Using and Interpreting Data

Using and Interpreting Data

Substance Abuse Epidemiology UnitEpidemiology and Response DivisionNew Mexico Department of Health

Outline Measures of relative frequency Calculating rates

Examples Age-adjustment

Trends Small group exercises Sources of data

Review of the New Mexico State Epi Profile Community examples

Ratios

Ratio: a comparison of two groups Groups may be unrelated or subgroups of a larger

category

Ratio = A / B Examples: miles / gallon

students / teacher males / females (sex ratio)

Proportions Proportion: a relationship of one part to the whole, e.g.

percentage, fraction, decimal

Percentage = __A__ x 100 A + B

Numerator is always included in the denominator

Examples: ______# of females in class______

# of females + # of males in class

___# of alcohol-related deaths in Sandoval county_____ Total # of alcohol-related deaths in all 33 NM counties

Calculating Proportions - Example

Proportion of alcohol-related (A-R) deaths in Sandoval county

Numerator = # A-R deaths in Sandoval county = 213Denominator = # A-R deaths in New Mexico = 5,068Time Period = 1999-2003Constant = 100

Proportion of statewide A-R = __213_ x 100 = 4.2%deaths in Sandoval county 5,068

Prevalence Prevalence = the number of existing cases or

events in a certain population at a given point in time Prevalence is a proportion and can be expressed as a

percentage Includes current cases/events Must indicate WHEN cases were enumerated

Prevalence = # of existing cases = 15_ = 0.10 X 100 or 10% Total population 150

Prevalence- ExampleYouth Binge Drinking

27.934.5

44.047.0

29.234.5 32.4

40.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth

Per

cent

(%)

BoysGirls

Chart 2: Binge Drinking by Sex and Grade Level, 2003 NM YRRS

Rates Frequency of a defined event in a specified

population during a given time period

Incorporates time into the measure Multiplied by a constant for ease of interpretation

Rate = # events (deaths, cases, etc.) _______# people at risk_____ time Example: crude death rate

Calculating Rates - Example

2002 all cause crude death rate for NM Numerator = # of deaths in NM during 2002 = 14,344Denominator = total population of NM in 2002 = 1,853,030Time Period = 2002Constant = 100,000

Crude death rate = __14,344__ X 100,000 = 774.1/100,000 1,853,030

Source: CDC Wonder

Age-adjustment of mortality rates

Death rate – number of deaths occurring in a specified population during a given period of time

Crude death rate – the death rate in the total population

Adjusted death rate – recalculation of the death rate using a standard population reference Compensates for differences in the age distributions of

populations being measured Allows comparisons between groups

Age-adjustment - Example

Crude death rate (1992-1994) Mexico: 469.6/100,000 US: 869.6/100,000

Adjusted death rate (1992-1994) Mexico: 596.6/100,000 US: 519.1/100,000

Trends

Looking at the same data over timeData collected the same way over periods of

timeNumbers large enough to calculate

percentages or rates for each time periodSame length of time in each period used as a

data point

0

5

10

15

20

25

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Dea

ths p

er 1

00,0

00 p

erso

ns

NMUS

Source: Division of Government Research, University of New Mexico

Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Crash Fatality Rates, New Mexico and US, 1990-2004

02468

10121416182022

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Dea

ths p

er 1

00,0

00 p

erso

ns NMUS

Drug-Related Death Rates* New Mexico and US, 1990-2004

*Rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US population

Sources: Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics, NMDOH; CDC Wonder

Small Group Exercises

New Mexico Crude Death Rates By County, 2002

New Mexico Crude Death Rate by County, 2002

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

LOS ALAMOSSANTA FEMC KINLEYSAN J UAN

TORRANCESANDOVALDONA ANASOCORROVALENCIA

CIBOLABERNALILLO

TAOSOTEROMORA

RIO ARRIBALINCOLN

LEACURRY

ROOSEVELTSAN MIGUEL

HIDALGOCHAVESGRANT

LUNACOLFAX

EDDYCATRON

GUADALUPEQUAYUNION

DE BACASIERRA

HARDING

Deaths per 100,000 population

Source: CDC Wonder

New Mexico Age-Adjusted Death Rates By County, 2002

New Mexico Age-adjusted Death Rate by County, 2002

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

LOS ALAMOSSANTA FE

LINCOLNMORA

SANDOVALTAOS

DE BACADONA ANASOCORROHARDING

TORRANCEBERNALILLO

GRANTCIBOLA

VALENCIACOLFAX

SAN J UANLUNA

OTEROCATRON

RIO ARRIBAHIDALGOCHAVES

QUAYSIERRA

LEAUNION

SAN MIGUELMC KINLEY

CURRYROOSEVELT

EDDYGUADALUPE

Age-adjusted Deaths per 100,000 population

Source: CDC Wonder

Common Sources of Health Data

Population and demographic data from the US Census Bureau and the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at UNM

Birth and death data from the NM Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics

Population-based survey data collected by the NM DOH YRRS: Youth Risk and Resiliency Survey BRFSS: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

Hospitalization in-patient discharge data from the NM Health Policy Commission

New Mexico SPF-SIG State Epi Profile

New Mexico State Epidemiology ProfileStrategic Prevention Framework - State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG)

Substance Abuse Epidemiology Unit Injury and Behavioral Epidemiology Bureau Epidemiology and Response Division New Mexico Department of Health

SPF-SIG Statewide Epidemiological Workgroup

This document made possible by: NMDOH Behavioral Health Services Division and the Center for

Spring 2005

ALCOHOL-RELATED DEATH

* Rate per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population

Ages Ages Ages All Ages Ages Ages AllSex Race/Ethnicity 0-24 25-64 65+ Ages 0-24 25-64 65+ Ages*

White non-Hispanic 78 736 558 1,372 12.6 66.2 180.9 60.4Black non-Hispanic 7 29 12 48 16.6 64.3 190.5 68.9Hispanic 183 975 346 1,505 20.7 106.6 244.2 98.1American Indian 65 412 74 551 30.5 213.0 322.6 168.1Other 2 7 3 12 5.8 22.2 124.7 35.0Total 335 2,159 993 3,487 18.8 94.1 206.1 82.5White non-Hispanic 26 288 446 761 4.5 25.0 115.2 27.4Black non-Hispanic 3 14 9 25 6.5 38.9 120.9 38.7Hispanic 45 233 232 509 5.2 24.8 128.7 32.0American Indian 23 196 57 277 11.0 91.1 184.2 76.9Other 0 5 4 9 1.6 12.8 96.8 23.4Total 97 736 749 1,581 5.7 30.9 122.6 33.0White non-Hispanic 104 1,025 1,004 2,132 8.7 45.2 144.3 43.1Black non-Hispanic 9 43 21 73 11.8 53.2 152.3 53.5Hispanic 228 1,207 578 2,013 13.1 65.2 179.6 63.6American Indian 88 608 131 828 20.8 148.8 242.8 119.1Other 2 12 8 21 3.8 17.0 107.7 28.3Total 432 2,894 1,742 5,068 12.3 61.9 159.4 56.7

* Age-specific rates (e.g., Ages 0-24) are per 100,000; all-ages rate is per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population

Total

Deaths Rates*

Male

Female

Chart 1: Alcohol-Related Death Rates by High-Level Cause, New Mexico, 1999-2003

Table 1: Alcohol-Related Deaths and Rates by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity, New Mexico, 1999-2003

Problem Statement The consequences of alcohol abuse are severe in New Mexico, which has consistently had the second highest death rate (after Alaska) from alcohol-related causes, among the states. The devastation caused by alcohol abuse in New Mexico is not limited to death, but can also be linked to domestic violence, crime, poverty, and unemployment, as well as chronic liver disease, motor vehicle crash and assault injuries, mental illness, and a variety of other medical problems.

Chart 1 shows the two principle components of alcohol-related death: deaths due to chronic diseases (such as chronic liver disease) that are strongly associated with chronic alcohol abuse; and deaths due to alcohol-related injuries, which are strongly associated with acute alcohol abuse. Each of these categories will be considered in more detail in a later section of this report. Chart 1 shows that the rates in both categories have increased slightly over the most recent 5-year period (1999-2003), and that New Mexico's total Alcohol-Related death rate has increased almost 10% during this period. This is in contrast to the U.S. and other state's rates, which have continued a gradual and ongoing decline during this period.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Rate

*

Chronic Disease InjuryTotal Alcohol-Related

I. Consequences 1

A. All-Causes Death 2

B. Alcohol-Related Death 5 1. Alcohol-Related Chronic Disease Death 8 (a) Alcohol-Related Chronic Liver Disease Death 11

2. Alcohol-Related Injury Death 14 (a) Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Crash Death 17

C. Smoking-Related Death 20

D. Drug-Related Death 23

E. Suicide 26

Provides a systematic and comprehensive overview of ATODA-related consequences ….

NM SPF-SIG State Epi Profile

NM SPF-SIG State Epi Profile

II. Consumption 29

A. Alcohol 1. Binge Drinking (a) Adult Binge Drinking (BRFSS) 30 (b) Youth Binge Drinking (YRRS) 33

2. Chronic/Heavy Drinking (a) Adult Chronic/Heavy Drinking (BRFSS) 36

3. Drinking and Driving (a) Adult Drinking and Driving (BRFSS) 39 (b) Youth Drinking and Driving (YRRS) 42

B. Illicit Drugs 1. Drug Use - Youth (YRRS) 44

C. Tobacco 1. Adult Cigarette Smoking (BRFSS) 48 2. Youth Cigarette Smoking (YRRS) 51

… and ATODA-related consumption

How to use this report Outcome indicators: consequences

Problem statement presents overview of the data and detailed statistics

Outcome indicators – associated with two tables Number of deaths on the left side of the table Age-specific death rates per 100,000 population on

the right side of the table* County bar chart showing age-adjusted rates for

each NM county in descending order

*Note: All-ages rate is per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population

How to use this report Outcome indicators – Table 1

Table 1: deaths and death rates by sex, age group, and race/ethnicity

Useful in determining the most important risk groups at a statewide level

Ages Ages Ages All Ages Ages Ages AllSex Race/Ethnicity 0-24 25-64 65+ Ages 0-24 25-64 65+ Ages*

White non-Hispanic 78 736 558 1,372 12.6 66.2 180.9 60.4Black non-Hispanic 7 29 12 48 16.6 64.3 190.5 68.9Hispanic 183 975 346 1,505 20.7 106.6 244.2 98.1American Indian 65 412 74 551 30.5 213.0 322.6 168.1Other 2 7 3 12 5.8 22.2 124.7 35.0Total 335 2,159 993 3,487 18.8 94.1 206.1 82.5White non-Hispanic 26 288 446 761 4.5 25.0 115.2 27.4Black non-Hispanic 3 14 9 25 6.5 38.9 120.9 38.7Hispanic 45 233 232 509 5.2 24.8 128.7 32.0American Indian 23 196 57 277 11.0 91.1 184.2 76.9Other 0 5 4 9 1.6 12.8 96.8 23.4Total 97 736 749 1,581 5.7 30.9 122.6 33.0White non-Hispanic 104 1,025 1,004 2,132 8.7 45.2 144.3 43.1Black non-Hispanic 9 43 21 73 11.8 53.2 152.3 53.5Hispanic 228 1,207 578 2,013 13.1 65.2 179.6 63.6American Indian 88 608 131 828 20.8 148.8 242.8 119.1Other 2 12 8 21 3.8 17.0 107.7 28.3Total 432 2,894 1,742 5,068 12.3 61.9 159.4 56.7

* Age-specific rates (e.g., Ages 0-24) are per 100,000; all-ages rate is per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population

Total

Deaths Rates*

Male

Female

Table 1: Alcohol-Related Deaths and Rates by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity, New Mexico, 1999-2003

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Rat

e* Chronic Disease InjuryTotal Alcohol-Related



Table 2: deaths and death rates for each NM county by race/ethnicity

Useful in determining: Counties with the most severe substance abuse

problems Groups with the highest risk within each county


County

WhiteNon-Hisp.

BlackNon-Hisp.

Hisp-anic

Ameri-can

Indian Other

AllRace/

Ethnic-ities

WhiteNon-Hisp.

BlackNon-Hisp.

Hisp-anic

Ameri-can

Indian Other

AllRace/

Ethnic-ities

Bernalillo 114 6 221 47 3 391 6.9 -- 23.6 51.2 -- 13.9Catron 1 0 1 0 0 2 -- -- -- -- -- --Chaves 23 0 21 2 0 45 11.2 -- 21.5 -- -- 14.5Cibola 4 0 9 35 0 47 -- -- -- 84.5 -- 38.2Colfax 4 0 9 1 0 14 -- -- -- -- -- 17.7Curry 10 0 11 0 0 21 -- -- 26.0 -- -- 10.6De Baca 1 0 0 0 0 1 -- -- -- -- -- --Doña Ana 32 0 47 1 0 80 9.4 -- 11.8 -- -- 10.2Eddy 17 0 19 0 0 36 8.7 -- 24.7 -- -- 13.0Grant 10 0 7 1 0 18 -- -- -- -- -- 10.6Guadalupe 1 0 4 0 0 5 -- -- -- -- -- --Harding 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- --Hidalgo 1 0 1 0 0 2 -- -- -- -- -- --Lea 20 1 12 0 0 32 10.4 -- 25.1 -- -- 12.0Lincoln 7 0 3 0 0 10 -- -- -- -- -- --Los Alamos 4 0 2 0 0 5 -- -- -- -- -- --Luna 10 0 10 0 0 20 -- -- 18.1 -- -- 14.4McKinley 9 0 10 100 0 119 -- -- 28.4 47.3 -- 39.3Mora 0 0 6 0 0 6 -- -- -- -- -- --Otero 15 1 11 16 0 42 7.1 -- 14.1 110.9 -- 13.8

Table 2: Alcohol-Related CLD Deaths and Rates* by Race/Ethnicity and County, New Mexico, 1999-2003

Deaths Rates*

Chart 1 shows the demographic distribution of AR-CLD, and graphically illustrates the extremely high burden thisdisease places on the American Indian population (both male and female), as well as on the Hispanic malepopulation. The high rates among American Indians and Hispanic males in the 35-44 year age group and 45-54 yearage group categories represent a tremendous burden in terms of years of potential life lost (years of life lost beforethe average life expectancy, e.g., age 77, are considered "years of potential life lost"). Persons dying in the Age 35-44 category die in the prime of life, and lose 30-40 years of potential life, with all the attendent losses to themselves,their families, and their communities. As Table 1 shows, 75% of AR-CLD deaths occur before age 65.

Table 2 and Chart 2 show that this burden of disease falls principally in four counties: McKinley, Cibola, SanMiguel, and Rio Arriba have high rates and significant numbers of deaths; Bernalillo has significant numbers ofdeaths. The relatively low rates for American Indians in San Juan County, and for Hispanics in Sandoval and DoñaAna Counties, suggest possible mitigating factors at work in these counties. There may be prevention lessons to belearned from these counties, as well as from other states (e.g., New York).

*All rates are per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population

How to use this report Outcome indicators – County bar charts

Number of deaths and the percent of NM deaths occurring in each county are given next to the county name on the left side

Highest death rates are at the top State rate shown with a darker bar for

comparison

County Rate Cnty,N,% County = cnty2cnty2 n rate Percent pastedPercent formula

Catron** 0.0 Catron** (2; 0.2%)OK Catron** 2 0.0 0.2 0.2De Baca** 0.0 De Baca** (1; 0%)OK De Baca** 1 0.0 0.0 0.0Guadalupe** 0.0 Guadalupe** (5; 0.3%)OK Guadalupe** 5 0.0 0.3 0.3Harding** 0.0 Harding** (0; 0%)OK Harding** 0 0.0 0.0 0.0Hidalgo** 0.0 Hidalgo** (2; 0.2%)OK Hidalgo** 2 0.0 0.2 0.2Lincoln** 0.0 Lincoln** (10; 0.7%)OK Lincoln** 10 0.0 0.7 0.7Los Alamos** 0.0 Los Alamos** (5; 0.4%)OK Los Alamos** 5 0.0 0.4 0.4Mora** 0.0 Mora** (6; 0.4%)OK Mora** 6 0.0 0.4 0.4Quay** 0.0 Quay** (9; 0.7%)OK Quay** 9 0.0 0.7 0.7Roosevelt** 0.0 Roosevelt** (3; 0.2%)OK Roosevelt** 3 0.0 0.2 0.2Socorro** 0.0 Socorro** (9; 0.7%)OK Socorro** 9 0.0 0.7 0.7Torrance** 0.0 Torrance** (9; 0.7%)OK Torrance** 9 0.0 0.7 0.7Union** 0.0 Union** (2; 0.1%)OK Union** 2 0.0 0.1 0.1Doña Ana 10.2 Doña Ana (80; 6.1%)OK Doña Ana 80 10.2 6.1 6.1Santa Fe 10.3 Santa Fe (75; 5.7%)OK Santa Fe 75 10.3 5.7 5.7Grant 10.6 Grant (18; 1.3%)OK Grant 18 10.6 1.3 1.3Curry 10.6 Curry (21; 1.6%)OK Curry 21 10.6 1.6 1.6San Juan 12.0 San Juan (62; 4.7%)OK San Juan 62 12.0 4.7 4.7Lea 12.0 Lea (32; 2.4%)OK Lea 32 12.0 2.4 2.4Sandoval 12.9 Sandoval (58; 4.4%)OK Sandoval 58 12.9 4.4 4.4Eddy 13.0 Eddy (36; 2.7%)OK Eddy 36 13.0 2.7 2.7Otero 13.8 Otero (42; 3.2%)OK Otero 42 13.8 3.2 3.2Bernalillo 13.9 Bernalillo (391; 29.9%)OK Bernalillo 391 13.9 29.9 29.9New Mexico 14.4 New Mexico (1304; 100%)OK New Mexico 1,304 14.4 100.0 100.0Luna 14.4 Luna (20; 1.5%)OK Luna 20 14.4 1.5 1.5Chaves 14.5 Chaves (45; 3.5%)OK Chaves 45 14.5 3.5 3.5Valencia 14.7 Valencia (47; 3.6%)OK Valencia 47 14.7 3.6 3.6Sierra 15.4 Sierra (15; 1.1%)OK Sierra 15 15.4 1.1 1.1Taos 17.0 Taos (29; 2.2%)OK Taos 29 17.0 2.2 2.2Colfax 17.7 Colfax (14; 1.1%)OK Colfax 14 17.7 1.1 1.1Rio Arriba 25.8 Rio Arriba (53; 4.1%)OK Rio Arriba 53 25.8 4.1 4.1San Miguel 30.7 San Miguel (47; 3.6%)OK San Miguel 47 30.7 3.6 3.6Cibola 38.2 Cibola (47; 3.6%)OK Cibola 47 38.2 3.6 3.6McKinley 39.3 McKinley (119; 9.1%)OK McKinley 119 39.3 9.1 9.1

County (# of deaths; % of statewide deaths)

10.2

10.3

10.6

10.6

12.0

12.0

12.9

13.0

13.8

13.9

14.4

14.4

14.5

14.7

15.4

17.0

17.7

25.8

30.7

38.2

39.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Catron** (2; 0.2%)De Baca** (1; 0%)

Guadalupe** (5; 0.3%)Harding** (0; 0%)

Hidalgo** (2; 0.2%)Lincoln** (10; 0.7%)

Los Alamos** (5; 0.4%)Mora** (6; 0.4%)Quay** (9; 0.7%)

Roosevelt** (3; 0.2%)Socorro** (9; 0.7%)

Torrance** (9; 0.7%)Union** (2; 0.1%)

Doña Ana (80; 6.1%)Santa Fe (75; 5.7%)

Grant (18; 1.3%)Curry (21; 1.6%)

San Juan (62; 4.7%)Lea (32; 2.4%)

Sandoval (58; 4.4%)Eddy (36; 2.7%)Otero (42; 3.2%)

Bernalillo (391; 29.9%)New Mexico (1304; 100%)

Luna (20; 1.5%)Chaves (45; 3.5%)

Valencia (47; 3.6%)Sierra (15; 1.1%)Taos (29; 2.2%)

Colfax (14; 1.1%)Rio Arriba (53; 4.1%)

San Miguel (47; 3.6%)Cibola (47; 3.6%)

McKinley (119; 9.1%)

Rate*

Example of county bar chart

Alcohol-Related Chronic Liver Disease Death

McKinley county AR-CLD death rate: 39.3/100,000

McKinley county deaths: 119/1,304 = 9.1% of AR-CLD statewide deaths

New MexicoAR-CLD death rate:14.4/100,000

*All rates are per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population

How to use this report Rates and numbers Example: McKinley and Bernalillo counties

Consider both prevalence and rate when designing interventions

County with highest alcohol-related death rate 115.1 deaths / 100,000 population

County with highest proportion of alcohol-related deaths in the state 1,491/ 5,068 = 29.5%


36.1

38.2

41.4

43.9

47.5

48.5

48.8

48.9

52.3

52.6

53.4

53.5

53.7

53.9

54.3

54.6

55.2

56.7

57.2

57.4

58.5

60.7

61.5

64.3

68.8

70.3

75.2

86.3

88.4

92.6

101.3

115.1

0.0

0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

De Baca** (7; 0.1%)

Harding** (4; 0.1%)

Roosevelt (31; 0.6%)

Los Alamos (37; 0.7%)

Doña Ana (328; 6.5%)

Curry (89; 1.8%)

Union (11; 0.2%)

Lincoln (56; 1.1%)

Santa Fe (321; 6.3%)

Sandoval (213; 4.2%)

Hidalgo (16; 0.3%)

Otero (154; 3%)

Eddy (146; 2.9%)

Bernalillo (1494; 29.5%)

Valencia (166; 3.3%)

Quay (33; 0.6%)

Luna (74; 1.5%)

Lea (143; 2.8%)

Torrance (43; 0.8%)

New Mexico (5068; 100%)

Grant (97; 1.9%)

Colfax (46; 0.9%)

Chaves (186; 3.7%)

Socorro (51; 1%)

San Juan (309; 6.1%)

Guadalupe (17; 0.3%)

Taos (108; 2.1%)

Sierra (64; 1.3%)

Catron (15; 0.3%)

San Miguel (130; 2.6%)

Mora (24; 0.5%)

Rio Arriba (185; 3.7%)

Cibola (123; 2.4%)


Rate*

Example of county bar chart

Alcohol-Related Death Rates by CountyCounty (# of deaths; % of statewide deaths)

36.1

38.2

41.4

43.9

47.5

48.5

48.8

48.9

52.3

52.6

53.4

53.5

53.7

53.9

54.3

54.6

55.2

56.7

57.2

57.4

58.5

60.7

61.5

64.3

68.8

70.3

75.2

86.3

88.4

92.6

101.3

115.1

0.0

0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

De Baca** (7; 0.1%)

Harding** (4; 0.1%)



Doña Ana (328; 6.5%)

Curry (89; 1.8%)

Union (11; 0.2%)

Lincoln (56; 1.1%)

Santa Fe (321; 6.3%)


Hidalgo (16; 0.3%)

Otero (154; 3%)

Eddy (146; 2.9%)



Quay (33; 0.6%)

Luna (74; 1.5%)

Lea (143; 2.8%)

Torrance (43; 0.8%)

New Mexico (5068; 100%)

Grant (97; 1.9%)

Colfax (46; 0.9%)

Chaves (186; 3.7%)

Socorro (51; 1%)

San Juan (309; 6.1%)


Taos (108; 2.1%)

Sierra (64; 1.3%)

Catron (15; 0.3%)


Mora (24; 0.5%)


Cibola (123; 2.4%)


Rate*

McKinley county alcohol-related death rate: 115.1/100,000

New Mexicoalcohol-related death rate:56.7/100,000

Bernalillo county 1494/5,068 = 29.5% of AR-CLD statewide deaths


36.1

38.2

41.4

43.9

47.5

48.5

48.8

48.9

52.3

52.6

53.4

53.5

53.7

53.9

54.3

54.6

55.2

56.7

57.2

57.4

58.5

60.7

61.5

64.3

68.8

70.3

75.2

86.3

88.4

92.6

101.3

115.1

0.0

0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

De Baca** (7; 0.1%)

Harding** (4; 0.1%)



Doña Ana (328; 6.5%)

Curry (89; 1.8%)

Union (11; 0.2%)

Lincoln (56; 1.1%)

Santa Fe (321; 6.3%)


Hidalgo (16; 0.3%)

Otero (154; 3%)

Eddy (146; 2.9%)



Quay (33; 0.6%)

Luna (74; 1.5%)

Lea (143; 2.8%)

Torrance (43; 0.8%)

New Mexico (5068; 100%)

Grant (97; 1.9%)

Colfax (46; 0.9%)

Chaves (186; 3.7%)

Socorro (51; 1%)

San Juan (309; 6.1%)


Taos (108; 2.1%)

Sierra (64; 1.3%)

Catron (15; 0.3%)


Mora (24; 0.5%)


Cibola (123; 2.4%)


Rate*


36.1

38.2

41.4

43.9

47.5

48.5

48.8

48.9

52.3

52.6

53.4

53.5

53.7

53.9

54.3

54.6

55.2

56.7

57.2

57.4

58.5

60.7

61.5

64.3

68.8

70.3

75.2

86.3

88.4

92.6

101.3

115.1

0.0

0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

De Baca** (7; 0.1%)

Harding** (4; 0.1%)



Doña Ana (328; 6.5%)

Curry (89; 1.8%)

Union (11; 0.2%)

Lincoln (56; 1.1%)

Santa Fe (321; 6.3%)


Hidalgo (16; 0.3%)

Otero (154; 3%)

Eddy (146; 2.9%)



Quay (33; 0.6%)

Luna (74; 1.5%)

Lea (143; 2.8%)

Torrance (43; 0.8%)

New Mexico (5068; 100%)

Grant (97; 1.9%)

Colfax (46; 0.9%)

Chaves (186; 3.7%)

Socorro (51; 1%)

San Juan (309; 6.1%)


Taos (108; 2.1%)

Sierra (64; 1.3%)

Catron (15; 0.3%)


Mora (24; 0.5%)


Cibola (123; 2.4%)


Rate*


36.1

38.2

41.4

43.9

47.5

48.5

48.8

48.9

52.3

52.6

53.4

53.5

53.7

53.9

54.3

54.6

55.2

56.7

57.2

57.4

58.5

60.7

61.5

64.3

68.8

70.3

75.2

86.3

88.4

92.6

101.3

115.1

0.0

0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

De Baca** (7; 0.1%)

Harding** (4; 0.1%)



Doña Ana (328; 6.5%)

Curry (89; 1.8%)

Union (11; 0.2%)

Lincoln (56; 1.1%)

Santa Fe (321; 6.3%)


Hidalgo (16; 0.3%)

Otero (154; 3%)

Eddy (146; 2.9%)



Quay (33; 0.6%)

Luna (74; 1.5%)

Lea (143; 2.8%)

Torrance (43; 0.8%)

New Mexico (5068; 100%)

Grant (97; 1.9%)

Colfax (46; 0.9%)

Chaves (186; 3.7%)

Socorro (51; 1%)

San Juan (309; 6.1%)


Taos (108; 2.1%)

Sierra (64; 1.3%)

Catron (15; 0.3%)


Mora (24; 0.5%)


Cibola (123; 2.4%)


Rate**All rates are per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population

How to use this report ATODA consumption behaviors

BRFSS data estimate number and percent of people in population engaging in behavior

Table 1: Statewide estimates by age, sex, and race/ethnicity

Table 2: County estimates by race/ethnicity

County bar charts arranged in descending order

County (# of drinking drivers; % of statewide drinking drivers)

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.6

1.8

1.9

1.9

2.0

2.3

2.3

2.9

3.1

3.2

3.9

4.1

4.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Catron (0; 0%)

De Baca (0; 0%)

Eddy (0; 0%)

Grant (0; 0%)

Guadalupe (0; 0%)

Harding (0; 0%)

Hidalgo (0; 0%)

Mora (0; 0%)

Rio Arriba (0; 0%)

Sierra (0; 0%)

Socorro (0; 0%)

Torrance (0; 0%)

Union (0; 0%)

San Juan (194; 0.8%)

Curry (102; 0.4%)


Lincoln (73; 0.3%)


Chaves (340; 1.4%)

Otero (406; 1.6%)


Cibola (346; 1.4%)

Quay (194; 0.8%)

Lea (651; 2.6%)


New Mexico (25795; 100%)

Santa Fe (1968; 7.8%)

Sandoval (1498; 6%)


Colfax (417; 1.7%)

Doña Ana (4127; 16.4%)

Taos (975; 3.9%)


Luna (629; 2.5%)

Rate*

Example of countybar chart: BRFSS

Adult Drinking and Driving Rates by County

Luna county: 4.8% of adults reported drinking and driving at least once in past 30 days

No estimates available for small counties

Bernalillo county accounted for 47.8% of statewide drinking drivers

*Estimate of percent of people in population group who drove after drinking at least once in previous 30 days

How to use this report ATODA consumption behaviors

YRRS data estimate percent of public high school students engaging in behavior

Table 1: Prevalence estimates by grade, sex, and race/ethnicity

Chart 1: County bar charts with prevalence estimates arranged in descending order

13.0

13.2

14.8

16.5

16.5

17.5

18.2

18.2

18.6

19.1

19.4

19.5

19.8

20.2

20.4

20.7

21.1

21.2

21.3

21.4

21.6

22.1

22.2

22.3

23.7

24.3

27.6

32.5

35.7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

CurryDe Baca

EddyLincoln

Los AlamosSan Juan

CatronSandoval

ColfaxTorrance

Doña AnaBernalillo

HidalgoRoosevelt

New MexicoQuay

San MiguelGuadalupe

SocorroMcKinley

SierraCibola

HardingValencia

GrantLunaOtero

Santa FeRio Arriba

TaosLea

ChavesMora

Union

Percent (%)

Not available

Not available

Not available

Drinking and Driving Rates by County, Grades 9-12

Example of county bar chart: YRRS

Union county: 35.7% of youth reported drinking and driving in the past 30 days

New Mexico:19.1% of youth

Survey Data BRFSS

Telephone survey of adult health conditions and risk behaviors Random sample of adults 18 years of age or older in households

with a land-line telephone Able to generate population-based estimates for adults

YRRS School-based survey of health risk and resiliency behaviors

among 9th-12th graders in NM School districts must agree to participate Estimates representative of public high school students

Both surveys include self-reported data

County (# of drinking drivers; % of statewide drinking drivers)

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.6

1.8

1.9

1.9

2.0

2.3

2.3

2.9

3.1

3.2

3.9

4.1

4.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Catron (0; 0%)

De Baca (0; 0%)

Eddy (0; 0%)

Grant (0; 0%)

Guadalupe (0; 0%)

Harding (0; 0%)

Hidalgo (0; 0%)

Mora (0; 0%)

Rio Arriba (0; 0%)

Sierra (0; 0%)

Socorro (0; 0%)

Torrance (0; 0%)

Union (0; 0%)

San Juan (194; 0.8%)

Curry (102; 0.4%)


Lincoln (73; 0.3%)


Chaves (340; 1.4%)

Otero (406; 1.6%)


Cibola (346; 1.4%)

Quay (194; 0.8%)

Lea (651; 2.6%)


New Mexico (25795; 100%)

Santa Fe (1968; 7.8%)

Sandoval (1498; 6%)


Colfax (417; 1.7%)

Doña Ana (4127; 16.4%)

Taos (975; 3.9%)


Luna (629; 2.5%)

Rate*

Adult Drinking and Driving Rates by CountyCounty (# of deaths; % of statewide deaths)

5.7

5.9

6.0

6.3

6.9

6.9

7.3

8.5

8.5

9.0

9.0

9.6

10.3

13.4

14.2

15.9

20.5

20.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Catron** (3; 0.4%)

Colfax** (8; 1%)

De Baca** (3; 0.3%)

Guadalupe** (3; 0.3%)

Harding** (2; 0.2%)

Hidalgo** (3; 0.4%)

Lincoln** (9; 1.2%)

Los Alamos** (5; 0.7%)

Luna** (9; 1.2%)

Mora** (5; 0.7%)

Quay** (4; 0.5%)

Roosevelt** (7; 0.9%)

Sierra** (7; 0.9%)

Socorro** (9; 1.1%)

Torrance** (8; 1%)

Union** (1; 0.1%)

Doña Ana (51; 6.6%)


Curry (13; 1.7%)

Santa Fe (41; 5.3%)

Chaves (21; 2.7%)

Eddy (17; 2.2%)

Otero (21; 2.8%)

New Mexico (773; 100%)

Sandoval (38; 4.9%)


Grant (14; 1.8%)

Lea (26; 3.4%)

Valencia (34; 4.3%)

Taos (19; 2.5%)

San Juan (79; 10.3%)

Cibola (20; 2.6%)


McKinley (70; 9%)

Rate*

Alcohol-Related MVC Death Rates by County

How to use this report Missing data

Rates calculated using small numbers are unstable and difficult to interpret

Exclusions of rates occurred if: Fewer than four deaths and population <20 in the rate

denominator (NM standard small numbers rule) Fewer than two deaths per county per year

Results in data gaps for certain groups

County

WhiteNon-Hisp.

BlackNon-Hisp.

Hisp-anic

Ameri-can

Indian Other

AllRace/

Ethnic-ities

WhiteNon-Hisp.

BlackNon-Hisp.

Hisp-anic

Ameri-can

Indian Other

AllRace/

Ethnic-ities

Bernalillo 690 34 654 105 12 1,494 42.2 54.6 68.1 109.7 25.7 53.5Catron 11 ** 4 0 0 15 64.8 ** -- -- -- 75.2Chaves 112 3 68 2 0 186 53.5 -- 65.0 -- -- 58.5Cibola 19 0 28 75 0 123 48.1 -- 73.2 178.5 -- 101.3Colfax 19 0 25 1 0 46 39.1 -- 77.8 -- -- 57.4Curry 53 4 31 0 0 89 36.8 -- 73.1 -- -- 43.9De Baca 5 0 3 0 0 7 -- -- -- -- -- --Doña Ana 138 4 183 2 1 328 40.2 -- 44.1 -- -- 41.4Eddy 88 2 55 0 0 146 45.5 -- 69.2 -- -- 53.4Grant 59 0 36 1 0 97 60.7 -- 51.7 -- -- 57.2Guadalupe 3 0 14 0 0 17 -- -- 68.2 -- -- 64.3Harding 2 0 2 0 0 4 -- -- -- -- -- --Hidalgo 12 0 4 0 0 16 74.2 -- -- -- -- 52.3Lea 93 6 43 1 0 143 51.8 -- 68.0 -- -- 54.6Lincoln 43 0 11 1 0 56 49.1 -- 51.1 -- -- 48.5Los Alamos 31 0 4 1 1 37 37.4 -- -- -- -- 38.2Luna 43 0 29 1 0 74 59.5 -- 52.3 -- -- 54.3McKinley 28 1 24 294 0 348 53.0 -- 68.2 138.2 -- 115.1Mora 2 0 22 0 0 24 -- -- 103.4 -- -- 88.4Otero 81 6 38 28 1 154 42.0 -- 50.3 203.1 -- 52.6Quay 20 1 12 0 0 33 50.2 -- 63.8 -- -- 53.9Rio Arriba 15 2 129 39 0 185 42.3 -- 90.1 168.8 -- 92.6Roosevelt 24 0 6 1 0 31 37.3 -- -- -- -- 36.1Sandoval 88 4 49 71 2 213 32.8 -- 47.2 119.8 -- 48.9San Juan 118 1 35 155 1 309 42.6 -- 55.5 97.3 -- 61.5San Miguel 23 0 106 1 0 130 66.7 -- 95.1 -- -- 86.3Santa Fe 124 2 179 16 0 321 36.1 -- 63.4 89.5 -- 48.8Sierra 51 0 10 1 0 64 77.8 -- 55.2 -- -- 70.3Socorro 15 0 25 10 0 51 39.4 -- 66.9 -- -- 60.7Taos 27 0 67 15 0 108 45.1 -- 76.6 150.6 -- 68.8Torrance 27 0 15 1 0 43 56.1 -- 60.4 -- -- 55.2Union 5 0 6 0 0 11 -- -- -- -- -- 47.5Valencia 63 2 96 5 0 166 41.1 -- 65.0 -- -- 53.7Total 2,132 73 2,013 828 21 5,068 43.1 53.5 63.6 119.1 28.3 56.7

Table 2: Alcohol-Related Deaths and Rates* by Race/Ethnicity and County, New Mexico, 1999-2003

Deaths Rates*

NM standard small numbers

rule

Examples of cells affected by additional SPF-SIG rule

Data Collection

Death

Hospitalization

Ambulatory

Not reported in any system

Think about data availability as a pyramid

Numerator – what are you counting?

Denominator – who is in the target population?

Are the data already available?

If not, can they be collected in a systematic way?

Data Collection

Numerator: Counting DWI convictions in 2004

Denominator: Determining the population at risk

Example 1 – 2004 DWI Conviction Rate for New Mexico

Example 1 2004 DWI Conviction Rate for NM Numerator = # of DWI convictions in NM in 2004 =12,639Denominator = # of licensed drivers in NM in 2004 =1,289,089Time Period = 2004Constant = 1,000

DWI Conviction Rate NM 2004 = _12,639_ X 1,000 1,289,089

= 9.80/1,000

Source: New Mexico Department of Transportation, Driving While Impaired in NM, 2004 Report

Data Collection

Numerator: Counting FAS cases in NM


Example 2 – Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) Rate in New Mexico

Diagnosis of FAS

Documentation of 3 dysmorphic facial features Prenatal or postnatal growth deficit in height or

weight CNS abnormality

Diagnosis classified on the basis of available history of confirmed or unknown prenatal alcohol exposure

Mothers Who Drank Alcohol Three Months Prior to Pregnancy and During the Last Three Months of PregnancyNew Mexico, 1998-2002

0102030405060708090

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Perc

ent

Drank beforepregnancyDrank duringpregnancy

Source: Pregnancy Risk Assessment & Monitoring System (PRAMS), NMDOH

Example 2

FAS Prevalence Rate in NM Numerator = # FAS-affected children born 1998-2002Denominator = # live births in NM 1998-2002Time Period = 1998-2002 Constant = 10,000

Data Collection - Discussion

What are some other substance use consequences in your community?

Are there data already available? If data need to be collected, how would you

define a case/event (numerator) and the population at risk (denominator)?

Who can you call for help?

Acknowledgments

Dan Green, Social Indicator EpidemiologistJim Roeber, Alcohol Epidemiologist

Substance Abuse Epidemiology Unit

Corazon Halasan, Community EpidemiologistCommunity Health Assessment Program

Contact Information

Tierney MurphySubstance Abuse Prevention EpidemiologistNew Mexico Department of Health

Phone: 827-6816E-mail: [email protected]

Omitted Slides

Data Collection

Example 3 – School Truancy Rate in YourCommunity

Numerator: Counting middle and high school students who have unexcused absences


05

101520253035404550

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Perc

ent (

%)

18-3435-5455+

* 5 or more drinks on one occasion

Source: New Mexico BRFSS, Injury and Behavioral Epidemiology Unit, NMDOH

Binge Drinking* Among Currently Drinking Adults by Age, New Mexico 1998-2004

County (# of binge drinkers; % of statewide binge drinkers)

11.9

13.2

13.5

14.4

14.5

14.5

15.1

15.5

15.8

17.8

19.3

19.8

19.9

20.8

21.0

21.9

22.6

22.6

35.0

35.7

7.9

2.0

0.0

0.0

11.8

11.7

11.6

11.5

10.8

10.2

9.8

8.7

8.4

8.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

De Baca (0; 0%)

Mora (0; 0%)

Sierra (209; 0.1%)

Harding (176; 0.1%)

Torrance (711; 0.4%)

McKinley (3918; 2.1%)

Los Alamos (1455; 0.8%)

Sandoval (6338; 3.4%)

Valencia (4379; 2.3%)

Lincoln (1472; 0.8%)

Eddy (3962; 2.1%)

San Juan (9639; 5.2%)

Cibola (2535; 1.4%)

Santa Fe (10249; 5.5%)

Curry (4128; 2.2%)

Chaves (4932; 2.6%)

Catron (493; 0.3%)

New Mexico (188745; 100%)


Lea (4982; 2.7%)

San Miguel (3669; 2%)

Luna (2039; 1.1%)

Grant (4025; 2.2%)

Rio Arriba (5021; 2.7%)

Otero (7768; 4.2%)

Socorro (2212; 1.2%)

Taos (4884; 2.6%)

Doña Ana (26536; 14.2%)


Colfax (2952; 1.6%)

Union (1057; 0.6%)


Hidalgo (1379; 0.7%)

Quay (3928; 2.1%)

Rate*

Adult Binge Drinking by CountyCounty (# of deaths; % of statewide deaths)

5.7

5.9

6.0

6.3

6.9

6.9

7.3

8.5

8.5

9.0

9.0

9.6

10.3

13.4

14.2

15.9

20.5

20.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Catron** (3; 0.4%)

Colfax** (8; 1%)

De Baca** (3; 0.3%)

Guadalupe** (3; 0.3%)

Harding** (2; 0.2%)

Hidalgo** (3; 0.4%)

Lincoln** (9; 1.2%)

Los Alamos** (5; 0.7%)

Luna** (9; 1.2%)

Mora** (5; 0.7%)

Quay** (4; 0.5%)

Roosevelt** (7; 0.9%)

Sierra** (7; 0.9%)

Socorro** (9; 1.1%)

Torrance** (8; 1%)

Union** (1; 0.1%)

Doña Ana (51; 6.6%)


Curry (13; 1.7%)

Santa Fe (41; 5.3%)

Chaves (21; 2.7%)

Eddy (17; 2.2%)

Otero (21; 2.8%)

New Mexico (773; 100%)

Sandoval (38; 4.9%)


Grant (14; 1.8%)

Lea (26; 3.4%)

Valencia (34; 4.3%)

Taos (19; 2.5%)

San Juan (79; 10.3%)

Cibola (20; 2.6%)


McKinley (70; 9%)

Rate*

Alcohol-Related MVC Death Rates by County

Calculating Rates

Numerator: Counting liquor outlets in 2002


Example 2 – 2002 liquor license density rate for Rio Arriba county

Calculating Rates – Example 3

Liquor License DensityNumerator = # licensed facilities in Rio Arriba countyDenominator = 2002 population of Rio Arriba county aged

20 years and olderTime Period = 2002Constant = 1,000

Liquor License Density Rate Rio Arriba County 2004 = 2.7

Source: New Mexico Alcohol and Gaming Division, Regulation and Licensing Department

Incidence Rate (Risk)

Incidence = the number of NEW cases/events in a population over a given period of time Measures the probability of an event/case occurring

during a period of time

IR = Number of NEW events during time period Total population at risk for event

* Alcohol-related deaths are deaths from causes considered to be 100% attributable to alcohol.

Sources: Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics, NMDOH; CDC WonderRates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US Standard Population

02468

101214161820222426

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Dea

ths p

er 1

00,0

00 p

erso

ns

NMUS

Alcohol-Related* Death RatesNew Mexico and US, 1990-2004

County

WhiteNon-Hisp.

BlackNon-Hisp.

Hisp-anic

Ameri-can

Indian Other

AllRace/

Ethnic-ities

WhiteNon-Hisp.

BlackNon-Hisp.

Hisp-anic

Ameri-can

Indian Other

AllRace/

Ethnic-ities

Bernalillo 690 34 654 105 12 1,494 42.2 54.6 68.1 109.7 25.7 53.5Catron 11 ** 4 0 0 15 64.8 ** 114.0 0.0 0.0 75.2Chaves 112 3 68 2 0 186 53.5 60.3 65.0 56.8 19.1 58.5Cibola 19 0 28 75 0 123 48.1 2.6 73.2 178.5 0.0 101.3Colfax 19 0 25 1 0 46 39.1 42.0 77.8 107.3 0.0 57.4Curry 53 4 31 0 0 89 36.8 35.5 73.1 5.4 5.7 43.9De Baca 5 0 3 0 0 7 38.4 0.0 61.6 0.0 0.0 45.4Doña Ana 138 4 183 2 1 328 40.2 54.5 44.1 15.0 56.6 41.4Eddy 88 2 55 0 0 146 45.5 46.6 69.2 15.1 33.1 53.4Grant 59 0 36 1 0 97 60.7 26.7 51.7 51.9 9.7 57.2Guadalupe 3 0 14 0 0 17 60.0 0.0 68.2 0.0 0.0 64.3Harding 2 0 2 0 0 4 31.7 0.0 98.5 0.0 0.0 62.4Hidalgo 12 0 4 0 0 16 74.2 0 32.7 0.0 0.0 52.3Lea 93 6 43 1 0 143 51.8 60.1 68.0 35.0 0.0 54.6Lincoln 43 0 11 1 0 56 49.1 0.0 51.1 29.6 0.0 48.5Los Alamos 31 0 4 1 1 37 37.4 0.0 35.7 61.8 36.1 38.2Luna 43 0 29 1 0 74 59.5 12.4 52.3 129.8 0.0 54.3McKinley 28 1 24 294 0 348 53.0 88.1 68.2 138.2 15.7 115.1Mora 2 0 22 0 0 24 23.4 0.0 103.4 226.4 0.0 88.4Otero 81 6 38 28 1 154 42.0 62.5 50.3 203.1 80.6 52.6Quay 20 1 12 0 0 33 50.2 228.8 63.8 0.0 12.2 53.9Rio Arriba 15 2 129 39 0 185 42.3 352.3 90.1 168.8 69.3 92.6Roosevelt 24 0 6 1 0 31 37.3 0.0 34.1 171.5 10.7 36.1Sandoval 88 4 49 71 2 213 32.8 50.4 47.2 119.8 51.7 48.9San Juan 118 1 35 155 1 309 42.6 40.3 55.5 97.3 74.1 61.5San Miguel 23 0 106 1 0 130 66.7 0.0 95.1 71.9 0.0 86.3Santa Fe 124 2 179 16 0 321 36.1 76.8 63.4 89.5 5.0 48.8Sierra 51 0 10 1 0 64 77.8 133.0 55.2 89.1 0.0 70.3Socorro 15 0 25 10 0 51 39.4 41.0 66.9 113.7 0.0 60.7Taos 27 0 67 15 0 108 45.1 0.0 76.6 150.6 0.0 68.8Torrance 27 0 15 1 0 43 56.1 135.4 60.4 25.2 0.0 55.2Union 5 0 6 0 0 11 30.2 0.0 88.2 0.0 0.0 47.5Valencia 63 2 96 5 0 166 41.1 201.4 65.0 52.9 46.7 53.7Total 2,132 73 2,013 828 21 5,068 43.1 53.5 63.6 119.1 28.3 56.7

Table 2: Alcohol-Related Deaths and Rates* by Race/Ethnicity and County, New Mexico, 1999-2003

Deaths Rates*NM’s standard small numbers

rule

Examples of cells affected by additional SPF-SIG rule

Data Collection – General Principles

Numerator – what are you counting Denominator – who is in the target population Is the data already available? If not, can it be collected in a systematic way?

Documents

Using and Interpreting Data