Complete Health Indicator Report of Diabetes Prevalence
Definition
Percentage of Utah adults (18+) diagnosed with diabetes.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.Data Interpretation Issues
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is the primary source for estimating diabetes prevalence for Utah. The BRFSS is a telephone survey (with interviews using both landline and cell phones) that includes only adults 18 and over.Why Is This Important?
More than 180,000 Utahns have been diagnosed with diabetes. Diabetes is a disease that can have devastating consequences. It is the leading cause of non-traumatic lower-extremity amputation and renal failure. It is also the leading cause of blindness among adults younger than 75. It is one of the leading causes of heart disease. Diabetes places an enormous burden on health care resources. Nationally, approximately $245 billion is spent annually: $176 billion in direct medical costs and $69 billion in indirect medical costs (disability, work loss, and premature death (see [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23468086 Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012]). In Utah, more than a billion dollars each year is spent on direct and indirect medical costs of diabetes. Currently, about 80 million Americans aged 20 and older have prediabetes, a condition that puts them at high risk for developing diabetes. For many individuals, taking small steps, such as losing 5-7 percent of their weight or increasing physical activity, can help them delay or prevent developing diabetes.Healthy People Objective D-1:
Reduce the annual number of new cases of diagnosed diabetes in the populationU.S. Target: 7.2 new cases per 1,000 population aged 18 to 84 years
State Target: 7.2 new cases per 1,000 population aged 18 to 84 years
Other Objectives
Healthy People 2030 (HP 2030) emphasizes reducing the incidence of diabetes. HP 2030 Objective D-01 is "Reduce the number of diabetes cases diagnosed yearly."How Are We Doing?
The rising prevalence of diabetes in Utah appears to be slowing. However, many Utah adults are overweight or obese, and/or lead sedentary lifestyles, adding to the number of people at risk for developing diabetes. A large number of individuals have prediabetes. Prediabetes is a condition in which blood sugar rates are elevated but not yet high enough to reach the clinical threshold of a diabetes diagnosis. An estimated 86 million Americans age 20 and older have prediabetes. Unless those individuals take steps to reduce their risk of diabetes, such as increasing physical activity, eating a more nutritious diet, or losing weight, the majority will have diabetes within 10 years.How Do We Compare With the U.S.?
According to the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Utah adults have an age-adjusted rate of 8.5% of diagnosed with diabetes, compared to the U.S. age-adjusted rate of 10.0%. (Note: An age-adjusted rate is an artificial rate that "adjusts" for differences in age distributions between populations).What Is Being Done?
The Healthy Living through Environment, Policy, and Improved Clinical Care (EPICC) Program encourages people with diabetes to enroll in a diabetes self-management education class. These classes have been shown to help individuals develop the skills they need to manage their diabetes and are usually taught by dietitians, nurses, or pharmacists, who may also hold the status of Certified Diabetes Educator (CDE). CDEs have considerable expertise in diabetes management and understand what the individual with diabetes is going through. The Utah Arthritis Program supports Chronic Disease Self-Management Programs and Diabetes Self-Management Programs throughout the state, this program is also called the Living Well with Chronic Conditions Program. This six-week program is available throughout the state at no cost and taught by community members. Information is available from Nichole Shepard, 801-538-6259, nshepard@utah.gov. More information is available on the [http://livingwell.utah.gov/ Living Well Utah website].Evidence-based Practices
Diabetes Self-Management Classes have been shown to improve blood sugar control among participants. In Utah, programs are available that are recognized by the American Diabetes Association or certified by the American Association of Diabetes Educators. Information on classes in Utah is available on the [http://livingwell.utah.gov/ Living Well Utah website].Available Services
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) is an excellent resource for all types of information on diabetes. Call 1-800-DIABETES or visit the [http://www.diabetes.org website]. [https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/communication-programs/ndep The National Diabetes Education Program] has resources for diabetes management for professionals, businesses, and patients. Most materials are available upon request at no charge. [https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/index.html The National Diabetes Prevention Program] has resources for diabetes prevention for employers, insurers, health care professionals, program providers, and individuals. [https://health.utah.gov/ The Utah Department of Health] has a Health Resource hotline: 1-888-222-2542. Please call this number for information about self-management programs in Utah. The Healthy Living through Environment, Policy and Improved Clinical Care (EPICC) website provides information of [http://www.choosehealth.utah.gov/your-health/lifestyle-change/dsme.php diabetes self-management classes]. [http://www.diabeteseducator.org Association of Diabetes Educators][[br]] 800-338-3633[[br]] Local Chapter Facebook Page: [https://www.facebook.com/aadeutah/] [http://www.heart.org American Heart Association][[br]] 1937 S. 300 W. #120[[br]] Salt Lake City, UT 84115[[br]] (801) 484-3838 or[[br]] 1-800-242-8721Health Program Information
The Utah Department of Health Resource Line can provide information about enrolling in diabetes self-management classes. Call 1-888-222-2542 for more information.Related Indicators
Relevant Population Characteristics
Anyone can develop diabetes, but the risk for developing type 2 diabetes is greater for those who are older, overweight or obese, physically inactive, and/or a member of a minority racial or ethnic group. As the Utah population ages, and as the proportion of high-risk minority ethnic and racial groups in the population increases, a greater percentage of Utahns will be at risk for developing diabetes. There is considerable variation in prevalence by race and ethnicity. According to a CDC report on diabetes in the U.S., 7.4 percent of non-Hispanic White persons aged 18 or older have diabetes (age-adjusted prevalence). Members of the American Indian/Alaskan Native population are more than twice as likely to have diabetes as non-Hispanic White persons. About 15 percent (15.1%) of people in this group have been diagnosed. High prevalence is also seen in the non-Hispanic Black population, where the percentage diagnosed is 12.7 percent among adults aged 18 and over. Twelve percent (12.1%) of Hispanics aged 18 and older have diagnosed diabetes. Among non-Hispanic Asians aged 18 and older the age-adjusted rate of diagnosed diabetes is 8.0. (See ''[https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017]'').Related Relevant Population Characteristics Indicators:
- Daily Fruit Consumption
- Daily Vegetable Consumption
- Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions: Diabetes Hospitalization Among Adults
- Utah Population Characteristics: Age Distribution of the Population
- Blood Cholesterol: Doctor-diagnosed High Cholesterol
- Blood Cholesterol Screening
- Cost as a Barrier to Health Care
- Deaths due to Diabetes as Underlying Cause
- Diabetes: Gestational Diabetes
- Diabetes Hemoglobin A1C Tests
- Diabetes Prevalence
- Utah Population Characteristics: Education Level in the Population
- Fair/Poor Health
- HEDIS (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) Measures: Diabetes Care - Hemoglobin A1c (A1C)
- Utah Population Characteristics: Household Income
- Utah Population Characteristics: Household Structure
- Utah Health Improvement Index (HII)
- Health Insurance Coverage
- Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) Deaths
- Blood Pressure: Doctor-diagnosed Hypertension
- Immunization - Influenza, Adults
- Immunizations - Pneumonia, Adults
- Obesity Among Adults
- Obesity in Pregnancy
- Overweight or Obese
- Physical Activity: Recommended Aerobic Activity Among Adults
- Physical Activity: Recommended Muscle-strengthening Among Adults
- Utah Population Characteristics: Poverty, All Persons
- Prediabetes
- Personal Doctor or Health Care Provider
- Utah Population Characteristics: Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Population
- Stroke (Cerebrovascular Disease) Deaths
Health Care System Factors
Screening for diabetes is generally recommended for people aged 45 and over, although those with a high risk of developing diabetes (e.g., overweight, member of minority racial or ethnic group) may wish to consider screening by age 30, or even earlier. Testing for diabetes is generally covered by insurance. For those without insurance, the American Diabetes Association may be contacted about the availability of low-cost or free screening (801-363-3024). In 2012, the estimated total cost for diabetes in the U.S. was $245 billion. Even undiagnosed diabetes can burden the health care system. Undiagnosed diabetes costs the nation about $18 billion a year. Prediabetes is estimated to cost $25 billion (See [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23468086 Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012]).Related Health Care System Factors Indicators:
Risk Factors
Being overweight or obese is a major risk factor for developing diabetes. The risk of developing diabetes can be substantially reduced through weight loss and regular physical activity. The Diabetes Primary Prevention Study (DPP) showed that weight loss and participation in regular physical activity can significantly decrease the risk. The DPP clinical trial included over 3,000 people who had impaired fasting glucose and were at an increased risk for developing diabetes. Participants who engaged in moderately intense physical activity for 30 minutes per day and lost 5 to 7 percent of their body weight decreased their risk of diabetes dramatically. This behavioral activity was effective for all participants in the study, regardless of age or ethnic group (see [http://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/research-areas/diabetes/diabetes-prevention-program-dpp/Pages/default.aspx]). Some risk factors cannot be modified, such as older age or membership in a minority racial or ethnic group. Nevertheless, risk can be substantially reduced through adhering to a nutritious diet and participating in regular physical activity.Related Risk Factors Indicators:
Health Status Outcomes
Diabetes can have serious consequences. It is the leading cause of non-traumatic lower extremity amputations, and is also the leading cause of blindness among working-age adults. It is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and end-stage renal disease.Related Health Status Outcomes Indicators:
Graphical Data Views
Adults With Diabetes, Age-adjusted Rates by Year, Utah and U.S., 2000-2019
The 2019 age-adjusted rate of diabetes for Utah was lower (8.5%) than the rate for the U.S. (10.0%).
| BRFSS Utah vs. U.S. | Year | Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 42 | ||||||
| UT Old Methodology | 2000 | 5.8% | 4.6% | 7.0% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2001 | 4.6% | 3.7% | 5.5% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2002 | 5.2% | 4.3% | 6.1% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2003 | 6.5% | 5.5% | 7.5% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2004 | 5.9% | 5.2% | 6.7% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2005 | 6.5% | 5.7% | 7.3% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2006 | 6.9% | 6.1% | 7.8% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2007 | 6.7% | 6.0% | 7.5% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2008 | 7.0% | 6.3% | 7.7% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2009 | 6.9% | 6.4% | 7.4% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2010 | 7.2% | 6.7% | 7.8% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2000 | 6.3% | 6.1% | 6.5% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2001 | 6.5% | 6.3% | 6.7% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2002 | 7.0% | 6.8% | 7.2% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2003 | 7.3% | 7.1% | 7.5% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2004 | 7.1% | 6.9% | 7.2% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2005 | 7.5% | 7.4% | 7.7% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2006 | 7.8% | 7.6% | 7.9% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2007 | 8.2% | 8.0% | 8.3% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2008 | 8.3% | 8.2% | 8.5% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2009 | 8.4% | 8.4% | 8.7% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2010 | 8.5% | 8.3% | 8.6% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2011 | 7.5% | 7.0% | 8.0% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2012 | 8.0% | 7.5% | 8.6% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2013 | 7.8% | 7.3% | 8.4% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2014 | 7.8% | 7.3% | 8.3% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2015 | 7.7% | 7.1% | 8.2% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2016 | 7.8% | 7.2% | 8.4% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2017 | 7.5% | 6.9% | 8.1% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2018 | 8.8% | 8.2% | 9.5% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2019 | 8.5% | 7.9% | 9.1% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2011 | 9.2% | 9.1% | 9.4% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2012 | 9.5% | 9.4% | 9.7% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2013 | 9.5% | 9.4% | 9.7% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2014 | 9.7% | 9.6% | 9.9% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2015 | 9.6% | 9.5% | 9.8% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2016 | 9.9% | 9.7% | 10.0% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2017 | 9.9% | 9.7% | 10.1% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2018 | 10.4% | 10.2% | 10.6% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2019 | 10.0% | 9.8% | 10.2% | ||
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. [[br]][[br]] Rates are age-adjusted using 5 age groups. 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: [https://ibis.health.utah.gov/pdf/opha/resource/brfss/RakingImpact2011.pdf].Data Sources
- Population Estimates: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau, IBIS Version 2019
- 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
Adults With Diabetes, Utah and U.S. Crude Rates by Year, 2000-2019
Rates for diabetes prevalence among Utah adults have been fairly stable for years 2009-2017.
| BRFSS Utah vs. U.S. | Year | Crude Percentage of Adults | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 40 | ||||||
| UT Old Methodology | 2000 | 5.4% | 4.3% | 6.5% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2001 | 4.3% | 3.4% | 5.1% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2002 | 4.4% | 3.5% | 5.2% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2003 | 5.5% | 4.6% | 6.3% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2004 | 5.1% | 4.4% | 5.8% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2005 | 5.5% | 4.9% | 6.3% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2006 | 5.7% | 5.1% | 6.5% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2007 | 5.1% | 6.6% | 6.7% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2008 | 5.4% | 6.8% | 5.8% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2009 | 6.8% | 6.2% | 7.3% | ||
| UT Old Methodology | 2010 | 6.8% | 6.3% | 7.4% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2000 | 7.9% | 7.8% | 7.9% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2001 | 6.4% | 6.2% | 6.6% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2002 | 6.7% | 6.5% | 6.9% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2003 | 7.0% | 6.8% | 7.2% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2004 | 7.5% | 7.3% | 7.6% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2005 | 7.2% | 7.0% | 7.4% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2006 | 8.0% | 7.6% | 7.9% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2007 | 8.5% | 7.8% | 8.2% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2008 | 8.7% | 8.4% | 8.7% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2009 | 9.0% | 8.6% | 8.9% | ||
| US Old Methodology | 2010 | 9.2% | 8.9% | 9.2% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2011 | 6.7% | 6.2% | 7.2% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2012 | 7.2% | 6.7% | 7.7% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2013 | 7.1% | 6.6% | 7.7% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2014 | 7.1% | 6.7% | 7.6% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2015 | 7.0% | 6.5% | 7.6% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2016 | 7.2% | 6.7% | 7.8% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2017 | 7.1% | 6.5% | 7.7% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2018 | 8.4% | 7.8% | 9.0% | ||
| UT New Methodology | 2019 | 8.0% | 7.5% | 8.6% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2011 | 9.8% | 9.6% | 9.9% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2012 | 10.1% | 9.9% | 10.3% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2013 | 10.2% | 10.1% | 10.4% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2014 | 10.5% | 10.3% | 10.7% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2015 | 10.4% | 10.3% | 10.6% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2016 | 10.8% | 10.6% | 10.9% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2017 | 10.8% | 10.6% | 11.0% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2018 | 11.4% | 11.2% | 11.6% | ||
| US New Methodology | 2019 | 11.0% | 10.9% | 11.2% | ||
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. [[br]] [[br]] This graph demonstrates the difference in prevalence using old and new methodologies. 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. The new 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. More details about these changes can be found at: [https://ibis.health.utah.gov/pdf/opha/resource/brfss/RakingImpact2011.pdf].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
Adults With Diabetes by Local Health District, Utah, 2019
Summit, Wasatch, and Utah County Local Health Districts had a lower rate than the state. San Juan Local Health District had rates that were higher than the state.
The overall rate for the state was 8.5%.
| Local Health District | Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 15 | ||||||
| Bear River | 7.3% | 5.7% | 9.3% | |||
| Central | 10.5% | 8.0% | 13.6% | |||
| Davis County | 9.0% | 7.3% | 10.9% | |||
| Salt Lake County | 8.9% | 7.8% | 10.1% | |||
| San Juan | 7.1% | 5.0% | 10.0% | |||
| Southeast | 6.9% | 5.3% | 8.8% | |||
| Southwest | 3.4% | 2.0% | 5.8% | |||
| Summit | 9.0% | 6.3% | 12.8% | |||
| Tooele | 10.4% | 7.9% | 13.6% | |||
| TriCounty | 7.1% | 6.0% | 8.3% | |||
| Utah County | 4.9% | 2.8% | 8.3% | |||
| Wasatch | 10.1% | 8.0% | 12.7% | |||
| Weber-Morgan | 25.4% | 15.9% | 38.2% | |||
| State of Utah | 8.5% | 7.9% | 9.1% | |||
| U.S. | 10.0% | 9.8% | 10.2% | |||
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. [[br]][[br]]Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population.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
- Population Estimates: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau, IBIS Version 2019
Adults With Diabetes by Utah Small Area, 2014-2019
Six years of data were combined to improve reliability of the estimates. However, some estimates still did not meet UDOH standards for reliability and should be interpreted with caution. Those particular estimates are indicated in the data table.
Several Utah Small Areas had rates statistically significantly higher than the state rate: Ben Lomond, Ogden (Downtown), Roy/Hooper, Clearfield Area/Hooper, Salt Lake City (Glendale) V2, West Valley (Center), West Valley (East) V2, South Salt Lake, Kearns V2, Taylorsville (West), West Jordan (Southeast), Tooele Valley, Daggett and Uintah County, and San Juan (Other).
Utah Small Areas with statistically significantly lower rates than the state rate were: North Logan, Weber County (East), Morgan County, Farmington, Salt Lake City (Foothill/East Bench), Salt Lake City (Southeast Liberty), Millcreek (East), Sandy (Northeast), Sandy (Southeast), Draper, Lehi, American Fork, Park City, Summit County (East), Wasatch County, Ivins/Santa Clara.
These rates are based on BRFSS data collected through both landline and cell phones and use an improved weighting methodology. For more information about the new methodology, see [https://ibis.health.utah.gov/pdf/opha/resource/brfss/RakingImpact2011.pdf].
| Utah Small Areas | Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Note | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 101 | ||||||
| Brigham City | 8.7% | 6.7% | 11.4% | |||
| Box Elder Co (Other) V2 | 9.5% | 6.5% | 13.8% | |||
| Tremonton | 8.6% | 6.2% | 11.8% | |||
| Logan V2 | 7.5% | 6.0% | 9.4% | |||
| North Logan | 5.0% | 3.4% | 7.2% | |||
| Cache (Other)/Rich (All) V2 | 7.3% | 5.2% | 10.1% | |||
| Hyrum | 7.6% | 3.5% | 15.9% | Estimate may be unreliable. | ||
| Smithfield | 5.6% | 3.2% | 9.6% | |||
| Ben Lomond | 10.0% | 8.3% | 12.0% | |||
| Weber County (East) | 4.7% | 3.6% | 6.2% | |||
| Morgan County | 4.6% | 2.6% | 7.8% | |||
| Ogden (Downtown) | 11.3% | 8.9% | 14.2% | |||
| South Ogden | 8.3% | 6.4% | 10.8% | |||
| Roy/Hooper | 10.9% | 9.0% | 13.3% | |||
| Riverdale | 9.5% | 7.2% | 12.4% | |||
| Clearfield Area/Hooper | 10.2% | 8.4% | 12.3% | |||
| Layton/South Weber | 9.2% | 7.7% | 10.9% | |||
| Kaysville/Fruit Heights | 7.6% | 6.0% | 9.8% | |||
| Syracuse | 7.0% | 5.0% | 9.7% | |||
| Centerville | 5.4% | 3.3% | 8.7% | |||
| Farmington | 5.3% | 3.6% | 7.7% | |||
| North Salt Lake | 6.8% | 4.3% | 10.6% | |||
| Woods Cross/West Bountiful | 10.0% | 6.8% | 14.5% | |||
| Bountiful | 7.4% | 5.8% | 9.4% | |||
| SLC (Rose Park) | 8.8% | 6.2% | 12.2% | |||
| SLC (Avenues) | 6.1% | 4.1% | 9.1% | |||
| SLC (Foothill/East Bench) | 3.3% | 2.1% | 5.2% | |||
| Magna | 9.5% | 7.2% | 12.5% | |||
| SLC (Glendale) V2 | 16.0% | 11.9% | 21.1% | |||
| West Valley (Center) | 13.4% | 10.9% | 16.4% | |||
| West Valley (West) V2 | 10.7% | 7.8% | 14.6% | |||
| West Valley (East) V2 | 11.2% | 8.8% | 14.1% | |||
| SLC (Downtown) V2 | 8.2% | 5.7% | 11.6% | |||
| SLC (Southeast Liberty) | 3.8% | 2.1% | 6.8% | |||
| South Salt Lake | 12.0% | 8.8% | 16.1% | |||
| SLC (Sugar House) | 7.5% | 5.6% | 10.0% | |||
| Millcreek (South) | 7.0% | 4.9% | 9.8% | |||
| Millcreek (East) | 3.5% | 2.2% | 5.5% | |||
| Holladay V2 | 6.7% | 4.7% | 9.3% | |||
| Cottonwood | 7.4% | 5.7% | 9.5% | |||
| Kearns V2 | 11.2% | 8.6% | 14.4% | |||
| Taylorsville (E)/Murray (W) | 9.7% | 7.5% | 12.4% | |||
| Taylorsville (West) | 10.1% | 8.1% | 12.5% | |||
| Murray | 7.8% | 5.6% | 10.9% | |||
| Midvale | 9.8% | 7.3% | 13.1% | |||
| West Jordan (Northeast) V2 | 7.8% | 5.7% | 10.6% | |||
| West Jordan (Southeast) | 10.2% | 8.1% | 12.8% | |||
| West Jordan (W)/Copperton | 8.0% | 5.8% | 11.0% | |||
| South Jordan V2 | 7.4% | 6.0% | 9.2% | |||
| Daybreak | 7.4% | 4.8% | 11.3% | |||
| Sandy (West) | 7.5% | 5.5% | 10.1% | |||
| Sandy (Center) V2 | 10.5% | 7.8% | 14.0% | |||
| Sandy (Northeast) | 4.3% | 3.0% | 6.0% | |||
| Sandy (Southeast) | 3.9% | 2.7% | 5.8% | |||
| Draper | 4.0% | 2.7% | 6.0% | |||
| Riverton/Bluffdale | 6.6% | 5.0% | 8.7% | |||
| Herriman | 6.4% | 4.4% | 9.1% | |||
| Tooele County (Other) | 10.5% | 7.6% | 14.4% | |||
| Tooele Valley | 10.1% | 8.6% | 11.7% | |||
| Eagle Mountain/Cedar Valley | 9.2% | 5.9% | 14.0% | |||
| Lehi | 5.8% | 4.3% | 7.9% | |||
| Saratoga Springs | 5.9% | 3.5% | 9.9% | Estimate may be unreliable. | ||
| American Fork | 6.0% | 4.5% | 7.8% | |||
| Alpine | 3.0% | 1.6% | 5.7% | Estimate may be unreliable. | ||
| Pleasant Grove/Lindon | 7.2% | 5.7% | 9.0% | |||
| Orem (North) | 8.3% | 6.4% | 10.7% | |||
| Orem (West) | 7.9% | 6.0% | 10.3% | |||
| Orem (East) | 6.5% | 4.5% | 9.1% | |||
| Provo/BYU | 6.9% | 5.3% | 9.0% | |||
| Provo (West City Center) | 8.7% | 6.2% | 12.0% | |||
| Provo (East City Center) | 9.4% | 5.6% | 15.4% | |||
| Salem City | 5.3% | 3.2% | 8.7% | |||
| Spanish Fork | 7.8% | 5.8% | 10.4% | |||
| Springville | 7.3% | 5.4% | 9.9% | |||
| Mapleton | 5.2% | 3.1% | 8.7% | |||
| Utah County (South) V2 | 8.1% | 5.1% | 12.6% | |||
| Payson | 8.2% | 6.2% | 10.9% | |||
| Park City | 2.3% | 1.4% | 3.9% | |||
| Summit County (East) | 5.8% | 4.2% | 7.9% | |||
| Wasatch County | 5.2% | 4.1% | 6.6% | |||
| Daggett and Uintah County | 11.9% | 10.3% | 13.8% | |||
| Duchesne County | 8.2% | 6.6% | 10.1% | |||
| Nephi/Mona | 7.4% | 5.0% | 10.8% | |||
| Delta/Fillmore | 8.0% | 5.8% | 10.9% | |||
| Sanpete Valley | 8.6% | 6.6% | 11.1% | |||
| Central (Other) | 9.0% | 7.2% | 11.1% | |||
| Richfield/Monroe/Salina | 7.8% | 5.7% | 10.6% | |||
| Carbon County | 9.6% | 7.9% | 11.6% | |||
| Emery County | 9.1% | 7.1% | 11.5% | |||
| Grand County | 7.1% | 4.9% | 10.1% | |||
| Blanding/Monticello | 8.6% | 5.7% | 12.8% | |||
| San Juan County (Other) | 21.8% | 15.9% | 29.0% | |||
| St. George | 6.8% | 5.6% | 8.2% | |||
| Washington Co (Other) V2 | 6.7% | 4.2% | 10.6% | |||
| Washington City | 6.5% | 4.2% | 9.8% | |||
| Hurricane/La Verkin | 9.2% | 6.9% | 12.2% | |||
| Ivins/Santa Clara | 5.1% | 3.3% | 7.9% | |||
| Cedar City | 7.9% | 6.1% | 10.2% | |||
| Southwest LHD (Other) | 7.7% | 6.0% | 10.0% | |||
| State of Utah | 8.0% | 7.8% | 8.2% | |||
| U.S. | 10.0% | 9.8% | 10.2% | |||
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. [[br]][[br]]Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population.[[br]] [[br]] A description of the Utah Small Areas may be found on the Methodology and Guidelines page: [https://ibis.health.utah.gov/resource/Guidelines.html].Data Sources
- Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health
- Population Estimates: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau, IBIS Version 2019
- Population estimates produced by the UDOH Center for Health Data and Informatics. Linear interpolation of U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI ZIP Code data provided annual population estimates for ZIP Code areas by sex and age groups, IBIS Version 2019
Adults With Diabetes, Crude Rates by Age and Sex, Utah, 2019
For both males and females, the highest rates of diabetes were observed for adults aged 65 and over.
| Males vs. Females | Age Group | Crude Percentage of Adults | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 12 | ||||||
| Male | 18-34 | 1.0% | 0.6% | 1.7% | ||
| Male | 35-49 | 6.3% | 4.8% | 8.3% | ||
| Male | 50-64 | 14.8% | 12.5% | 17.5% | ||
| Male | 65+ | 21.6% | 19.2% | 24.3% | ||
| Female | 18-34 | 2.7% | 1.8% | 4.1% | ||
| Female | 35-49 | 4.9% | 3.7% | 6.6% | ||
| Female | 50-64 | 11.3% | 9.5% | 13.5% | ||
| Female | 65+ | 18.0% | 15.9% | 20.3% | ||
| Total | 18-34 | 1.9% | 1.3% | 2.6% | ||
| Total | 35-49 | 5.6% | 4.6% | 6.9% | ||
| Total | 50-64 | 13.1% | 11.6% | 14.7% | ||
| Total | 65+ | 19.7% | 18.1% | 21.4% | ||
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.Data Sources
- Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health
- Population Estimates: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau, IBIS Version 2019
Adults With Diabetes by Education, Utah, 2019
The overall percentage for adults with diabetes for all education levels was 8.5%. Adults with a college graduate degree had the lowest rate of diabetes, 6.1%.
| Education Level | Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 5 | ||||||
| Less Than High School | 9.5% | 7.0% | 12.8% | |||
| H.S. Grad or G.E.D. | 9.4% | 8.2% | 10.8% | |||
| Some Post High School | 9.4% | 8.4% | 10.5% | |||
| College Graduate | 6.1% | 5.5% | 6.9% | |||
| Total | 8.5% | 7.9% | 9.1% | |||
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. [[br]][[br]]Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population.Data Sources
- Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health
- Population Estimates: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau, IBIS Version 2019
Adults With Diabetes by Income, Utah, 2019
The age-adjusted diabetes rate for adults with incomes of less than $25,000 (13.2%) was higher than the state rate of 8.5%.
| Income Category | Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 5 | ||||||
| <$25,000 | 13.2% | 11.2% | 15.5% | |||
| $25,000-$49,999 | 11.2% | 9.4% | 13.2% | |||
| $50,000-$74,999 | 8.8% | 7.4% | 10.4% | |||
| $75,000+ | 6.2% | 5.4% | 7.1% | |||
| Total | 8.5% | 7.9% | 9.1% | |||
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. [[br]][[br]]Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population.Data Sources
- Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health
- Population Estimates: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau, IBIS Version 2019
Adults With Diabetes by Ethnicity, Utah, 2019
In 2019, there were no statistically significant differences between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics after adjusting for age.
| Hispanic Ethnicity | Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 3 | ||||||
| Hispanic | 9.9% | 7.6% | 12.7% | |||
| Non-Hispanic | 8.3% | 7.7% | 8.9% | |||
| All Utahns | 8.5% | 7.9% | 9.1% | |||
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. [[br]][[br]]Rates are age-adjusted and standardized to the U.S. 2000 population.Data Sources
- Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health
- Population Estimates: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau, IBIS Version 2019
Adults With Diabetes by Race, Utah, 2017-2019
Three years of data (2017-2019) were combined to obtain reliable estimates. Prevalence of diabetes is especially high for members of the Pacific Islander and American Indian populations. It is important to note that these rates are age-adjusted, meaning that rates are artificially compared as though the age distribution for all populations were the same.
| Race | Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 6 | ||||||
| American Indian/Native Alaskan | 13.2% | 10.2% | 16.8% | |||
| Asian | 8.8% | 5.6% | 13.4% | |||
| Black | 10.8% | 6.8% | 16.6% | |||
| Pacific Islander | 13.1% | 7.9% | 20.9% | |||
| White | 7.7% | 7.3% | 8.0% | |||
| All Races | 8.1% | 7.7% | 8.4% | |||
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. [[br]][[br]]Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population based on 3 age groups: 18-34, 35-49, and 50+.Data Sources
- Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health
- Population Estimates: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau, IBIS Version 2019
Adults With Diabetes by Disability, Utah, 2019
In 2019, more people living with diabetes had a independent living disability (16.8%).
| Disability Type | Age-adjusted Percentage of Adults | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 6 | ||||||
| Cognitive Disability | 11.5% | 9.6% | 13.6% | |||
| Mobility Disability | 16.4% | 13.8% | 19.4% | |||
| Self-care Disability | 13.8% | 10.4% | 18.0% | |||
| Independent Living Disability | 16.8% | 13.8% | 20.2% | |||
| Difficulty Seeing/Blind | 12.9% | 9.3% | 17.6% | |||
| Difficulty Hearing/Deaf | 14.2% | 10.4% | 19.1% | |||
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. [[br]][[br]]Rates are age-adjusted and standardized to the U.S. 2000 population.Data Sources
- Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health
- Population Estimates: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau, IBIS Version 2019
References and Community Resources
[http://www.diabetes.org American Diabetes Association] Diabetes Prevention Program[[br]] [https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes?dkrd=lgdmn0026 National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse] [http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes Division of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] [http://www.diabeteseducator.org American Association of Diabetes Educators][[br]] [https://www.facebook.com/aadeutah Local Chapter Facebook Page] Much of the information for this indicator was taken from the American Diabetes Association [http://www.diabetes.org/resources/statistics website]. Information on registering for self-management prediabetes and diabetes programs can be found at [http://livingwell.utah.gov/index.php].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:
- CDC Prevention Status Reports for all 50 states
- County Health Rankings
- Kaiser Family Foundation's StateHealthFacts.org
- CDC WONDER DATA2010, the Healthy People 2010 Database.
Medical literature can be queried at the PubMed website.
Page Content Updated On 01/19/2021,
Published on 01/19/2021
