Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Ohio by County

Lung & Bronchus, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Name

County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 25.1?
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
Ohio N/A No 39.8 (39.4, 40.3) N/A 6,333 falling falling trend -4.2 (-5.0, -3.5)
United States N/A No 32.4 (32.3, 32.5) N/A 136,831 falling falling trend -4.3 (-4.4, -4.1)
Adams County Rural No 71.8 (60.3, 85.1) 1 (1, 16) 29 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.7)
Allen County Urban No 42.0 (37.2, 47.2) 46 (20, 78) 58 falling falling trend -5.1 (-15.2, -1.3)
Ashland County Rural No 31.7 (26.2, 38.0) 82 (46, 88) 25 falling falling trend -7.2 (-17.2, -2.7)
Ashtabula County Urban No 44.1 (39.4, 49.4) 38 (16, 69) 65 falling falling trend -9.1 (-17.5, -2.8)
Athens County Rural No 42.2 (35.4, 50.1) 45 (14, 83) 29 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.8)
Auglaize County Rural No 41.3 (34.5, 49.1) 50 (13, 83) 27 rising rising trend 11.7 (2.9, 24.1)
Belmont County Urban No 48.4 (42.4, 55.2) 26 (8, 59) 50 falling falling trend -1.5 (-3.4, -1.1)
Brown County Urban No 56.3 (48.2, 65.5) 12 (1, 41) 36 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Butler County Urban No 40.2 (37.6, 42.9) 56 (34, 72) 189 falling falling trend -4.5 (-9.2, -2.1)
Carroll County Urban No 50.5 (41.0, 61.8) 20 (2, 75) 21 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.5, 1.7)
Champaign County Rural No 45.2 (37.6, 54.0) 34 (8, 80) 26 falling falling trend -1.5 (-11.6, -0.4)
Clark County Urban No 43.2 (39.2, 47.6) 40 (20, 69) 87 falling falling trend -3.2 (-7.0, -2.0)
Clermont County Urban No 43.4 (40.0, 47.2) 39 (20, 66) 121 falling falling trend -3.8 (-4.7, -3.1)
Clinton County Rural No 54.0 (45.6, 63.7) 14 (2, 53) 31 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.4)
Columbiana County Rural No 42.4 (37.9, 47.4) 44 (19, 75) 68 falling falling trend -2.5 (-9.2, -1.5)
Coshocton County Rural No 45.7 (37.9, 54.9) 29 (7, 79) 25 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.2)
Crawford County Rural No 46.3 (39.0, 54.7) 27 (9, 78) 30 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.1)
Cuyahoga County Urban No 36.6 (35.3, 37.9) 71 (58, 78) 659 falling falling trend -4.2 (-5.6, -3.2)
Darke County Rural No 39.6 (33.5, 46.7) 57 (19, 84) 31 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Defiance County Rural No 38.5 (31.6, 46.8) 63 (19, 86) 22 falling falling trend -5.6 (-12.0, -2.7)
Delaware County Urban No 25.7 (22.8, 28.9) 88 (82, 88) 60 falling falling trend -5.5 (-8.2, -3.9)
Erie County Urban No 35.8 (31.2, 41.0) 73 (37, 85) 46 falling falling trend -5.3 (-10.9, -3.1)
Fairfield County Urban No 37.8 (34.0, 41.8) 66 (35, 82) 77 stable stable trend -4.0 (-6.1, 0.2)
Fayette County Rural No 48.5 (39.0, 59.7) 25 (3, 79) 19 falling falling trend -5.3 (-21.0, -0.4)
Franklin County Urban No 35.5 (34.1, 37.1) 75 (61, 81) 463 falling falling trend -6.3 (-9.9, -4.0)
Fulton County Urban No 36.6 (30.0, 44.3) 72 (21, 87) 22 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.5)
Gallia County Rural No 52.3 (43.1, 63.2) 15 (2, 67) 23 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.6)
Geauga County Urban No 28.2 (24.5, 32.3) 86 (76, 88) 43 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.7)
Greene County Urban No 35.3 (31.8, 39.1) 76 (47, 85) 79 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.8)
Guernsey County Rural No 57.7 (49.2, 67.5) 10 (1, 38) 34 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.1)
Hamilton County Urban No 38.5 (36.8, 40.3) 64 (46, 74) 391 falling falling trend -5.2 (-9.1, -2.8)
Hancock County Rural No 33.3 (28.4, 38.9) 79 (44, 87) 34 falling falling trend -4.4 (-12.7, -1.4)
Hardin County Rural No 59.7 (49.1, 72.2) 7 (1, 47) 23 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.9)
Harrison County Rural No 51.5 (39.4, 67.0) 18 (1, 81) 13 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.3)
Henry County Rural No 42.5 (33.6, 53.2) 43 (8, 85) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Highland County Rural No 63.2 (54.5, 73.1) 4 (1, 23) 39 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.9)
Hocking County Urban No 58.1 (48.0, 70.0) 9 (1, 48) 24 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Holmes County Rural No 29.7 (23.1, 37.5) 83 (48, 88) 14 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.7)
Huron County Rural No 41.5 (35.2, 48.6) 48 (18, 82) 33 falling falling trend -4.9 (-18.9, -1.2)
Jackson County Rural No 59.7 (49.7, 71.3) 8 (1, 40) 26 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Jefferson County Urban No 48.8 (43.0, 55.4) 24 (8, 58) 53 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.9)
Knox County Rural No 39.6 (33.8, 46.2) 58 (19, 84) 35 falling falling trend -10.4 (-20.1, -0.9)
Lake County Urban No 37.4 (34.6, 40.4) 67 (43, 81) 135 falling falling trend -4.0 (-7.0, -2.6)
Lawrence County Urban No 66.8 (59.1, 75.2) 2 (1, 15) 57 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Licking County Urban No 44.7 (40.9, 48.8) 36 (19, 61) 105 falling falling trend -8.3 (-12.8, -3.4)
Logan County Rural No 45.6 (38.5, 53.8) 31 (8, 78) 31 falling falling trend -7.4 (-19.2, -0.9)
Lorain County Urban No 35.8 (33.3, 38.4) 74 (54, 82) 160 falling falling trend -7.9 (-11.9, -5.4)
Lucas County Urban No 40.9 (38.5, 43.4) 51 (32, 68) 229 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.1, -2.3)
Madison County Urban No 51.3 (43.1, 60.7) 19 (3, 64) 28 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Mahoning County Urban No 36.7 (33.9, 39.8) 70 (46, 82) 134 falling falling trend -4.4 (-9.2, -2.6)
Marion County Rural No 46.2 (40.1, 53.0) 28 (11, 70) 42 falling falling trend -3.1 (-12.1, -1.2)
Medina County Urban No 32.8 (29.7, 36.1) 81 (62, 86) 87 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.4)
Meigs County Rural No 49.5 (39.2, 62.1) 22 (2, 81) 17 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.7, -1.8)
Mercer County Rural No 33.2 (26.9, 40.7) 80 (36, 88) 20 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Miami County Urban No 41.9 (37.4, 46.8) 47 (21, 76) 65 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.5)
Monroe County Rural No 39.0 (28.4, 53.3) 62 (9, 88) 9 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.6)
Montgomery County Urban No 41.4 (39.3, 43.6) 49 (31, 65) 307 falling falling trend -3.8 (-5.9, -2.8)
Morgan County Rural No 51.8 (39.4, 67.6) 17 (1, 81) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Morrow County Urban No 50.3 (41.6, 60.5) 21 (4, 72) 25 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.2)
Muskingum County Rural No 45.4 (40.1, 51.3) 33 (13, 69) 55 falling falling trend -5.4 (-11.7, -2.8)
Noble County Rural No 28.7 (18.8, 42.8) 85 (25, 88) 7 falling falling trend -2.5 (-20.4, -0.6)
Ottawa County Urban No 42.9 (36.3, 50.7) 41 (13, 81) 32 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Paulding County Rural No 45.6 (34.7, 59.2) 32 (3, 85) 12 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.1)
Perry County Urban No 57.0 (47.6, 67.9) 11 (1, 49) 28 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.3)
Pickaway County Urban No 49.3 (42.4, 57.2) 23 (6, 63) 37 falling falling trend -8.9 (-18.0, -1.5)
Pike County Rural No 62.0 (51.3, 74.4) 5 (1, 34) 25 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 1.0)
Portage County Urban No 40.4 (36.6, 44.5) 54 (26, 77) 87 falling falling trend -4.2 (-11.8, -1.9)
Preble County Rural No 52.0 (44.1, 61.1) 16 (3, 60) 32 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.4)
Putnam County Rural No 27.0 (20.7, 34.7) 87 (63, 88) 13 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.4)
Richland County Urban No 42.5 (38.4, 47.1) 42 (21, 72) 79 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.5)
Ross County Rural No 54.2 (48.0, 61.0) 13 (3, 40) 57 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.6)
Sandusky County Rural No 40.5 (34.7, 47.1) 53 (18, 83) 36 falling falling trend -12.6 (-19.3, -2.0)
Scioto County Rural No 61.7 (54.9, 69.2) 6 (1, 21) 63 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Seneca County Rural No 39.1 (33.0, 46.0) 61 (21, 85) 31 falling falling trend -4.8 (-17.4, -1.4)
Shelby County Rural No 44.5 (37.2, 52.9) 37 (9, 81) 28 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Stark County Urban No 39.4 (37.1, 41.9) 59 (37, 74) 218 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.7, -1.9)
Summit County Urban No 38.1 (36.1, 40.2) 65 (47, 76) 290 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.5, -2.8)
Trumbull County Urban No 44.8 (41.5, 48.3) 35 (18, 56) 145 falling falling trend -2.8 (-5.3, -1.7)
Tuscarawas County Rural No 39.4 (34.8, 44.6) 60 (23, 83) 55 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Union County Urban No 29.0 (23.4, 35.7) 84 (55, 88) 19 falling falling trend -5.8 (-16.2, -3.0)
Van Wert County Rural No 40.9 (32.7, 50.8) 52 (13, 86) 18 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.8)
Vinton County Rural No 65.3 (49.3, 85.5) 3 (1, 62) 12 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 1.0)
Warren County Urban No 34.8 (31.7, 38.0) 77 (53, 85) 101 falling falling trend -5.4 (-13.8, -2.5)
Washington County Rural No 45.6 (39.7, 52.4) 30 (10, 71) 44 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Wayne County Rural No 36.8 (32.7, 41.4) 69 (36, 84) 60 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.3, -1.9)
Williams County Rural No 37.3 (30.3, 45.6) 68 (21, 87) 21 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.7)
Wood County Urban No 34.8 (30.7, 39.2) 78 (44, 86) 55 falling falling trend -3.2 (-8.2, -2.0)
Wyandot County Rural No 40.2 (31.3, 51.4) 55 (12, 87) 14 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.4)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/13/2024 12:20 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