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

Data List for Adults With Diabetes, Age-adjusted Rates by Year, Utah and U.S., 2000-2016

BRFSS Utah vs. U.S.YearAge-adjusted Percentage of AdultsLower LimitUpper Limit
Record Count: 38
UT Old Methodology20005.8%4.6%7.0%
UT Old Methodology20014.6%3.7%5.5%
UT Old Methodology20025.2%4.3%6.1%
UT Old Methodology20036.5%5.5%7.5%
UT Old Methodology20045.9%5.2%6.7%
UT Old Methodology20056.5%5.7%7.3%
UT Old Methodology20066.9%6.1%7.8%
UT Old Methodology20076.7%6.0%7.5%
UT Old Methodology20087.0%6.3%7.7%
UT Old Methodology20097.6%7.0%8.2%
UT Old Methodology20107.5%7.0%8.1%
US Old Methodology20006.3%6.1%6.5%
US Old Methodology20016.5%6.3%6.7%
US Old Methodology20027.0%6.8%7.2%
US Old Methodology20037.3%7.1%7.5%
US Old Methodology20047.1%6.9%7.2%
US Old Methodology20057.5%7.4%7.7%
US Old Methodology20067.8%7.6%7.9%
US Old Methodology20078.2%8.0%8.3%
US Old Methodology20088.3%8.2%8.5%
US Old Methodology20098.4%8.4%8.7%
US Old Methodology20108.5%8.3%8.6%
UT New Methodology20097.6%7.0%8.2%
UT New Methodology20107.6%7.0%8.1%
UT New Methodology20117.5%7.0%8.0%
UT New Methodology20128.0%7.5%8.6%
UT New Methodology20137.8%7.3%8.4%
UT New Methodology20147.8%7.3%8.3%
UT New Methodology20157.7%7.1%8.2%
UT New Methodology20167.8%7.2%8.4%
US New Methodology20119.2%9.1%9.4%
US New Methodology20129.5%9.4%9.7%
US New Methodology20139.5%9.4%9.7%
US New Methodology20149.7%9.6%9.9%
US New Methodology20159.6%9.5%9.8%
US New Methodology20169.9%9.7%10.0%

Data Notes

"Don't know" and "Refused" responses were eliminated from the denominator. In 2016, Utah BRFSS modified its methodology for age adjustment for increased precision. With this change Utah is consistent with both the U.S. and other states using IBIS. Data has been updated from 2011 onward in all chart views to reflect this change.   Rates are age-adjusted using 8 age groups. Note: At the time of this update, the BRFSS U.S. dataset did not include an age variable but did include five age categories up to age 80+ (vs. the typical weighting scheme that includes 85+). Comparisons with both weighting schemes were compared using Utah data, and the difference was about 1/100 of a percentage point. Beginning in 2011, U.S. BRFSS data include both landline and cell phone respondent data along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. Utah changed to the new methodology in 2009. Utah rates using both old and new methodology are shown for 2009 and 2010. This new methodology utilizes additional demographic information (such as education, race, and marital status) in the weighting procedure. More details about these changes can be found at: [].

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

Graph Views


Percentage of Utah adults (18+) diagnosed with diabetes.

How We Calculated the Rates

Numerator:Number of Utah adults who reported being told by a health care professional that they have diabetes (excludes women who were told they had diabetes only during pregnancy or those who reported they had "borderline" or prediabetes).
Denominator:Utah adults 18 and over.

Date Indicator Content Last Updated: 11/29/2017

The information provided above is from the Department of Health's Center for Health Data IBIS-PH web site ( The information published on this website may be reproduced without permission. Please use the following citation: " Retrieved Wed, 23 May 2018 11:02:00 from Department of Health, Center for Health Data, Indicator-Based Information System for Public Health Web site: ".

Content updated: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:48:37 MST