Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Alabama by County

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Count
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate descending
CI*Rank⋔
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by CI rank descending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Alabama No 137.2 (135.4, 139.0) N/A 4,742 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
United States No 128.7 (128.5, 129.0) N/A 283,896 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.7)
Jefferson County No 140.4 (135.4, 145.4) 35 (20, 49) 649 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8)
Mobile County No 144.1 (137.8, 150.7) 28 (14, 46) 409 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.8)
Madison County No 130.9 (124.4, 137.7) 53 (30, 60) 313 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.1)
Baldwin County No 127.6 (119.9, 135.8) 58 (33, 64) 216 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.8)
Montgomery County No 141.1 (132.6, 150.1) 33 (15, 55) 212 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
Tuscaloosa County Yes 122.4 (113.5, 131.8) 60 (37, 66) 148 stable stable trend -6.0 (-12.8, 1.2)
Shelby County Yes 104.0 (96.4, 112.0) 66 (60, 67) 145 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0)
Calhoun County No 156.6 (144.6, 169.5) 12 (3, 40) 132 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Morgan County No 148.8 (137.2, 161.3) 19 (5, 49) 127 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.2)
Etowah County No 145.3 (133.3, 158.1) 25 (7, 56) 116 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.9)
Lee County No 136.3 (125.1, 148.2) 45 (14, 61) 113 falling falling trend -5.4 (-9.7, -0.8)
Houston County Yes 120.8 (110.0, 132.6) 62 (37, 66) 95 falling falling trend -4.0 (-5.9, -2.1)
Lauderdale County No 124.7 (113.2, 137.2) 59 (28, 66) 94 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Marshall County No 134.5 (122.1, 148.0) 47 (14, 63) 90 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Talladega County No 148.0 (134.3, 163.0) 20 (5, 53) 89 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.3)
St. Clair County No 135.1 (122.1, 149.3) 46 (13, 63) 82 stable stable trend -4.1 (-8.5, 0.5)
Walker County No 154.3 (138.8, 171.2) 14 (2, 49) 77 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.4)
Limestone County Yes 120.7 (108.8, 133.7) 64 (37, 67) 77 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.3, -0.6)
Cullman County Yes 122.0 (109.7, 135.5) 61 (31, 66) 75 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Elmore County No 138.1 (124.1, 153.4) 39 (7, 62) 73 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.6)
Blount County No 162.9 (145.7, 181.8) 7 (1, 42) 68 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.8)
Colbert County No 149.7 (133.4, 167.6) 18 (3, 56) 66 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
DeKalb County No 132.1 (117.9, 147.7) 52 (15, 65) 65 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Jackson County No 157.0 (139.5, 176.3) 11 (1, 50) 64 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Russell County No 161.7 (143.6, 181.6) 9 (1, 44) 60 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Coffee County No 142.5 (125.4, 161.5) 32 (4, 63) 52 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Covington County No 162.0 (141.8, 184.6) 8 (1, 51) 51 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 0.8)
Autauga County No 133.0 (116.6, 151.2) 49 (10, 65) 48 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.5)
Dale County No 139.3 (122.0, 158.5) 37 (5, 64) 48 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Tallapoosa County No 142.8 (123.8, 164.2) 31 (4, 63) 46 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.3)
Chilton County No 130.9 (113.1, 150.9) 54 (9, 67) 40 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Dallas County No 140.6 (121.1, 162.5) 34 (4, 65) 40 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.2)
Chambers County No 143.0 (122.5, 166.2) 30 (3, 64) 38 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Marion County No 152.3 (130.2, 177.6) 16 (1, 61) 37 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Escambia County No 137.9 (117.9, 160.6) 40 (5, 65) 36 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Lawrence County No 144.3 (123.4, 168.1) 27 (3, 64) 36 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Franklin County No 144.8 (122.7, 170.0) 26 (2, 64) 32 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Clarke County No 157.7 (133.0, 186.2) 10 (1, 61) 31 stable stable trend 14.2 (-1.0, 31.6)
Geneva County No 146.9 (123.8, 173.6) 23 (1, 64) 31 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.3)
Cherokee County No 139.4 (117.2, 165.4) 36 (3, 66) 30 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.1)
Pike County No 143.0 (120.1, 169.3) 29 (2, 65) 29 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Barbour County No 156.1 (129.8, 186.7) 13 (1, 64) 28 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.4)
Randolph County No 137.1 (113.0, 165.4) 44 (3, 66) 25 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.3)
Marengo County No 152.2 (124.9, 184.4) 17 (1, 64) 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Fayette County No 172.4 (140.7, 210.1) 3 (1, 59) 23 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.5, 1.4)
Macon County No 153.3 (124.6, 187.5) 15 (1, 64) 23 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Monroe County No 127.7 (104.1, 155.8) 57 (5, 67) 22 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
Butler County No 132.6 (107.6, 162.4) 50 (3, 67) 22 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.3)
Winston County Yes 107.4 (87.4, 131.3) 65 (29, 67) 22 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.5)
Bibb County No 137.7 (111.7, 168.5) 42 (2, 67) 20 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
Pickens County Yes 120.7 (97.5, 148.8) 63 (11, 67) 19 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Henry County No 129.3 (103.6, 160.6) 55 (3, 67) 19 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.8)
Crenshaw County No 177.9 (142.2, 221.0) 2 (1, 56) 19 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.7, 1.2)
Lamar County No 147.8 (116.9, 185.7) 22 (1, 67) 17 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.5)
Conecuh County No 168.3 (132.4, 212.1) 5 (1, 63) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Washington County No 134.5 (105.9, 169.2) 48 (2, 67) 16 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Clay County No 146.2 (114.7, 185.1) 24 (1, 67) 16 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.2)
Hale County No 132.4 (103.1, 168.4) 51 (2, 67) 15 falling falling trend -4.1 (-6.8, -1.2)
Sumter County No 164.5 (126.2, 211.6) 6 (1, 66) 15 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.2)
Cleburne County No 128.7 (100.2, 163.8) 56 (3, 67) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.4)
Wilcox County No 168.5 (129.8, 216.5) 4 (1, 64) 14 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.0, 1.2)
Coosa County No 137.6 (103.3, 182.1) 43 (1, 67) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 0.4)
Bullock County No 180.2 (136.1, 235.5) 1 (1, 64) 12 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.9, 1.7)
Choctaw County Yes 101.5 (75.4, 135.2) 67 (20, 67) 11 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Lowndes County No 147.9 (110.1, 195.8) 21 (1, 67) 11 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 0.9)
Perry County No 137.7 (101.7, 184.2) 41 (1, 67) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.0)
Greene County No 138.8 (99.9, 189.9) 38 (1, 67) 10 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.6)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 05/26/2024 8:30 pm.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
Trend
Rising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.
Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.
Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.

† Death data provided by the National Vital Statistics System public use data file. Death rates calculated by the National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat. Death rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). The Healthy People 2030 goals are based on rates adjusted using different methods but the differences should be minimal. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI.
The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.
‡ The Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) is based on the APCs calculated by Joinpoint. Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.
⋔ Results presented with the CI*Rank statistics help show the usefulness of ranks. For example, ranks for relatively rare diseases or less populated areas may be essentially meaningless because of their large variability, but ranks for more common diseases in densely populated regions can be very useful. More information about methodology can be found on the CI*Rank website.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


Please note that the data comes from different sources. Due to different years of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each graph for additional information.
Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

Return to Top