Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Arkansas by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Ruralurban

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban 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 descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Arkansas N/A No 168.2 (166.3, 170.0) N/A 6,525 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
United States N/A No 146.0 (145.8, 146.2) N/A 602,955 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.4)
Benton County Urban No 145.8 (139.6, 152.1) 75 (61, 75) 434 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.6)
Craighead County Urban No 169.8 (159.2, 180.8) 49 (26, 67) 199 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.0, -0.6)
Crawford County Urban No 179.9 (166.7, 193.9) 34 (15, 62) 142 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Crittenden County Urban No 207.4 (190.1, 226.0) 12 (1, 37) 111 stable stable trend -1.1 (-8.8, 0.3)
Faulkner County Urban No 150.3 (140.9, 160.2) 72 (52, 75) 195 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Garland County Urban No 154.9 (146.2, 164.0) 67 (48, 75) 260 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -1.1)
Grant County Urban No 180.7 (157.5, 206.7) 33 (6, 74) 45 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.5)
Little River County Urban No 162.7 (136.6, 192.9) 58 (13, 75) 29 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.4)
Lonoke County Urban No 173.7 (160.9, 187.3) 44 (19, 66) 141 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Madison County Urban No 176.2 (153.0, 202.3) 37 (7, 75) 43 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Miller County Urban No 194.6 (178.1, 212.4) 22 (5, 53) 105 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.1)
Perry County Urban No 170.9 (142.2, 204.5) 48 (5, 75) 26 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Poinsett County Urban No 225.4 (201.9, 251.0) 1 (1, 28) 70 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Pulaski County Urban No 152.8 (147.8, 157.9) 69 (56, 74) 734 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.4, -1.6)
Saline County Urban No 152.4 (144.0, 161.2) 70 (50, 75) 252 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
Sebastian County Urban No 161.4 (152.5, 170.7) 61 (40, 72) 256 falling falling trend -1.7 (-5.0, -1.1)
Washington County Urban No 147.2 (140.2, 154.5) 74 (59, 75) 339 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.5)
Arkansas County Rural No 221.7 (195.8, 250.4) 3 (1, 35) 56 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Ashley County Rural No 195.2 (172.5, 220.4) 20 (2, 60) 57 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.2)
Baxter County Rural No 175.5 (162.0, 190.1) 40 (17, 64) 152 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.5)
Boone County Rural No 168.7 (153.6, 185.0) 52 (21, 72) 96 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.4)
Bradley County Rural No 155.8 (127.4, 189.3) 66 (11, 75) 22 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.6, -0.1)
Calhoun County Rural No 217.4 (171.7, 273.7) 5 (1, 72) 17 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.0)
Carroll County Rural No 162.6 (145.9, 180.9) 59 (22, 75) 75 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Chicot County Rural No 224.5 (191.7, 262.0) 2 (1, 47) 36 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Clark County Rural No 188.2 (164.7, 214.4) 25 (3, 68) 48 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.3)
Clay County Rural No 206.9 (181.1, 236.0) 13 (1, 52) 48 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Cleburne County Rural No 163.3 (146.8, 181.7) 57 (24, 75) 78 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.2)
Cleveland County Rural No 157.7 (126.8, 195.2) 65 (9, 75) 19 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2)
Columbia County Rural No 184.8 (162.8, 209.1) 28 (4, 69) 54 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.2)
Conway County Rural No 154.6 (134.8, 176.8) 68 (25, 75) 46 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Cross County Rural No 214.6 (188.1, 244.2) 8 (1, 47) 49 falling falling trend -0.9 (-6.3, -0.2)
Dallas County Rural No 215.3 (176.4, 261.7) 7 (1, 65) 24 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.3)
Desha County Rural No 201.3 (169.7, 237.6) 16 (1, 68) 31 stable stable trend 6.1 (-0.9, 15.1)
Drew County Rural No 176.1 (152.1, 203.2) 38 (7, 75) 40 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Franklin County Rural No 179.1 (155.8, 205.3) 35 (6, 74) 45 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Fulton County Rural No 190.1 (163.5, 220.7) 24 (2, 69) 41 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.9)
Greene County Rural No 173.5 (158.5, 189.6) 45 (17, 70) 100 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Hempstead County Rural No 182.7 (160.1, 207.9) 32 (6, 72) 50 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Hot Spring County Rural No 175.8 (158.9, 194.1) 39 (14, 68) 83 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Howard County Rural No 148.7 (124.0, 177.4) 73 (24, 75) 26 falling falling trend -3.8 (-9.5, -1.9)
Independence County Rural No 150.7 (135.5, 167.2) 71 (39, 75) 75 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Izard County Rural No 169.0 (145.7, 195.7) 51 (11, 75) 42 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.4)
Jackson County Rural No 196.6 (171.0, 225.3) 19 (1, 63) 44 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.9)
Jefferson County Rural No 184.1 (171.4, 197.6) 29 (12, 57) 164 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.7)
Johnson County Rural No 183.4 (162.6, 206.2) 31 (6, 67) 59 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.4)
Lafayette County Rural No 162.2 (129.2, 202.9) 60 (5, 75) 18 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.6)
Lawrence County Rural No 216.7 (190.2, 246.1) 6 (1, 43) 51 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6)
Lee County Rural No 221.2 (185.5, 262.6) 4 (1, 54) 28 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.6, -0.2)
Lincoln County Rural No 167.8 (139.9, 200.1) 53 (6, 75) 26 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.6)
Logan County Rural No 186.1 (165.1, 209.4) 27 (4, 67) 60 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Marion County Rural No 183.7 (161.1, 209.3) 30 (5, 70) 59 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Mississippi County Rural No 209.2 (190.6, 229.2) 10 (1, 34) 98 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.1)
Monroe County Rural No 211.4 (173.6, 256.4) 9 (1, 69) 24 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.3)
Montgomery County Rural No 160.9 (131.9, 195.7) 62 (7, 75) 26 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 0.9)
Nevada County Rural No 159.3 (129.8, 194.7) 63 (9, 75) 21 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Newton County Rural No 174.4 (142.7, 212.7) 41 (2, 75) 24 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.3)
Ouachita County Rural No 194.9 (173.6, 218.4) 21 (3, 59) 66 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Phillips County Rural No 209.2 (183.0, 238.4) 11 (1, 53) 49 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
Pike County Rural No 174.0 (144.9, 207.9) 43 (4, 75) 27 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.5)
Polk County Rural No 172.5 (151.9, 195.6) 46 (11, 74) 55 falling falling trend -12.7 (-21.7, -1.8)
Pope County Rural No 164.5 (151.8, 178.0) 56 (29, 73) 128 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Prairie County Rural No 159.2 (130.1, 194.2) 64 (11, 75) 23 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.5, -0.2)
Randolph County Rural No 200.2 (175.8, 227.2) 17 (1, 58) 52 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.4)
Scott County Rural No 202.5 (171.1, 238.8) 14 (1, 67) 31 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Searcy County Rural No 199.7 (166.7, 238.8) 18 (1, 69) 28 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.1)
Sevier County Rural No 166.6 (140.1, 196.7) 55 (8, 75) 29 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Sharp County Rural No 201.5 (178.9, 226.6) 15 (1, 55) 64 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.7)
St. Francis County Rural No 186.4 (164.2, 210.8) 26 (4, 67) 53 falling falling trend -2.0 (-4.3, -1.4)
Stone County Rural No 174.4 (150.0, 202.6) 42 (6, 75) 41 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
Union County Rural No 193.1 (176.3, 211.2) 23 (5, 54) 102 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.4)
Van Buren County Rural No 177.1 (155.4, 201.8) 36 (7, 74) 52 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
White County Rural No 172.2 (160.5, 184.5) 47 (22, 66) 167 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Woodruff County Rural No 167.8 (134.4, 208.7) 54 (4, 75) 18 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.2)
Yell County Rural No 169.1 (147.5, 193.2) 50 (12, 75) 46 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/12/2024 2:29 am.

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.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.


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