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), Male, 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 205.4 (202.4, 208.5) N/A 3,579 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -1.5)
United States N/A No 173.2 (173.0, 173.5) N/A 317,428 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.8, -1.8)
Benton County Urban No 176.1 (165.9, 186.7) 71 (55, 75) 232 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Craighead County Urban No 208.9 (191.1, 228.0) 45 (21, 67) 106 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Crawford County Urban No 219.1 (197.3, 242.9) 39 (12, 65) 78 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -0.9)
Crittenden County Urban No 244.0 (214.8, 276.0) 17 (3, 58) 56 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -1.0)
Faulkner County Urban No 179.8 (164.1, 196.6) 70 (46, 75) 102 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0)
Garland County Urban No 183.6 (169.9, 198.2) 65 (45, 74) 141 falling falling trend -4.0 (-10.1, -1.8)
Grant County Urban No 212.3 (176.0, 254.6) 42 (7, 74) 25 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.3)
Little River County Urban No 160.0 (123.3, 205.5) 75 (28, 75) 14 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.5, -1.6)
Lonoke County Urban No 220.2 (198.2, 244.0) 38 (11, 64) 79 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Madison County Urban No 209.4 (172.5, 252.5) 44 (7, 75) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.1)
Miller County Urban No 223.7 (197.1, 252.9) 33 (8, 66) 55 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
Perry County Urban No 201.4 (156.6, 256.6) 53 (5, 75) 15 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.3)
Poinsett County Urban No 288.1 (247.6, 333.5) 4 (1, 36) 39 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.2)
Pulaski County Urban No 193.9 (185.1, 203.0) 59 (42, 68) 394 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.7)
Saline County Urban No 180.9 (167.2, 195.4) 68 (47, 75) 136 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Sebastian County Urban No 199.1 (184.2, 214.8) 57 (32, 70) 141 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8)
Washington County Urban No 181.8 (169.8, 194.4) 66 (49, 74) 182 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.0, -1.6)
Arkansas County Rural No 281.0 (237.1, 331.4) 7 (1, 42) 31 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
Ashley County Rural No 222.3 (187.7, 262.2) 35 (5, 72) 31 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Baxter County Rural No 199.1 (179.1, 221.5) 56 (24, 73) 82 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Boone County Rural No 207.3 (182.4, 234.9) 48 (16, 72) 53 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.6)
Bradley County Rural No 175.8 (131.3, 231.4) 72 (13, 75) 11 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.4)
Calhoun County Rural No 233.3 (168.2, 320.0) 23 (1, 75) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Carroll County Rural No 191.7 (165.9, 220.9) 63 (22, 75) 43 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -0.8)
Chicot County Rural No 311.0 (253.6, 378.6) 1 (1, 35) 22 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.8)
Clark County Rural No 235.9 (196.9, 280.8) 21 (2, 70) 27 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.2)
Clay County Rural No 254.2 (212.2, 303.1) 12 (1, 60) 26 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Cleburne County Rural No 193.8 (168.3, 223.1) 60 (23, 75) 44 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.3)
Cleveland County Rural No 228.2 (174.9, 295.1) 31 (1, 75) 13 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.1, -0.5)
Columbia County Rural No 245.9 (208.0, 289.1) 15 (2, 62) 31 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Conway County Rural No 181.0 (150.0, 217.1) 67 (23, 75) 25 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.6)
Cross County Rural No 270.3 (226.2, 321.0) 8 (1, 54) 28 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.6)
Dallas County Rural No 260.4 (196.1, 341.5) 9 (1, 73) 12 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Desha County Rural No 256.9 (203.1, 321.4) 10 (1, 71) 18 stable stable trend 14.9 (-0.6, 25.6)
Drew County Rural No 244.4 (201.8, 293.5) 16 (1, 67) 24 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.2)
Franklin County Rural No 208.1 (172.1, 250.1) 46 (9, 75) 24 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Fulton County Rural No 214.9 (176.6, 261.0) 41 (6, 74) 23 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.3)
Greene County Rural No 240.8 (213.9, 270.3) 19 (5, 54) 61 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
Hempstead County Rural No 220.8 (184.5, 262.6) 36 (5, 73) 28 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.3)
Hot Spring County Rural No 205.0 (178.9, 234.2) 50 (16, 73) 47 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Howard County Rural No 180.2 (140.2, 228.9) 69 (14, 75) 14 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Independence County Rural No 173.5 (149.8, 200.2) 73 (40, 75) 40 falling falling trend -3.0 (-8.8, -1.9)
Izard County Rural No 207.3 (171.5, 250.0) 47 (8, 75) 25 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -0.9)
Jackson County Rural No 232.2 (190.6, 280.4) 24 (2, 72) 23 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.8)
Jefferson County Rural No 231.3 (209.5, 254.9) 26 (8, 55) 90 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -0.9)
Johnson County Rural No 193.6 (162.7, 228.9) 61 (16, 75) 30 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Lafayette County Rural No 228.6 (172.2, 301.4) 30 (1, 75) 12 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.3)
Lawrence County Rural No 293.0 (247.8, 344.8) 2 (1, 34) 31 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.3)
Lee County Rural No 286.3 (227.9, 356.3) 5 (1, 56) 17 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.5)
Lincoln County Rural No 220.4 (173.1, 276.8) 37 (3, 75) 16 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.7)
Logan County Rural No 226.9 (193.0, 265.6) 32 (5, 70) 33 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
Marion County Rural No 230.1 (194.2, 272.0) 27 (4, 70) 36 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.7, 0.0)
Mississippi County Rural No 256.5 (225.3, 290.8) 11 (2, 47) 54 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Monroe County Rural No 290.4 (225.2, 371.4) 3 (1, 66) 15 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.6, -0.1)
Montgomery County Rural No 166.5 (125.9, 219.1) 74 (19, 75) 13 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.7, 0.5)
Nevada County Rural No 201.1 (151.6, 263.4) 54 (4, 75) 12 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.1)
Newton County Rural No 190.2 (144.9, 249.0) 64 (8, 75) 13 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.5)
Ouachita County Rural No 252.7 (216.4, 293.9) 13 (1, 58) 37 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.0)
Phillips County Rural No 283.9 (237.0, 338.0) 6 (1, 43) 28 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -1.0)
Pike County Rural No 229.8 (181.6, 288.2) 28 (1, 75) 16 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Polk County Rural No 231.6 (196.9, 271.6) 25 (4, 67) 33 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Pope County Rural No 205.7 (184.8, 228.4) 49 (20, 71) 73 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
Prairie County Rural No 193.5 (147.6, 251.5) 62 (8, 75) 13 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.3)
Randolph County Rural No 249.3 (210.2, 294.1) 14 (1, 62) 30 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Scott County Rural No 228.6 (181.2, 286.2) 29 (2, 74) 17 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.3)
Searcy County Rural No 242.2 (191.5, 305.2) 18 (1, 74) 17 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.2)
Sevier County Rural No 201.5 (159.3, 251.4) 52 (6, 75) 17 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.4)
Sharp County Rural No 223.1 (190.0, 261.5) 34 (6, 71) 34 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.9)
St. Francis County Rural No 197.5 (164.7, 235.1) 58 (15, 75) 27 falling falling trend -3.1 (-8.9, -2.4)
Stone County Rural No 233.4 (193.2, 281.3) 22 (3, 72) 26 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.6)
Union County Rural No 236.7 (209.1, 267.0) 20 (5, 57) 57 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Van Buren County Rural No 201.9 (169.0, 240.9) 51 (12, 75) 28 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.9, 0.0)
White County Rural No 200.4 (181.4, 220.9) 55 (25, 72) 86 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0)
Woodruff County Rural No 211.2 (154.3, 285.0) 43 (2, 75) 10 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.3)
Yell County Rural No 215.8 (179.7, 257.4) 40 (6, 74) 26 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/03/2024 7:04 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.

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