cross-sectional study in 2020, including individuals 18 years or older. Data was collected through a socio-demographics questionnaire and nine questions from the modified My Exposure to Community Violence Questionnaire. The assessment evaluated physical or sexual violence experience, frequency, and perpetrator identity. The data was analyzed using STATA version 12 through simple logistic regression to determine the correlation between a single exposure and the outcome of interest, with a significance level of 5%. Among 385 participants, the past year prevalence of overall reported interpersonal violence was about 34%, while physical and sexual reported interpersonal violence were approximately 29% and 11%, respectively. Participants who had perpetrated physical violence had higher odds of experiencing reported interpersonal violence. With increasing age, the odds of experiencing reported interpersonal violence decreased; compared to those aged 18–24 years, those aged 35–44 years had AOR = 0.31 (95% CI: 0.14–0.70, p = 0.005), and those aged 45 years and above had AOR = 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15–0.80, p = 0.013). Reported interpersonal violence was high among the participants. While individuals of older age had lower odds of reporting interpersonal violence, those who had perpetrated physical violence in the past year had higher odds. Screening for interpersonal violence among young patients is recommended. Psycho-education on preventing physical violence should be provided, especially to younger adults. The Ministry of Health should address violence against individuals with mental illness through mass sensitization. A prospective study could investigate risk and protective factors.

Abstract (en): The DC Metropolitan Area Drug Study (DC*MADS) was conducted in 1991, and included special analyses of homeless and transient populations and of women delivering live births in the DC hospitals. DC*MADS was undertaken to assess the full extent of the drug problem in one metropolitan area. The study was comprised of 16 separate studies that focused on different sub-groups, many of which are typically not included or are underrepresented in household surveys. The Homeless and Transient Population study examines the prevalence of illicit drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among members of the homeless and transient population aged 12 and older in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Statistical Area (DC MSA). The sample frame included respondents from shelters, soup kitchens and food banks, major cluster encampments, and literally homeless people. Data from the questionnaires include history of homelessness, living arrangements and population movement, tobacco, drug, and alcohol use, consequences of use, treatment history, illegal behavior and arrest, emergency room treatment and hospital stays, physical and mental health, pregnancy, insurance, employment and finances, and demographics. Drug specific data include age at first use, route of administration, needle use, withdrawal symptoms, polysubstance use, and perceived risk. 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: Performed consistency checks.; Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Standardized missing values.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Response Rates: The institutional response rate (i.e., for shelters and soup kitchens) was 82.6 percent. The individual interview response rate was 86.1 percent. The overall response rate was 71 percent. Persons aged 12 and older in the DC MSA who were either literally homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless, including persons who spent the previous night in an emergency shelter, in a nondomicile (e.g., vacant building, city park, car, or on the street) or who were using soup kitchens or emergency food banks. The Homeless and Transient Population study consisted of 908 interviews from four overlapping sampling frames: 477 interviews with residents in 93 shelters, 224 interviews with patrons of 31 soup kitchens and food banks, 143 interviews with "literally homeless" people from 18 major cluster encampments, and 64 interviews with literally homeless people from an area probability sample of 432 census blocks in the MSA. People who were cognitively impaired and could not complete the interview were excluded from the survey. Impairment was defined as extreme intoxification or scoring more than nine on the Short Blessed Exam (Katzman, Brown, Fuld, Peck, Schecter, and Schimmel, 1983). 2008-07-24 New files were added. These files included one or more of the following: Stata setup, SAS transport (CPORT), SPSS system, Stata system, SAS supplemental syntax, and Stata supplemental syntax files, and a tab-delimited ASCII data file. Also, the CASEID variable has been added to the dataset.2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Produced by Research Triangle Institute in Research Triangle Park, NC.

Despite a growing consensus among scholars that substance abuse treatment is effective in reducing offending, strict eligibility rules have limited the impact of current models of therapeutic jurisprudence on public safety. This research effort was aimed at providing policy makers some guidance on whether expanding this model to more drug-involved offenders is cost-beneficial. Since data needed for providing evidence-based analysis of this issue were not readily available, micro-level data from three nationally representative sources were used to construct a 40,320 case synthetic dataset -- defined using population profiles rather than sampled observation -- that was used to estimate the benefits of going to scale in treating drug involved offenders. The principal investigators combined information from the NATIONAL SURVEY ON DRUG USE AND HEALTH, 2003 (ICPSR 4138) and the ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 2003 (ICPSR 4020) to estimate the likelihood of drug addiction or dependence problems and develop nationally representative prevalence estimates. They used information in the DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT OUTCOME STUDY (DATOS), 1991-1994 (ICPSR 2258) to compute expected crime reducing benefits of treating various types of drug involved offenders under four different treatment modalities. The project computed expected crime reducing benefits that were conditional on treatment modality as well as arrestee attributes and risk of drug dependence or abuse. Moreover, the principal investigators obtained estimates of crime reducing benefits for all crimes as well as select sub-types. Variables include age, race, gender, offense, history of violence, history of treatment, co-occurring alcohol problem, criminal justice system status, geographic location, arrest history, and a total of 134 prevalence and treatment effect estimates and variances.

description:

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) series (formerly titled National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) primarily measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions included age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covered substance abuse treatment history and perceived need for treatment, and included questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic criteria to be applied. The survey included questions concerning treatment for both substance abuse and mental health-related disorders. Respondents were also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous administrations were retained in the 2014 survey, including questions asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, drug use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes toward drug use and activities such as school work. Several measures focused on prevention-related themes in this section. Also retained were questions on mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving and personal behavior, and cigar smoking. Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey. For the 2008 survey, adult mental health questions were added to measure symptoms of psychological distress in the worst period of distress that a person experienced in the past 30 days and suicidal ideation. In 2008, a split-sample design also was included to administer separate sets of questions (WHODAS vs. SDS) to assess impairment due to mental health problems. Beginning with the 2009 NSDUH, however, all of the adults in the sample received only the WHODAS questions. Background information includes gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition.
This study has 1 Data Set.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) series (formerly titled National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) primarily measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions included age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covered substance abuse treatment history and perceived need for treatment, and included questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic criteria to be applied. The survey included questions concerning treatment for both substance abuse and mental health-related disorders. Respondents were also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous administrations were retained in the 2014 survey, including questions asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, drug use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes toward drug use and activities such as school work. Several measures focused on prevention-related themes in this section. Also retained were questions on mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving and personal behavior, and cigar smoking. Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey. For the 2008 survey, adult mental health questions were added to measure symptoms of psychological distress in the worst period of distress that a person experienced in the past 30 days and suicidal ideation. In 2008, a split-sample design also was included to administer separate sets of questions (WHODAS vs. SDS) to assess impairment due to mental health problems. Beginning with the 2009 NSDUH, however, all of the adults in the sample received only the WHODAS questions. Background information includes gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition.
This study has 1 Data Set.

description:

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) series (formerly titled National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) primarily measures the prevalence and
correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual estimates. Information is provided on the use
of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions included age at first use as well as
lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco,
and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covered substance abuse treatment
history and perceived need for treatment, and included questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic
criteria to be applied. The survey included questions concerning treatment for both substance abuse and mental health-related disorders. Respondents were
also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting
from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous administrations were retained in the 2015 survey, including questions asked
only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, drug
use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes
toward drug use and activities such as school work. Several measures focused on prevention-related themes in this section. Also retained were questions on
mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving and personal behavior, and cigar smoking.
Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey. For the 2008 survey, adult mental health questions were added to
measure symptoms of psychological distress in the worst period of distress that a person experienced in the past 30 days and suicidal ideation. In 2008, a
split-sample design also was included to administer separate sets of questions (WHODAS vs. SDS) to assess impairment due to mental health problems.
Beginning with the 2009 NSDUH, however, all of the adults in the sample received only the WHODAS questions. Background information includes gender, race,
age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition.This study has 1 Data Set.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) series (formerly titled National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) primarily measures the prevalence and
correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual estimates. Information is provided on the use
of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions included age at first use as well as
lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco,
and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covered substance abuse treatment
history and perceived need for treatment, and included questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic
criteria to be applied. The survey included questions concerning treatment for both substance abuse and mental health-related disorders. Respondents were
also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting
from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous administrations were retained in the 2015 survey, including questions asked
only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, drug
use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes
toward drug use and activities such as school work. Several measures focused on prevention-related themes in this section. Also retained were questions on
mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving and personal behavior, and cigar smoking.
Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey. For the 2008 survey, adult mental health questions were added to
measure symptoms of psychological distress in the worst period of distress that a person experienced in the past 30 days and suicidal ideation. In 2008, a
split-sample design also was included to administer separate sets of questions (WHODAS vs. SDS) to assess impairment due to mental health problems.
Beginning with the 2009 NSDUH, however, all of the adults in the sample received only the WHODAS questions. Background information includes gender, race,
age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition.This study has 1 Data Set.

This data release accompanies the manuscript "Genetic liability for internalizing versus externalizing behavior manifests in the developing and adult hippocampus: Insight from a meta-analysis of transcriptional profiling studies in a selectively-bred rat model" by Birt, Hagenauer, et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.05.024Overview:The strong pattern of comorbidity amongst psychiatric disorders is believed to be generated by a spectrum of latent liability, arising from a complex interplay of genetic risk and environmental factors, such as stress and childhood adversity. At one end of this spectrum are internalizing disorders, which are associated with neuroticism, anxiety, and depression. At the other end of the spectrum are externalizing disorders, which are associated with risk-taking and novelty-seeking, as seen in mania, substance abuse, and impulse-control disorders. We model the genetic contributions underlying both extremes of this spectrum by selectively breeding rats that react differently to a novel environment. “Bred high responder” (bHR) rats are highly exploratory with a disinhibited, novelty-seeking temperament, including hyperactivity, aggression, and drug-seeking. “Bred low responder” (bLR) rats are highly-inhibited, exhibiting reduced locomotor activity and anxious and depressive-like behavior. These behavioral propensities are robust and stable, beginning early in development similar to temperament in humans.This quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) study examined the expression of Bone morphogenetic protein 4 (Bmp4) in the hippocampus, a brain region critical for emotional regulation, in bHR and bLR rats. Whole hippocampus tissue was dissected from male bHR and bLR rats aged P14 and P90 (n=6/group per age, generations F51 and F55). Results indicate that Bmp4 was more highly expressed in the hippocampus of bLRs than bHRs at both ages.Detailed Methods:Animal husbandry and tissue collection: Male bHR and bLR rats were sacrificed at ages P14 and P90 (n=6/group per age). For the P14 collection, F55 generation rats were sacrificed within 3-5 min of separation from the dam. The F51 generation rats designated for the P90 collection were weaned, housed, and tested for locomotor activity in a novel field as part of our standard selective breeding paradigm (protocol: Stead et al. 2006, Behav Genet. 36: 697–712) prior to sacrifice. Sacrifice was performed via rapid decapitation without anesthesia. Brains were immediately hemisected and flash frozen by submersion in -30C 2-methylbutane.RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis: Brains were stored at -80C for fewer than 6 months before processing. Hippocampus was dissected from one hemisphere and homogenized using a QIAshredder kit (Qiagen #79654), and RNA was extracted using an RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen #74104). cDNA was synthesized using a 20 μL reaction containing 400 ng of RNA template (iScript cDNA Synthesis Kit, Biorad#1708891).qPCR: The primers were custom-designed to target Bmp4 (ACC# NM_012827.2; forward primer: 5’-CCCTGGTCAACTCCGTTAAT-3’, start = 1214; reverse primer: 5’-AACACCACCTTGTCGTACTC-3’, start = 1319) and the reference gene Gapdh (ACC# NM_017008.4; forward primer: 5’- GTTTGTGATGGGTGTGAACC-3’, start = 459; reverse primer: 5’-TCTTCTGAGTGGCAGTGATG-3’, start = 628). Calibration curves for the Bmp4 and Gapdh primers were constructed using a standard dilution analysis of stock cDNA that had been previously synthesized from a mixture of adult and P14 bHR and bLR hippocampi (H20, 0.1 uL, 0.5 uL, 1 uL, 2 uL) in triplicate using iQTM SYBR® Green Supermix. The bLR/bHR samples were then analyzed using a similar procedure in triplicate, with the samples from each time point processed within a separate batch.Data analysis: The calibration curves revealed efficiencies close to 1 (Bmp4: R2=0.98, Gapdh: R2=0.99), therefore the sample data for each time point was analyzed using the traditional Livak method (Livak and Schmittgen 2001, Methods. 25: 402–408; Yuan et al. 2006, BMC Bioinformatics. 7: 85). After averaging the triplicate quantification cycle (Cq) values for each sample for each probe, the data were normalized by subtracting the Cq for the reference gene (Gapdh) from the target (Bmp4) for each sample (ΔCq). Group differences in ΔCq were assessed using Welch’s two sample t-test (Yuan et al. 2006, BMC Bioinformatics. 7: 85). Group differences in the Cq values for the reference gene (Gapdh) were also examined as a control (Yuan et al. 2006, BMC Bioinformatics. 7: 85).Results:bLRs showed greater hippocampal Bmp4 expression than bHRs at both P14 and adulthood (Welch’s t-test: P14: Log(2)FC=-3.74, T(5.60)=-6.10, p=0.00115; P90: T(8.74)=-6.87, p=8.44E-05).Content of the Data Release:The bHR and bLR qPCR data for the target gene (Bmp4) and reference gene (Gapdh) are released in an Excel file (“HRLR_Bmp4_DataRelease_v2.xlsx”) that includes a spreadsheet for the dataset from each age group (P14, P90). The sample from each rat (denoted with an ID number in the sample column: #1, #2, etc) was analyzed in triplicate for each probe. The number of qPCR reaction cycles that were necessary to reach threshold fluorescence (quantitation cycle or Cq) is provided for both the Bmp4 and Gapdh probes for each triplicate. When interpreting the results, lower Cq values mean higher initial copy numbers of the target.