Post on 25-Feb-2016
description
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
How to use this report Outcome indicators – Table 1
How to use this report Outcome indicators – Table 2
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
How to use this report Outcome indicators – Table 2
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%
County (# 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%)
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%)
McKinley (348; 6.9%)
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%)
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%)
McKinley (348; 6.9%)
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
County (# 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%)
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%)
McKinley (348; 6.9%)
Rate*
County (# 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%)
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%)
McKinley (348; 6.9%)
Rate*
County (# 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%)
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%)
McKinley (348; 6.9%)
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%)
San Miguel (98; 0.4%)
Lincoln (73; 0.3%)
McKinley (320; 1.3%)
Chaves (340; 1.4%)
Otero (406; 1.6%)
Valencia (446; 1.8%)
Cibola (346; 1.4%)
Quay (194; 0.8%)
Lea (651; 2.6%)
Los Alamos (319; 1.3%)
New Mexico (25795; 100%)
Santa Fe (1968; 7.8%)
Sandoval (1498; 6%)
Bernalillo (12034; 47.8%)
Colfax (417; 1.7%)
Doña Ana (4127; 16.4%)
Taos (975; 3.9%)
Roosevelt (656; 2.6%)
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%)
San Miguel (98; 0.4%)
Lincoln (73; 0.3%)
McKinley (320; 1.3%)
Chaves (340; 1.4%)
Otero (406; 1.6%)
Valencia (446; 1.8%)
Cibola (346; 1.4%)
Quay (194; 0.8%)
Lea (651; 2.6%)
Los Alamos (319; 1.3%)
New Mexico (25795; 100%)
Santa Fe (1968; 7.8%)
Sandoval (1498; 6%)
Bernalillo (12034; 47.8%)
Colfax (417; 1.7%)
Doña Ana (4127; 16.4%)
Taos (975; 3.9%)
Roosevelt (656; 2.6%)
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%)
Bernalillo (169; 21.9%)
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%)
San Miguel (13; 1.7%)
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%)
Rio Arriba (42; 5.4%)
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
Denominator: Determining the population at risk
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: tierney.murphy@state.nm.us
Omitted Slides
Data Collection
Example 3 – School Truancy Rate in YourCommunity
Numerator: Counting middle and high school students who have unexcused absences
Denominator: Determining the population at risk
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%)
Bernalillo (59878; 32.1%)
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%)
Roosevelt (3285; 1.8%)
Colfax (2952; 1.6%)
Union (1057; 0.6%)
Guadalupe (534; 0.3%)
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%)
Bernalillo (169; 21.9%)
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%)
San Miguel (13; 1.7%)
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%)
Rio Arriba (42; 5.4%)
McKinley (70; 9%)
Rate*
Alcohol-Related MVC Death Rates by County
Calculating Rates
Numerator: Counting liquor outlets in 2002
Denominator: Determining the population at risk
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?