Using and
Interpreting Data
Substance Abuse Epidemiology Unit
Epidemiology and Response Division
New 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 = 213
Denominator = # A-R deaths in New Mexico = 5,068
Time Period = 1999-2003
Constant = 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- Example
Youth Binge Drinking
Chart 2: Binge Drinking by Sex and Grade Level, 2003 NM YRRS
50
Boys
Girls
Percent (%)
40
30
47.0
44.0
34.5 34.5
27.9 29.2
40.9
32.4
20
10
0
Ninth
Tenth
Eleventh
Twelfth
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 = 14,344
Denominator = total population of NM in 2002 = 1,853,030
Time Period = 2002
Constant = 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:
 US:

469.6/100,000
869.6/100,000
Adjusted death rate (1992-1994)
 Mexico:
 US:
596.6/100,000
519.1/100,000
Trends

Looking at the same data over time
 Data
collected the same way over periods of
time
 Numbers large enough to calculate
percentages or rates for each time period
 Same length of time in each period used as a
data point
Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Crash Fatality
Rates, New Mexico and US, 1990-2004
Deaths per 100,000 persons
25
NM
US
20
15
10
5
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: Division of Government Research, University of New Mexico
Deaths per 100,000 persons
Drug-Related Death Rates*
New Mexico and US, 1990-2004
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
NM
US
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 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
HARDING
SIERRA
DE BACA
UNION
QUAY
GUADALUPE
CATRON
EDDY
COLFAX
LUNA
GRANT
CHAVES
HIDALGO
SAN MIGUEL
ROOSEVELT
CURRY
LEA
LINCOLN
RIO ARRIBA
MORA
OTERO
TAOS
BERNALILLO
CIBOLA
VALENCIA
SOCORRO
DONA ANA
SANDOVAL
TORRANCE
SAN JUAN
MC KINLEY
SANTA FE
LOS ALAMOS
0
200
Source: CDC Wonder
400
600
800
1000
1200
Deaths per 100,000 population
1400
1600
1800
2000
New Mexico Age-Adjusted Death Rates
By County, 2002
New Mexico Age-adjusted Death Rate by County, 2002
GUADALUPE
EDDY
ROOSEVELT
CURRY
MC KINLEY
SAN MIGUEL
UNION
LEA
SIERRA
QUAY
CHAVES
HIDALGO
RIO ARRIBA
CATRON
OTERO
LUNA
SAN JUAN
COLFAX
VALENCIA
CIBOLA
GRANT
BERNALILLO
TORRANCE
HARDING
SOCORRO
DONA ANA
DE BACA
TAOS
SANDOVAL
MORA
LINCOLN
SANTA FE
LOS ALAMOS
0
Source: CDC Wonder
200
400
600
800
Age-adjusted Deaths per 100,000 population
1000
1200
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
ALCOHOL-RELATED DEATH
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.
Chart 1: Alcohol-Related Death Rates by High-Level Cause, New Mexico, 1999-2003
70
60
Rate*
50
40
Chronic Disease
Injury
Total Alcohol-Related
30
20
10
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
* Rate per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population
Table 1: Alcohol-Related Deaths and Rates by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity, New Mexico, 1999-2003
Sex
Male
Female
Total
Race/Ethnicity
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian
Other
Total
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian
Other
Total
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian
Other
Total
Ages
0-24
78
7
183
65
2
335
26
3
45
23
0
97
104
9
228
88
2
432
Deaths
Ages
Ages
25-64
65+
736
558
29
12
975
346
412
74
7
3
2,159
993
288
446
14
9
233
232
196
57
5
4
736
749
1,025
1,004
43
21
1,207
578
608
131
12
8
2,894
1,742
All
Ages
1,372
48
1,505
551
12
3,487
761
25
509
277
9
1,581
2,132
73
2,013
828
21
5,068
Ages
0-24
12.6
16.6
20.7
30.5
5.8
18.8
4.5
6.5
5.2
11.0
1.6
5.7
8.7
11.8
13.1
20.8
3.8
12.3
Rates*
Ages
Ages
25-64
65+
66.2
180.9
64.3
190.5
106.6
244.2
213.0
322.6
22.2
124.7
94.1
206.1
25.0
115.2
38.9
120.9
24.8
128.7
91.1
184.2
12.8
96.8
30.9
122.6
45.2
144.3
53.2
152.3
65.2
179.6
148.8
242.8
17.0
107.7
61.9
159.4
* 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
All
Ages*
60.4
68.9
98.1
168.1
35.0
82.5
27.4
38.7
32.0
76.9
23.4
33.0
43.1
53.5
63.6
119.1
28.3
56.7
NM SPF-SIG State Epi Profile
Provides a systematic and comprehensive overview
of ATODA-related consequences ….
I. Consequences
1
A. All-Causes Death
2
B. Alcohol-Related Death
5
1. Alcohol-Related Chronic Disease Death
(a) Alcohol-Related Chronic Liver Disease Death
8
11
2. Alcohol-Related Injury Death
(a) Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Crash Death
14
17
C. Smoking-Related Death
20
D. Drug-Related Death
23
E. Suicide
26
NM SPF-SIG State Epi Profile
… and ATODA-related consumption
II. Consumption
29
A. Alcohol
1. Binge Drinking
(a) Adult Binge Drinking (BRFSS)
(b) Youth Binge Drinking (YRRS)
30
33
2. Chronic/Heavy Drinking
(a) Adult Chronic/Heavy Drinking (BRFSS)
36
3. Drinking and Driving
(a) Adult Drinking and Driving (BRFSS)
(b) Youth Drinking and Driving (YRRS)
39
42
B. Illicit Drugs
1. Drug Use - Youth (YRRS)
44
C. Tobacco
1. Adult Cigarette Smoking (BRFSS)
2. Youth Cigarette Smoking (YRRS)
48
51
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
30
20
10
How to use this report
0
1999
Outcome indicators – Table 1
2000
2001
2002
2003
Table 1: Alcohol-Related Deaths and Rates by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity, New Mexico, 1999-2003
Sex
Male
Female
Total
Race/Ethnicity
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian
Other
Total
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian
Other
Total
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian
Other
Total
Ages
0-24
78
7
183
65
2
335
26
3
45
23
0
97
104
9
228
88
2
432
Deaths
Ages
Ages
25-64
65+
736
558
29
12
975
346
412
74
7
3
2,159
993
288
446
14
9
233
232
196
57
5
4
736
749
1,025
1,004
43
21
1,207
578
608
131
12
8
2,894
1,742
All
Ages
1,372
48
1,505
551
12
3,487
761
25
509
277
9
1,581
2,132
73
2,013
828
21
5,068
Ages
0-24
12.6
16.6
20.7
30.5
5.8
18.8
4.5
6.5
5.2
11.0
1.6
5.7
8.7
11.8
13.1
20.8
3.8
12.3
Rates*
Ages
Ages
25-64
65+
66.2
180.9
64.3
190.5
106.6
244.2
213.0
322.6
22.2
124.7
94.1
206.1
25.0
115.2
38.9
120.9
24.8
128.7
91.1
184.2
12.8
96.8
30.9
122.6
45.2
144.3
53.2
152.3
65.2
179.6
148.8
242.8
17.0
107.7
61.9
159.4
* 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
All
Ages*
60.4
68.9
98.1
168.1
35.0
82.5
27.4
38.7
32.0
76.9
23.4
33.0
43.1
53.5
63.6
119.1
28.3
56.7
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
age group categories represent a tremendous burden in terms of years of potential life lost (years of life lost before
the average life expectancy, e.g., age 77, are considered "years of potential life lost"). Persons dying in the Age 3544 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.
How to use this report
Table 2 and Chart 2 show that this burden of disease falls principally in four counties: McKinley, Cibola, San
Miguel, and Rio Arriba have high rates and significant numbers of deaths; Bernalillo has significant numbers of
deaths. The relatively low rates for American Indians in San Juan County, and for Hispanics in Sandoval and Doña
Ana Counties, suggest possible mitigating factors at work in these counties. There may be prevention lessons to be
learned from these counties, as well as from other states (e.g., New York).
Outcome indicators – Table 2
Table 2: Alcohol-Related CLD Deaths and Rates* by Race/Ethnicity and County, New Mexico, 1999-2003
Deaths
County
Bernalillo
Catron
Chaves
Cibola
Colfax
Curry
De Baca
Doña Ana
Eddy
Grant
Guadalupe
Harding
Hidalgo
Lea
Lincoln
Los Alamos
Luna
McKinley
Mora
Otero
White
NonHisp.
114
1
23
4
4
10
1
32
17
10
1
0
1
20
7
4
10
9
0
15
Black
NonHisp.
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Hispanic
221
1
21
9
9
11
0
47
19
7
4
0
1
12
3
2
10
10
6
11
American
Indian
47
0
2
35
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
16
Rates*
Other
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
All
Race/
Ethnicities
391
2
45
47
14
21
1
80
36
18
5
0
2
32
10
5
20
119
6
42
*All rates are per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population
White
NonHisp.
6.9
-11.2
----9.4
8.7
----10.4
-----7.1
Black
NonHisp.
---------------------
Hispanic
23.6
-21.5
--26.0
-11.8
24.7
----25.1
--18.1
28.4
-14.1
American
Indian
51.2
--84.5
-------------47.3
-110.9
Other
---------------------
All
Race/
Ethnicities
13.9
-14.5
38.2
17.7
10.6
-10.2
13.0
10.6
---12.0
--14.4
39.3
-13.8
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

Alcohol-Related Chronic Liver Disease Death
County (# of deaths; % of statewide deaths)
McKinley (119; 9.1%)
39.3
Cibola (47; 3.6%)
Example of county
bar chart
38.2
San Miguel (47; 3.6%)
30.7
Rio Arriba (53; 4.1%)
25.8
Colfax (14; 1.1%)
17.7
Taos (29; 2.2%)
17.0
Sierra (15; 1.1%)
15.4
Valencia (47; 3.6%)
 McKinley county
AR-CLD death rate:
39.3/100,000
 McKinley county deaths:
119/1,304 = 9.1% of
AR-CLD statewide deaths
 New Mexico
AR-CLD death rate:
14.4/100,000
14.7
Chaves (45; 3.5%)
14.5
Luna (20; 1.5%)
14.4
New Mexico (1304;County
100%)
Rate
Bernalillo (391; 29.9%)
De Baca**
Sandoval (58;
4.4%)
Guadalupe**
Lea (32;
2.4%)
Harding**
Hidalgo**
San Juan (62; 4.7%)
Lincoln**
Curry (21;
1.6%)
Los
Alamos**
Mora**
Grant (18; 1.3%)
Quay**
Santa Fe (75;
Roosevelt**
5.7%)
Socorro**
Doña Ana (80; 6.1%)
Torrance**
Union** (2;
0.1%) 0.0
Union**
Doña
Ana 0.0
Torrance** (9;
0.7%)
Santa Fe
Socorro** (9;
0.7%) 0.0
Grant
0.0
San Juan
Quay** (9;
0.7%) 0.0
Lea
Sandoval
Mora** (6;
0.4%) 0.0
Eddy
Los Alamos** (5;
0.4%) 0.0
Otero
Bernalillo
Lincoln** (10;
0.7%) 0.0
New Mexico
Hidalgo** (2;
0.2%) 0.0
Luna
Chaves
Harding** (0; 0%) 0.0
Valencia
Guadalupe** (5;
0.3%) 0.0
Sierra
Colfax
0.0
Catron** (2;
0.2%)
Rio
Arriba 0.0
San Miguel
0
Cibola
McKinley
*All rates are per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population
n
rate
Percent pasted
Percent formula
13.8
Catron**
Eddy (36;
2.7%)
De Baca** Taos
(1; 0%)
14.4
County = cnty2
cnty2
13.9
Otero (42; 3.2%)
Curry
Roosevelt** (3;
0.2%)
Cnty,N,%
0.0 Catron** (2; 0.2%)
OK 13.0 Catron**
2
0.0 De Baca** (1;OK
0%)
De Baca**
1
12.9
0.0 Guadalupe** (5;
OK0.3%) Guadalupe**
5
0.0 Harding** (0; OK
0%) 12.0 Harding**
0
0.0 Hidalgo** (2; 0.2%)
OK
Hidalgo**
2
12.0
0.0 Lincoln** (10;OK
0.7%)
Lincoln**
10
10.6
0.0 Los Alamos**OK
(5;
0.4%) Los Alamos**
5
0.0 Mora** (6; 0.4%)
OK
Mora**
6
10.6
0.0 Quay** (9; 0.7%)
OK
Quay**
9
10.3
0.0 Roosevelt** (3;
OK
0.2%)
Roosevelt**
3
0.0 Socorro** (9; OK
0.7%)
Socorro**
9
10.2
0.0 Torrance** (9;OK
0.7%)
Torrance**
9
0.0 Union** (2; 0.1%)
OK
Union**
2
10.2 Doña Ana (80;OK
6.1%)
Doña Ana
80
10.3 Santa Fe (75;OK
5.7%)
Santa Fe
75
10.6 Grant (18; 1.3%)
OK
Grant
18
10.6 Curry (21; 1.6%)
OK
Curry
21
12.0 San Juan (62;OK
4.7%)
San Juan
62
12.0 Lea (32; 2.4%)
OK
Lea
32
12.9 Sandoval (58;OK
4.4%)
Sandoval
58
13.0 Eddy (36; 2.7%)
OK
Eddy
36
13.8 Otero (42; 3.2%)
OK
Otero
42
13.9 Bernalillo (391;
OK29.9%) Bernalillo
391
14.4 New Mexico (1304;
OK 100%)New Mexico 1,304
14.4 Luna (20; 1.5%)
OK
Luna
20
14.5 Chaves (45; 3.5%)
OK
Chaves
45
14.7 Valencia (47; OK
3.6%)
Valencia
47
15.4 Sierra (15; 1.1%)
OK
Sierra
15
17.0 Taos (29; 2.2%)
OK
Taos
29
17.7 Colfax (14; 1.1%)
OK
Colfax
14
25.8 Rio Arriba (53;OK
4.1%)
Rio Arriba
53
30.7 San Miguel (47;
OK3.6%) San Miguel
47
5
10
15
20
25
38.2 Cibola (47; 3.6%)
OK
Cibola
47
39.3 McKinley (119;
OK
9.1%)
McKinley Rate*119
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
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
30
38.2
39.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.1
6.1
5.7
6.1
5.7
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.6
4.7
2.4
4.4
2.7
3.2
29.9
4.7
2.4
4.4
2.7
3.2
29.9
100.0
1.5
3.5
3.6
1.1
2.2
100.0
1.5
3.5
3.6
1.1
2.2
1.1
4.1
3.6
35
3.6
9.1
1.1
4.1
3.6
403.6
9.1
45
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%
Alcohol-Related Death Rates by County
County (# of deaths; % of statewide deaths)
McKinley (348; 6.9%)
Example of county
bar chart
115.1
101.3
Cibola (123; 2.4%)
Rio Arriba (185; 3.7%)
92.6
88.4
Mora (24; 0.5%)
San Miguel (130; 2.6%)
86.3
75.2
Catron (15; 0.3%)
Sierra (64; 1.3%)
70.3
68.8
Taos (108; 2.1%)
Guadalupe (17; 0.3%)
 McKinley county
alcohol-related death rate:
115.1/100,000
64.3
61.5
San Juan (309; 6.1%)
Socorro (51; 1%)
60.7
58.5
Chaves (186; 3.7%)
Colfax (46; 0.9%)
57.4
Grant (97; 1.9%)
57.2
New Mexico (5068; 100%)
56.7
55.2
Torrance (43; 0.8%)
 New Mexico
alcohol-related death rate:
56.7/100,000
 Bernalillo county
1494/5,068 = 29.5% of
AR-CLD statewide deaths
Lea (143; 2.8%)
54.6
Luna (74; 1.5%)
54.3
Quay (33; 0.6%)
53.9
Valencia (166; 3.3%)
53.7
Bernalillo (1494; 29.5%)
53.5
Eddy (146; 2.9%)
53.4
Otero (154; 3%)
52.6
52.3
Hidalgo (16; 0.3%)
Sandoval (213; 4.2%)
48.9
Santa Fe (321; 6.3%)
48.8
Lincoln (56; 1.1%)
48.5
47.5
Union (11; 0.2%)
Curry (89; 1.8%)
43.9
41.4
Doña Ana (328; 6.5%)
Los Alamos (37; 0.7%)
38.2
36.1
Roosevelt (31; 0.6%)
Harding** (4; 0.1%)
0.0
De Baca** (7; 0.1%)
0.0
*All rates are per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 2000 US population
0
20
40
60
80
Rate*
100
120
140
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
Adult Drinking and Driving Rates by County
County (# of drinking drivers; % of statewide drinking drivers)
Example of county
bar chart: BRFSS
Luna (629; 2.5%)
4.8
Roosevelt (656; 2.6%)
4.1
Taos (975; 3.9%)
3.9
Doña Ana (4127; 16.4%)
3.2
Colfax (417; 1.7%)
3.1
Bernalillo (12034; 47.8%)
2.9
Sandoval (1498; 6%)
2.3
Santa Fe (1968; 7.8%)
 Luna county: 4.8% of
adults reported drinking
and driving at least once in
past 30 days
2.3
New Mexico (25795; 100%)
2.0
Los Alamos (319; 1.3%)
1.9
Lea (651; 2.6%)
1.9
Quay (194; 0.8%)
1.8
Cibola (346; 1.4%)
1.6
Valencia (446; 1.8%)
1.0
Otero (406; 1.6%)
1.0
Chaves (340; 1.4%)
0.9
McKinley (320; 1.3%)
 No estimates available for
small counties
 Bernalillo county
accounted for 47.8% of
statewide drinking drivers
0.7
Lincoln (73; 0.3%)
0.5
San Miguel (98; 0.4%)
0.4
Curry (102; 0.4%)
0.3
San Juan (194; 0.8%)
0.2
Union (0; 0%)
0.0
Torrance (0; 0%)
0.0
Socorro (0; 0%)
0.0
Sierra (0; 0%)
0.0
Rio Arriba (0; 0%)
0.0
Mora (0; 0%)
0.0
Hidalgo (0; 0%)
0.0
Harding (0; 0%)
0.0
Guadalupe (0; 0%)
0.0
Grant (0; 0%)
0.0
Eddy (0; 0%)
0.0
De Baca (0; 0%)
0.0
Catron (0; 0%)
0.0
0
1
2
3
4
Rate*
*Estimate of percent of people in population group who drove after drinking at least once in previous 30 days
5
6
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
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
Union
Mora
Chaves
35.7
32.5
27.6
Lea
Taos
Rio Arriba
24.3
23.7
22.3
Santa Fe
Otero
Luna
22.2
22.1
21.6
Grant
Valencia
21.4
21.3
Harding
Cibola
Sierra
21.2
21.1
20.7
McKinley
Socorro
Guadalupe
20.4
20.2
19.8
San Miguel
Quay
New Mexico
19.5
19.4
19.1
Roosevelt
Hidalgo
Bernalillo
18.6
18.2
18.2
Doña Ana
Torrance
Colfax
17.5
16.5
16.5
Sandoval
Catron
14.8
13.2
San Juan
Los Alamos Not available
Lincoln Not available
13.0
Eddy Not available
De Baca
Curry
0
5
10
15
Percent (%)
20
25
30
35
40
Survey Data

BRFSS




YRRS




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
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
Alcohol-Related MVC Death Rates by County
Adult Drinking and Driving Rates by County
County (# of deaths; % of statewide deaths)
County (# of drinking drivers; % of statewide drinking drivers)
Luna (629; 2.5%)
4.8
Roosevelt (656; 2.6%)
4.1
Taos (975; 3.9%)
Santa Fe (1968; 7.8%)
Lea (651; 2.6%)
Quay (194; 0.8%)
1.9
Sandoval (38; 4.9%)
1.9
New Mexico (773; 100%)
Chaves (21; 2.7%)
Otero (406; 1.6%)
1.0
Santa Fe (41; 5.3%)
Lincoln (73; 0.3%)
6.0
5.9
Doña Ana (51; 6.6%)
0.5
0.3
San Juan (194; 0.8%)
6.9
6.3
Curry (13; 1.7%)
0.4
Curry (102; 0.4%)
6.9
Bernalillo (169; 21.9%)
0.9
0.7
San Miguel (98; 0.4%)
8.5
7.3
Eddy (17; 2.2%)
1.6
1.0
Chaves (340; 1.4%)
9.0
8.5
Otero (21; 2.8%)
Valencia (446; 1.8%)
McKinley (320; 1.3%)
9.0
San Miguel (13; 1.7%)
1.8
Cibola (346; 1.4%)
9.6
Grant (14; 1.8%)
2.3
2.0
Los Alamos (319; 1.3%)
10.3
Lea (26; 3.4%)
2.3
New Mexico (25795; 100%)
13.4
Valencia (34; 4.3%)
2.9
Sandoval (1498; 6%)
14.2
Taos (19; 2.5%)
3.1
Bernalillo (12034; 47.8%)
15.9
San Juan (79; 10.3%)
3.2
Colfax (417; 1.7%)
20.7
20.5
Cibola (20; 2.6%)
3.9
Doña Ana (4127; 16.4%)
McKinley (70; 9%)
Rio Arriba (42; 5.4%)
0.2
5.7
Union** (1; 0.1%)
0.0
Torrance** (8; 1%)
0.0
Socorro** (9; 1.1%)
0.0
Union (0; 0%)
0.0
Sierra** (7; 0.9%)
0.0
Torrance (0; 0%)
0.0
Roosevelt** (7; 0.9%)
0.0
Socorro (0; 0%)
0.0
Quay** (4; 0.5%)
0.0
Sierra (0; 0%)
0.0
Mora** (5; 0.7%)
0.0
Rio Arriba (0; 0%)
0.0
Luna** (9; 1.2%)
0.0
Mora (0; 0%)
0.0
Los Alamos** (5; 0.7%)
0.0
Hidalgo (0; 0%)
0.0
Lincoln** (9; 1.2%)
0.0
Harding (0; 0%)
0.0
Hidalgo** (3; 0.4%)
0.0
Guadalupe (0; 0%)
0.0
Harding** (2; 0.2%)
0.0
Grant (0; 0%)
0.0
Guadalupe** (3; 0.3%)
0.0
Eddy (0; 0%)
0.0
De Baca** (3; 0.3%)
0.0
De Baca (0; 0%)
0.0
Colfax** (8; 1%)
0.0
Catron (0; 0%)
0.0
Catron** (3; 0.4%)
0.0
0
1
2
3
Rate*
4
5
6
0
5
10
15
Rate*
20
25
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
Table 2: Alcohol-Related Deaths and Rates* by Race/Ethnicity and County, New Mexico, 1999-2003
Deaths
County
Bernalillo
Catron
Chaves
Cibola
Colfax
Curry
De Baca
Doña Ana
Eddy
Grant
Guadalupe
Harding
Hidalgo
Lea
Lincoln
Los Alamos
Luna
McKinley
Mora
Otero
Quay
Rio Arriba
Roosevelt
Sandoval
San Juan
San Miguel
Santa Fe
Sierra
Socorro
Taos
Torrance
Union
Valencia
Total
White
NonHisp.
690
11
112
19
19
53
5
138
88
59
3
2
12
93
43
31
43
28
2
81
20
15
24
88
118
23
124
51
15
27
27
5
63
2,132
NM standard
small numbers
rule
Black
NonHisp.
34
**
3
0
0
4
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
0
6
1
2
0
4
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
73
Hispanic
654
4
68
28
25
31
3
183
55
36
14
2
4
43
11
4
29
24
22
38
12
129
6
49
35
106
179
10
25
67
15
6
96
2,013
American
Indian
105
0
2
75
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
294
0
28
0
39
1
71
155
1
16
1
10
15
1
0
5
828
Rates*
Other
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
All
Race/
Ethnicities
1,494
15
186
123
46
89
7
328
146
97
17
4
16
143
56
37
74
348
24
154
33
185
31
213
309
130
321
64
51
108
43
11
166
5,068
Examples of
cells affected
by additional
SPF-SIG rule
White
NonHisp.
42.2
64.8
53.5
48.1
39.1
36.8
-40.2
45.5
60.7
--74.2
51.8
49.1
37.4
59.5
53.0
-42.0
50.2
42.3
37.3
32.8
42.6
66.7
36.1
77.8
39.4
45.1
56.1
-41.1
43.1
Black
NonHisp.
54.6
**
-------------------------------53.5
Hispanic
68.1
-65.0
73.2
77.8
73.1
-44.1
69.2
51.7
68.2
--68.0
51.1
-52.3
68.2
103.4
50.3
63.8
90.1
-47.2
55.5
95.1
63.4
55.2
66.9
76.6
60.4
-65.0
63.6
American
Indian
109.7
--178.5
-------------138.2
-203.1
-168.8
-119.8
97.3
-89.5
--150.6
---119.1
Other
25.7
--------------------------------28.3
All
Race/
Ethnicities
53.5
75.2
58.5
101.3
57.4
43.9
-41.4
53.4
57.2
64.3
-52.3
54.6
48.5
38.2
54.3
115.1
88.4
52.6
53.9
92.6
36.1
48.9
61.5
86.3
48.8
70.3
60.7
68.8
55.2
47.5
53.7
56.7
Data Collection
Think about data availability as a pyramid
 Numerator – what are you counting?
Death
 Denominator – who is in the target population?
 Are the data already available?
Hospitalization
 If not, can they be collected in a systematic way?
Ambulatory
Not reported in any system
Data Collection
Example 1 – 2004 DWI Conviction Rate for
New Mexico

Numerator: Counting DWI convictions in 2004

Denominator: Determining the population at risk
Example 1
2004 DWI Conviction Rate for NM
Numerator = # of DWI convictions in NM in 2004 =12,639
Denominator = # of licensed drivers in NM in 2004 =1,289,089
Time Period = 2004
Constant = 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
Example 2 – Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)
Rate in New Mexico

Numerator: Counting FAS cases in NM

Denominator: Determining the population at risk
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
Percent
Mothers Who Drank Alcohol Three Months Prior to
Pregnancy and During the Last Three Months of Pregnancy
New Mexico, 1998-2002
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Drank before
pregnancy
Drank during
pregnancy
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Source: Pregnancy Risk Assessment & Monitoring System (PRAMS), NMDOH
Example 2
FAS Prevalence Rate in NM
Numerator = # FAS-affected children born 1998-2002
Denominator = # live births in NM 1998-2002
Time 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 Epidemiologist
Jim Roeber, Alcohol Epidemiologist
Substance Abuse Epidemiology Unit
Corazon Halasan, Community Epidemiologist
Community Health Assessment Program
Contact Information
Tierney Murphy
Substance Abuse Prevention Epidemiologist
New Mexico Department of Health
Phone: 827-6816
E-mail: tierney.murphy@state.nm.us
Omitted Slides
Data Collection
Example 3 – School Truancy Rate in Your
Community

Numerator: Counting middle and high school
students who have unexcused absences

Denominator: Determining the population at risk
Percent (%)
Binge Drinking* Among Currently Drinking
Adults by Age, New Mexico 1998-2004
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
18-34
35-54
55+
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
* 5 or more drinks on one occasion
Source: New Mexico BRFSS, Injury and Behavioral Epidemiology Unit, NMDOH
Alcohol-Related MVC Death Rates by County
Adult Binge Drinking by County
County (# of deaths; % of statewide deaths)
County (# of binge drinkers; % of statewide binge drinkers)
Quay (3928; 2.1%)
35.7
Hidalgo (1379; 0.7%)
35.0
McKinley (70; 9%)
20.7
Rio Arriba (42; 5.4%)
20.5
Guadalupe (534; 0.3%)
22.6
Cibola (20; 2.6%)
Union (1057; 0.6%)
22.6
San Juan (79; 10.3%)
Colfax (2952; 1.6%)
21.9
Roosevelt (3285; 1.8%)
21.0
Valencia (34; 4.3%)
20.8
Lea (26; 3.4%)
Taos (4884; 2.6%)
19.9
Grant (14; 1.8%)
Socorro (2212; 1.2%)
19.8
San Miguel (13; 1.7%)
19.3
Rio Arriba (5021; 2.7%)
Luna (2039; 1.1%)
San Miguel (3669; 2%)
13.4
10.3
9.6
9.0
9.0
Sandoval (38; 4.9%)
17.8
Grant (4025; 2.2%)
14.2
Taos (19; 2.5%)
Doña Ana (26536; 14.2%)
Otero (7768; 4.2%)
15.9
8.5
New Mexico (773; 100%)
15.8
Otero (21; 2.8%)
15.5
Eddy (17; 2.2%)
15.1
8.5
7.3
6.9
Chaves (21; 2.7%)
6.9
Lea (4982; 2.7%)
14.5
Bernalillo (59878; 32.1%)
14.5
Curry (13; 1.7%)
6.0
New Mexico (188745; 100%)
14.4
Bernalillo (169; 21.9%)
5.9
Catron (493; 0.3%)
13.5
Chaves (4932; 2.6%)
13.2
Santa Fe (41; 5.3%)
6.3
Doña Ana (51; 6.6%)
5.7
Union** (1; 0.1%)
0.0
Curry (4128; 2.2%)
11.9
Torrance** (8; 1%)
0.0
Santa Fe (10249; 5.5%)
11.8
Socorro** (9; 1.1%)
0.0
Cibola (2535; 1.4%)
11.7
Sierra** (7; 0.9%)
0.0
San Juan (9639; 5.2%)
11.6
Roosevelt** (7; 0.9%)
0.0
Eddy (3962; 2.1%)
11.5
Quay** (4; 0.5%)
0.0
Mora** (5; 0.7%)
0.0
Luna** (9; 1.2%)
0.0
Los Alamos** (5; 0.7%)
0.0
Lincoln (1472; 0.8%)
10.8
Valencia (4379; 2.3%)
10.2
Sandoval (6338; 3.4%)
9.8
Los Alamos (1455; 0.8%)
8.7
Lincoln** (9; 1.2%)
0.0
McKinley (3918; 2.1%)
8.4
Hidalgo** (3; 0.4%)
0.0
Torrance (711; 0.4%)
8.1
Harding** (2; 0.2%)
0.0
Harding (176; 0.1%)
7.9
Guadalupe** (3; 0.3%)
0.0
De Baca** (3; 0.3%)
0.0
Sierra (209; 0.1%)
2.0
Mora (0; 0%)
0.0
Colfax** (8; 1%)
0.0
De Baca (0; 0%)
0.0
Catron** (3; 0.4%)
0.0
0
5
10
15
20
Rate*
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
Calculating Rates
Example 2 – 2002 liquor license density rate
for Rio Arriba county

Numerator: Counting liquor outlets in 2002

Denominator: Determining the population at risk
Calculating Rates – Example 3
Liquor License Density
Numerator = # licensed facilities in Rio Arriba county
Denominator = 2002 population of Rio Arriba county aged
20 years and older
Time Period = 2002
Constant = 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
Deaths per 100,000 persons
Alcohol-Related* Death Rates
New Mexico and US, 1990-2004
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
NM
US
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
* Alcohol-related deaths are deaths from causes considered to be 100% attributable to alcohol.
Sources: Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics, NMDOH; CDC Wonder
Rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US Standard Population
NM’s standard
Rates*
small numbers
All
AmeriRace/
rule
Hispcan
Ethnic-
Table 2: Alcohol-Related Deaths and Rates* by Race/Ethnicity and County, New Mexico, 1999-2003
Deaths
County
Bernalillo
Catron
Chaves
Cibola
Colfax
Curry
De Baca
Doña Ana
Eddy
Grant
Guadalupe
Harding
Hidalgo
Lea
Lincoln
Los Alamos
Luna
McKinley
Mora
Otero
Quay
Rio Arriba
Roosevelt
Sandoval
San Juan
San Miguel
Santa Fe
Sierra
Socorro
Taos
Torrance
Union
Valencia
Total
White
NonHisp.
690
11
112
19
19
53
5
138
88
59
3
2
12
93
43
31
43
28
2
81
20
15
24
88
118
23
124
51
15
27
27
5
63
2,132
Black
NonHisp.
34
**
3
0
0
4
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
0
6
1
2
0
4
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
73
Hispanic
654
4
68
28
25
31
3
183
55
36
14
2
4
43
11
4
29
24
22
38
12
129
6
49
35
106
179
10
25
67
15
6
96
2,013
American
Indian
105
0
2
75
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
294
0
28
0
39
1
71
155
1
16
1
10
15
1
0
5
828
Other
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
All
Race/
Ethnicities
1,494
15
186
123
46
89
7
328
146
97
17
4
16
143
56
37
74
348
24
154
33
185
31
213
309
130
321
64
51
108
43
11
166
5,068
White
NonHisp.
42.2
64.8
53.5
48.1
39.1
36.8
38.4
40.2
45.5
60.7
60.0
31.7
74.2
51.8
49.1
37.4
59.5
53.0
23.4
42.0
50.2
42.3
37.3
32.8
42.6
66.7
36.1
77.8
39.4
45.1
56.1
30.2
41.1
43.1
Black
NonHisp.
54.6
**
60.3
2.6
42.0
35.5
0.0
54.5
46.6
26.7
0.0
0.0
0
60.1
0.0
0.0
12.4
88.1
0.0
62.5
228.8
352.3
0.0
50.4
40.3
0.0
76.8
133.0
41.0
0.0
135.4
0.0
201.4
53.5
anic
68.1
114.0
65.0
73.2
77.8
73.1
61.6
44.1
69.2
51.7
68.2
98.5
32.7
68.0
51.1
35.7
52.3
68.2
103.4
50.3
63.8
90.1
34.1
47.2
55.5
95.1
63.4
55.2
66.9
76.6
60.4
88.2
65.0
63.6
Indian
109.7
0.0
56.8
178.5
107.3
5.4
0.0
15.0
15.1
51.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.0
29.6
61.8
129.8
138.2
226.4
203.1
0.0
168.8
171.5
119.8
97.3
71.9
89.5
89.1
113.7
150.6
25.2
0.0
52.9
119.1
Other
25.7
0.0
19.1
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
56.6
33.1
9.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.1
0.0
15.7
0.0
80.6
12.2
69.3
10.7
51.7
74.1
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.7
28.3
ities
53.5
75.2
58.5
101.3
57.4
43.9
45.4
41.4
53.4
57.2
64.3
62.4
52.3
54.6
48.5
38.2
54.3
115.1
88.4
52.6
53.9
92.6
36.1
48.9
61.5
86.3
48.8
70.3
60.7
68.8
55.2
47.5
53.7
56.7
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?