Skip directly to searchSkip directly to the site navigationSkip directly to this page's context menuSkip directly to the page's main content

Complete Indicator Report of Fair/Poor Health

Definition

Percentage of adults aged 18 years and older who reported fair or poor general health.

Numerator

Number of survey respondents who reported fair or poor general health.

Denominator

Total number of survey respondents except those with missing, "Don't know/Not sure," and "Refused" responses.

Data Interpretation Issues

Question Text: "Would you say that in general your health is excellent, very good, good, fair or poor?"

To reduce bias and more accurately represent population data, the BRFSS survey methodology changed. In 2009, the survey began including surveys on cellular phones in addition to landline phones. And a new weighting methodology, known as "iterative proportional fitting" (raking) was implemented.

As with all surveys, some error results from nonresponse (e.g., refusal to participate in the survey or to answer specific questions), and measurement (e.g., social desirability or recall bias). Error was minimized by use of strict calling protocols, good questionnaire design, standardization of interviewer behavior, interviewer training, and frequent, on-site interviewer monitoring and supervision.

Why Is This Important?

Self-rated health (SRH) has been collected for many years on National Center for Health Statistics surveys and since 1993 on the state-based BRFSS. SRH is an independent predictor of important health outcomes including mortality, morbidity, and functional status. It is considered to be a reliable indicator of a person's perceived health and is a good global assessment of a person's well being.

Other Objectives

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Chronic Disease Indicator: Self-assessed health status among adults aged >=18 years.
(http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/cdi/Default.aspx)

The Institute of Medicine Committee on Using Performance Monitoring to Improve Community Health proposed that the proportion of adults reporting that their general health is good to excellent be included as one of 25 Community Health Profile Indicators.

How Are We Doing?

In 2009, approximately 10.8% (crude rate) of Utah adults aged 18 and older reported fair or poor general health status. This means that 89.2% of Utah adults reported good, very good, or excellent general health status.

How Do We Compare With U.S.?

Between the years 1993-2009, the proportion of adults who reported fair or poor health was significantly lower in Utah than for the U.S. as a whole (age-adjusted rates). These age-adjusted rates in 2009 were 11.6% in Utah compared to 15.5% in the U.S.

What Is Being Done?

It is anticipated that SRH will be used to monitor the two major goals of Healthy People 2010: Improving the Quality and Years of Healthy Life and Eliminating Health Disparities. The Utah Department of Health, through many programs, works to prevent avoidable illness, injury, disability, and premature death; assure access to affordable, quality health care; and to promote healthy lifestyles.

Available Services

Utah Health Information Phone Numbers:

Check Your Health: 1-888-222-2542
Utah Tobacco Quit Line: 1-888-567-TRUTH (8788)
Utah Cancer Control Resource Line: 1-800-717-1811
Utah's Medicaid Program Information 1-800-662-9651



Related Indicators

Relevant Population Characteristics

Since middle-age adults and older adults are at a greater risk of most chronic conditions, they are more likely to report fair or poor health. Adults with lower incomes and educational attainment are also more likely to report that their health is fair or poor.

Related Relevant Population Characteristics Indicators:


Health Care System Factors

Having health insurance can guarantee access to health care which has an effect on people's health status.

Related Health Care System Factors Indicators:


Risk Factors

Persons with unhealthy behaviors such as sedentary lifestyle, obesity, smoking, and poor dietary habits are at increased risk of poor health status.

Related Risk Factors Indicators:


Health Status Outcomes

Poor health can increase the risk of limitations of activity.

Related Health Status Outcomes Indicators:




Graphical Data Views

Percentage of Adults Aged 18 and Older Who Reported Fair or Poor General Health by Age Group, Utah, 2011

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Age Group Percentage of Adults Lower Limit Upper Limit
Record Count: 5
18-34 8.1% 6.9% 9.5%
35-49 12.5% 11.0% 14.1%
50-64 18.5% 16.8% 20.4%
65+ 23.0% 21.2% 24.9%

Data Notes

The 2011 BRFSS data in this graph include both landline and cell phone respondent interviews along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. This methodology utilizes additional demographic information (such as education, race, and marital status) in the weighting procedure. Both of these methodology changes were implemented to account for an increased number of U.S. households without landline phones and an under-representation of certain demographic groups that were not well-represented in the sample. This graph is based on the new methodology. More details about these changes can be found at: http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/brfss/Raking/Raking%20impact%202011.pdf.

Data Sources

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health.



Percentage of Adults Aged 18 and Older Who Reported Fair or Poor General Health by Income Category, Utah, 2011

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Income Category Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults Lower Limit Upper Limit
Record Count: 4
<$25,000 31.8% 29.3% 34.3%
$25,000-$49,999 15.7% 14.0% 17.7%
$50,000-$74,999 9.8% 8.2% 11.6%
$75,000+ 5.1% 4.1% 6.2%

Data Notes

Age adjusted to the U.S. 2000 standard population. The 2011 BRFSS data in this graph include both landline and cell phone respondent interviews along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. This methodology utilizes additional demographic information (such as education, race, and marital status) in the weighting procedure. Both of these methodology changes were implemented to account for an increased number of U.S. households without landline phones and an under-representation of certain demographic groups that were not well-represented in the sample. This graph is based on the new methodology. More details about these changes can be found at: http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/brfss/Raking/Raking%20impact%202011.pdf.

Data Sources

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health.



Percentage of Adults Aged 25 and Older Who Reported Fair of Poor General Health by Education Level, Utah, 2011

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Education Level Percentage of Adults Lower Limit Upper Limit
Record Count: 4
Less Than High School 38.5% 33.9% 43.4%
H.S. Grad or G.E.D. 18.9% 17.2% 20.7%
Some Post High School 14.0% 12.7% 15.4%
College Graduate 7.8% 6.9% 8.7%

Data Notes

Age adjusted to the U.S. 2000 standard population. The 2011 BRFSS data in this graph include both landline and cell phone respondent interviews along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. This methodology utilizes additional demographic information (such as education, race, and marital status) in the weighting procedure. Both of these methodology changes were implemented to account for an increased number of U.S. households without landline phones and an under-representation of certain demographic groups that were not well-represented in the sample. This graph is based on the new methodology. More details about these changes can be found at: http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/brfss/Raking/Raking%20impact%202011.pdf.

Data Sources

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health.



Percentage of Adults Aged 18 and Older Who Reported Fair or Poor General Health, by Ethnicity, Utah, 2011

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Hispanic Ethnicity Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults Lower Limit Upper Limit
Record Count: 2
Hispanic 31.0% 27.1% 35.1%
Non-Hispanic 12.2% 11.5% 13.0%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population. The 2011 BRFSS data in this graph include both landline and cell phone respondent interviews along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. This methodology utilizes additional demographic information (such as education, race, and marital status) in the weighting procedure. Both of these methodology changes were implemented to account for an increased number of U.S. households without landline phones and an under-representation of certain demographic groups that were not well-represented in the sample. This graph is based on the new methodology. More details about these changes can be found at: http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/brfss/Raking/Raking%20impact%202011.pdf.

Data Sources

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health.



Percentage of Adults Aged 18 and Older Who Reported Fair or Poor General Health by Race, Utah, 2009-2011

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Race Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults Lower Limit Upper Limit
Record Count: 5
American Indian/Native Alaskan 19.0% 14.3% 24.8%
Asian 10.4% 7.2% 14.8%
Black 15.1% 10.1% 21.9%
Pacific Islander 16.9% 10.8% 25.5%
White 11.8% 11.4% 12.3%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to the 200 U.S. standard population. The 2009-2011 BRFSS data in this graph include both landline and cell phone respondent interviews along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. This methodology utilizes additional demographic information (such as education, race, and marital status) in the weighting procedure. Both of these methodology changes were implemented to account for an increased number of U.S. households without landline phones and an under-representation of certain demographic groups that were not well-represented in the sample. This graph is based on the new methodology. More details about these changes can be found at: http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/brfss/Raking/Raking%20impact%202011.pdf.

Data Sources

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health.



Fair or Poor General Health by Local Health District, Utah, 2011

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Local Health District Age-adjusted Percentage of Persons Lower Limit Upper Limit
Record Count: 14
Bear River 13.1% 10.1% 16.8%
Central 17.7% 13.3% 23.1%
Davis County 11.0% 9.2% 13.1%
Salt Lake County 14.3% 13.0% 15.7%
Southeastern 16.4% 12.7% 20.8%
Southwest 12.1% 9.9% 14.8%
Summit 8.7% 6.0% 12.6%
Tooele 12.8% 10.2% 16.1%
TriCounty 19.6% 15.7% 24.2%
Utah County 14.2% 12.2% 16.4%
Wasatch 12.2% 8.2% 17.9%
Weber-Morgan 15.9% 13.2% 18.9%
State 14.3% 13.5% 15.1%
U.S. 17.5% 17.2% 17.7%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to the U.S. 2000 standard population. The 2011 BRFSS data in this graph include both landline and cell phone respondent interviews along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. This methodology utilizes additional demographic information (such as education, race, and marital status) in the weighting procedure. Both of these methodology changes were implemented to account for an increased number of U.S. households without landline phones and an under-representation of certain demographic groups that were not well-represented in the sample. This graph is based on the new methodology. More details about these changes can be found at: http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/brfss/Raking/Raking%20impact%202011.pdf.

Data Sources

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health.



Percentage of Adults Aged 18 and Older Who Reported Fair or Poor General Health by Utah Small Area, 2009-2011

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Utah Small Areas Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults Lower Limit Upper Limit
Record Count: 63
Brigham City 14.7% 10.9% 19.7%
Other Box Elder Co. 10.4% 7.5% 14.4%
Logan 13.6% 10.8% 16.8%
Other Cache/Rich Co. 14.4% 11.1% 18.6%
Ben Lomond 18.7% 15.2% 22.7%
Morgan/East Weber Co. 10.5% 7.3% 14.9%
Downtown Ogden 19.2% 15.0% 24.2%
South Ogden 13.1% 9.2% 18.3%
Roy/Hooper 19.0% 15.2% 23.4%
Riverdale 10.0% 6.7% 14.9%
Clearfield/Hill AFB 13.6% 10.5% 17.3%
Layton 11.0% 8.7% 13.8%
Syracuse/Kaysville 10.4% 8.0% 13.4%
Farmington/Centerville 8.4% 5.9% 11.8%
Woods Cross/North SL 9.1% 6.2% 13.1%
Bountiful 12.3% 8.3% 17.8%
Rose Park 23.9% 18.1% 30.8%
Avenues 10.5% 7.0% 15.5%
Foothill/U of U 5.7% 3.4% 9.5%
Magna 17.2% 12.8% 22.8%
Glendale 33.7% 27.5% 40.6%
West Valley West 18.9% 15.7% 22.7%
West Valley East 22.7% 18.4% 27.6%
Downtown Salt Lake 13.2% 10.6% 16.4%
South Salt Lake 25.2% 19.1% 32.6%
Millcreek 10.4% 8.4% 12.8%
Holladay 10.0% 7.4% 13.4%
Cottonwood 10.1% 7.6% 13.3%
Kearns 17.3% 13.9% 21.3%
Taylorsville 17.5% 13.2% 22.7%
Murray 19.0% 14.8% 24.1%
Midvale 22.5% 16.9% 29.2%
W. Jordan Northeast 16.8% 12.9% 21.5%
W. Jordan Southeast 12.4% 8.8% 17.2%
W. Jordan West, Copperton 9.3% 6.4% 13.5%
South Jordan 9.5% 7.0% 12.8%
Sandy Center 15.2% 12.2% 18.9%
Sandy, Northeast 8.9% 5.9% 13.2%
Sandy, Southeast 8.0% 5.3% 12.0%
Riverton/Draper 10.6% 8.2% 13.4%
Tooele Co. 15.1% 12.9% 17.6%
Lehi/Cedar Valley 11.1% 8.2% 14.8%
American Fork/Alpine 9.1% 6.3% 13.0%
Pleasant Grove/Lindon 10.4% 7.7% 14.0%
North Orem 11.9% 8.3% 16.8%
West Orem 7.6% 4.5% 12.6%
East Orem 11.3% 7.1% 17.6%
Provo/BYU 8.3% 5.4% 12.5%
Provo South 20.4% 15.6% 26.1%
Springville/Spanish Fork 10.2% 8.0% 12.9%
Utah Co. South 14.0% 10.8% 17.9%
Summit Co. 9.9% 7.7% 12.5%
Wasatch Co. 11.1% 8.7% 14.0%
TriCounty LHD 17.7% 15.3% 20.5%
Juab/Millard/Sanpete Co. 14.5% 11.7% 17.7%
Sevier/Piute/Wayne Co. 16.6% 13.2% 20.7%
Carbon/Emery Co. 18.3% 15.6% 21.3%
Grand/San Juan Co. 20.4% 15.7% 26.0%
St. George 10.8% 8.3% 13.8%
Other Washington Co. 13.0% 10.2% 16.5%
Cedar City 12.9% 9.7% 17.0%
Other Southwest 17.3% 12.7% 23.2%
State 13.8% 13.3% 14.3%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population. A description of the Utah Small Areas may be found on IBIS at the following URL: http://ibis.health.utah.gov/query/Help.html. The 2009-2011 BRFSS data in this graph include both landline and cell phone respondent interviews along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. This methodology utilizes additional demographic information (such as education, race, and marital status) in the weighting procedure. Both of these methodology changes were implemented to account for an increased number of U.S. households without landline phones and an under-representation of certain demographic groups that were not well-represented in the sample. This graph is based on the new methodology. More details about these changes can be found at: http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/brfss/Raking/Raking%20impact%202011.pdf.

Data Sources

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health.



Percentage of Adults Aged 18 and Older Who Reported Fair or Poor General Health, Utah and U.S., 1993-2011

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Geog: BRFSS Utah vs. U.S. Year Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults Lower Limit Upper Limit
Record Count: 40
UT Old Methodology 1993 12.6% 10.9% 14.4%
UT Old Methodology 1994 12.2% 10.5% 13.9%
UT Old Methodology 1995 13.2% 11.6% 14.9%
UT Old Methodology 1996 12.2% 10.7% 13.7%
UT Old Methodology 1997 11.9% 10.3% 13.5%
UT Old Methodology 1998 11.6% 10.1% 13.0%
UT Old Methodology 1999 11.0% 9.6% 12.4%
UT Old Methodology 2000 12.3% 10.7% 13.8%
UT Old Methodology 2001 10.8% 9.5% 12.0%
UT Old Methodology 2002 11.9% 10.7% 13.2%
UT Old Methodology 2003 12.3% 10.9% 13.6%
UT Old Methodology 2004 13.7% 12.6% 14.8%
UT Old Methodology 2005 14.5% 13.3% 15.7%
UT Old Methodology 2006 14.2% 13.0% 15.4%
UT Old Methodology 2007 11.9% 10.9% 13.0%
UT Old Methodology 2008 11.7% 10.7% 12.7%
UT Old Methodology 2009 11.6% 10.9% 12.4%
UT Old Methodology 2010 12.5% 11.7% 13.4%
US Old Methodology 1993 13.9% 13.6% 14.2%
US Old Methodology 1994 14.2% 13.9% 14.6%
US Old Methodology 1995 14.2% 13.9% 14.6%
US Old Methodology 1996 14.4% 14.1% 14.7%
US Old Methodology 1997 14.3% 14.0% 14.6%
US Old Methodology 1998 14.7% 14.4% 15.0%
US Old Methodology 1999 14.6% 14.3% 14.9%
US Old Methodology 2000 15.3% 15.0% 15.6%
US Old Methodology 2001 15.5% 15.2% 15.7%
US Old Methodology 2002 15.9% 15.6% 16.1%
US Old Methodology 2003 15.9% 15.6% 16.1%
US Old Methodology 2004 16.2% 15.9% 16.5%
US Old Methodology 2005 16.3% 16.1% 16.6%
US Old Methodology 2006 16.0% 15.8% 16.3%
US Old Methodology 2007 16.2% 16.0% 16.5%
US Old Methodology 2008 15.9% 15.6% 16.1%
US Old Methodology 2009 15.5% 15.3% 15.8%
US Old Methodology 2010 15.5% 15.3% 15.7%
UT New Methodology 2009 13.1% 12.3% 14.0%
UT New Methodology 2010 14.0% 13.2% 14.8%
UT New Methodology 2011 14.3% 13.5% 15.1%
US New Methodology 2011 17.5% 17.2% 17.7%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 population. U.S. data are the average of all states and the District of Columbia; they do not include U.S. territories.

Data Sources

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health. U.S. Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Division of Behavioral Surveillance, CDC Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.


References and Community Resources

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) http://www.cdc.gov/

Utah Diabetes Prevention and Control Program http://health.utah.gov/diabetes/
or contact:
Richard Bullough, PhD
Utah Diabetes Prevention and Control Program
Phone: (801) 538-9291
e-mail: rbullough@utah.gov

Utah Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program
PO Box 142107
Salt Lake City UT 84114-2107
(801) 538-6141
Heart Highway http://www.hearthighway.org/

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/

Healthy People 2010 http://www.healthypeople.gov

'Improving Health in the Community: A Role for Performance Monitoring' Report by a committee of the Institute of Medicine, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Jane S. Durch, Linda A. Bailey, and Michael A. Stoto, editors. National Academy Press, 1997. 478 pp.

More Resources and Links

Evidence-based community health improvement ideas and interventions may be found at the following sites:

Additional indicator data by state and county may be found on these Websites:

Medical literature can be queried at the PubMed website.

For an on-line medical dictionary, click on this Dictionary link.

Page Content Updated On 04/13/2013, Published on 04/16/2013
The information provided above is from the Utah Department of Health's Center for Health Data IBIS-PH web site (http://ibis.health.utah.gov). The information published on this website may be reproduced without permission. Please use the following citation: "Retrieved Sun, 20 April 2014 15:41:56 from Utah Department of Health, Center for Health Data, Indicator-Based Information System for Public Health Web site: http://ibis.health.utah.gov".

Content updated: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:09:19 MST