ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS FOR SURVEY METHODOLOGY Addresses the international use of administrative records for large-scale surveys, censuses, and other statistical purposes Administrative Records for Survey Methodology is a comprehensive guide to improving the quality, cost-efficiency, and interpretability of surveys and censuses using administrative data research. Contributions from a team of internationally-recognized experts provide practical approaches for integrating administrative data in statistical surveys, and discuss the methodological issues—including concerns of privacy, confidentiality, and legality—involved in collecting and analyzing administrative records. Numerous real-world examples highlight technological and statistical innovations, helping readers gain a better understanding of both fundamental methods and advanced techniques for controlling data quality reducing total survey error. Divided into four sections, the first describes the basics of administrative records research and addresses disclosure limitation and confidentiality protection in linked data. Section two focuses on data quality and linking methodology, covering topics such as quality evaluation, measuring and controlling for non-consent bias, and cleaning and using administrative lists. The third section examines the use of administrative records in surveys and includes case studies of the Swedish register-based census and the administrative records applications used for the US 2020 Census. The book’s final section discusses combining administrative and survey data to improve income measurement, enhancing health surveys with data linkage, and other uses of administrative data in evidence-based policymaking. This state-of-the-art resource: Discusses important administrative data issues and suggests how administrative data can be integrated with more traditional surveys Describes practical uses of administrative records for evidence-driven decisions in both public and private sectors Emphasizes using interdisciplinary methodology and linking administrative records with other data sources Explores techniques to leverage administrative data to improve the survey frame, reduce nonresponse follow-up, assess coverage error, measure linkage non-consent bias, and perform small area estimation. Administrative Records for Survey Methodology is an indispensable reference and guide for statistical researchers and methodologists in academia, industry, and government, particularly census bureaus and national statistical offices, and an ideal supplemental text for undergraduate and graduate courses in data science, survey methodology, data collection, and data analysis methods.

In the United States, some populations suffer from far greater disparities in health than others. Those disparities are caused not only by fundamental differences in health status across segments of the population, but also because of inequities in factors that impact health status, so-called determinants of health. Only part of an individual's health status depends on his or her behavior and choice; community-wide problems like poverty, unemployment, poor education, inadequate housing, poor public transportation, interpersonal violence, and decaying neighborhoods also contribute to health inequities, as well as the historic and ongoing interplay of structures, policies, and norms that shape lives. When these factors are not optimal in a community, it does not mean they are intractable: such inequities can be mitigated by social policies that can shape health in powerful ways. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity seeks to delineate the causes of and the solutions to health inequities in the United States. This report focuses on what communities can do to promote health equity, what actions are needed by the many and varied stakeholders that are part of communities or support them, as well as the root causes and structural barriers that need to be overcome.

The goal of eliminating disparities in health care in the United States remains elusive. Even as quality improves on specific measures, disparities often persist. Addressing these disparities must begin with the fundamental step of bringing the nature of the disparities and the groups at risk for those disparities to light by collecting health care quality information stratified by race, ethnicity and language data. Then attention can be focused on where interventions might be best applied, and on planning and evaluating those efforts to inform the development of policy and the application of resources. A lack of standardization of categories for race, ethnicity, and language data has been suggested as one obstacle to achieving more widespread collection and utilization of these data. Race, Ethnicity, and Language Data identifies current models for collecting and coding race, ethnicity, and language data; reviews challenges involved in obtaining these data, and makes recommendations for a nationally standardized approach for use in health care quality improvement.

Disparities in health and health care across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds in the United States are well documented. The reasons for these disparities are, however, not well understood. Current data available on race, ethnicity, SEP, and accumulation and language use are severely limited. The report examines data collection and reporting systems relating to the collection of data on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic position and offers recommendations.

This User’s Guide is intended to support the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, and quality evaluation of registries created to increase understanding of patient outcomes. For the purposes of this guide, a patient registry is an organized system that uses observational study methods to collect uniform data (clinical and other) to evaluate specified outcomes for a population defined by a particular disease, condition, or exposure, and that serves one or more predetermined scientific, clinical, or policy purposes. A registry database is a file (or files) derived from the registry. Although registries can serve many purposes, this guide focuses on registries created for one or more of the following purposes: to describe the natural history of disease, to determine clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of health care products and services, to measure or monitor safety and harm, and/or to measure quality of care. Registries are classified according to how their populations are defined. For example, product registries include patients who have been exposed to biopharmaceutical products or medical devices. Health services registries consist of patients who have had a common procedure, clinical encounter, or hospitalization. Disease or condition registries are defined by patients having the same diagnosis, such as cystic fibrosis or heart failure. The User’s Guide was created by researchers affiliated with AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program, particularly those who participated in AHRQ’s DEcIDE (Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions About Effectiveness) program. Chapters were subject to multiple internal and external independent reviews.

In the late 1980s, the National Cancer Institute initiated an investigation of cancer risks in populations near 52 commercial nuclear power plants and 10 Department of Energy nuclear facilities (including research and nuclear weapons production facilities and one reprocessing plant) in the United States. The results of the NCI investigation were used a primary resource for communicating with the public about the cancer risks near the nuclear facilities. However, this study is now over 20 years old. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested that the National Academy of Sciences provide an updated assessment of cancer risks in populations near USNRC-licensed nuclear facilities that utilize or process uranium for the production of electricity. Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 1 focuses on identifying scientifically sound approaches for carrying out an assessment of cancer risks associated with living near a nuclear facility, judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of various statistical power, ability to assess potential confounding factors, possible biases, and required effort. The results from this Phase 1 study will be used to inform the design of cancer risk assessment, which will be carried out in Phase 2. This report is beneficial for the general public, communities near nuclear facilities, stakeholders, healthcare providers, policy makers, state and local officials, community leaders, and the media.