Visit coronavirus.gov for the latest Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) updates.

You are here

Disparities Data Details IVP-1.1 by Sex for 2017

Disparities Details by Sex for 2017
IVP-1.1 : Injury deaths (age-adjusted, per 100,000 population)
This chart compares rates by population.

2020 Baseline (year): 59.7 (2007)
2020 Target: 53.7 1
Desired Direction: ↓ Decrease Desired
Data Source: National Vital Statistics System-Mortality (NVSS-M), CDC/NCHS; Bridged-race Population Estimates, CDC/NCHS and Census
Error Bar (I) represents the 95% confidence interval.
Additional footnotes may apply to these data. Please refer to footnotes below the data table for further information.
See also Disparities Overview by Sex for IVP-1.1

IVP-1.1 Reduce fatal injuries

Injury deaths (age-adjusted, per 100,000 population)

2020 Baseline (year): 59.7 (2007)
2020 Target: 53.7 1
Desired Direction: ↓ Decrease Desired
Spotlight on Disparities:
Sex 2017 Disparity
Female 41.8
CI 41.5/42.1
SE 0.156
÷ 1.000
Best rate
Male 102.8
CI 102.3/103.3
SE 0.256
÷ 2.459
CI
1.000/ 2.477

Data are subject to revision and may have changed since a previous release.

Unless noted otherwise, any age-adjusted data are adjusted using the year 2000 standard population.

Data are not available or not collected for populations not shown.

CI: 95% confidence interval.

Summary measures of health disparities by Sex — 2017
  • The better group rate for this objective, 41.8 deaths per 100,000 population (age adjusted), was attained by the female population.
  • The worse group rate for this objective, 102.8 deaths per 100,000 population (age adjusted), was attained by the male population.
  • The absolute difference (or range) between the best and worst group rates was 61.0 deaths per 100,000 population.
  • The worst group rate was 2.459 times the best group rate.
Detailed measures of health disparities by Sex — 2017

The female population achieved the better group rate for this objective, 41.8 deaths per 100,000 population (age adjusted).

The rate for male the population was 2.459 times the better group rate.

FootnotesShow Footnotes