Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Oklahoma by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Recentaapc

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
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 ascending
Oklahoma N/A No 175.4 (173.7, 177.1) N/A 8,369 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.7)
United States N/A No 146.0 (145.8, 146.2) N/A 602,955 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.4)
Coal County Rural No 228.5 (183.5, 282.7) 7 (1, 66) 19 stable stable trend 15.6 (-0.1, 28.6)
Okfuskee County Rural No 256.6 (221.4, 296.4) 1 (1, 24) 39 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.6, 6.5)
Grant County Rural No 240.4 (186.4, 306.9) 2 (1, 67) 15 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.3, 2.0)
Major County Rural No 148.6 (117.1, 186.9) 71 (19, 76) 17 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.2, 1.8)
Jefferson County Rural No 237.9 (190.7, 294.5) 3 (1, 64) 19 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.2, 1.5)
Kiowa County Rural No 232.0 (193.7, 276.4) 5 (1, 51) 28 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.4, 1.3)
Caddo County Rural No 233.5 (210.4, 258.5) 4 (1, 28) 76 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.1)
Garvin County Rural No 229.0 (206.2, 253.7) 6 (1, 32) 77 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 0.9)
Atoka County Rural No 191.7 (164.5, 222.6) 32 (4, 70) 37 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.5, 1.2)
Love County Rural No 215.9 (181.7, 255.3) 13 (1, 62) 29 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.4, 1.1)
Harmon County Rural No 196.1 (131.7, 283.3) 27 (1, 76) 7 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.7, 2.0)
Seminole County Rural No 214.1 (191.7, 238.6) 14 (1, 44) 69 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.4)
Alfalfa County Rural No 181.8 (142.4, 230.3) 42 (2, 76) 15 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.1)
Cotton County Urban No 188.3 (147.9, 237.9) 37 (1, 76) 16 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.8)
Jackson County Rural No 177.8 (156.4, 201.5) 47 (11, 72) 51 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.5)
Marshall County Rural No 191.5 (167.2, 218.9) 33 (5, 68) 47 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6)
Blaine County Rural No 216.9 (180.4, 259.4) 12 (1, 65) 27 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Kay County Rural No 194.0 (178.4, 210.7) 29 (9, 56) 120 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.2)
Cherokee County Rural No 199.8 (183.8, 217.0) 23 (6, 52) 120 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.3)
Choctaw County Rural No 189.1 (163.2, 218.5) 36 (5, 70) 40 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.6)
Hughes County Rural No 192.5 (164.8, 224.0) 31 (4, 70) 35 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.5)
Nowata County Rural No 220.9 (186.7, 260.3) 9 (1, 58) 31 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.8)
Okmulgee County Urban No 200.9 (183.4, 219.8) 21 (6, 52) 101 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.2)
Washita County Rural No 163.0 (134.5, 196.2) 62 (14, 76) 24 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.7)
Custer County Rural No 166.8 (146.6, 189.1) 59 (24, 75) 51 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Kingfisher County Rural No 157.4 (132.7, 185.7) 67 (21, 76) 30 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Le Flore County Rural No 208.6 (192.8, 225.5) 15 (4, 43) 133 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.1)
Pottawatomie County Rural No 202.2 (189.0, 216.0) 19 (7, 45) 182 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.1)
Washington County Rural No 179.2 (165.6, 193.8) 44 (22, 66) 136 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.1)
Beckham County Rural No 190.9 (167.2, 217.1) 34 (6, 69) 48 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Creek County Urban No 197.3 (184.8, 210.4) 25 (10, 47) 193 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.6, -0.1)
Garfield County Urban No 170.6 (157.6, 184.5) 55 (32, 71) 133 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.0)
Greer County Rural No 178.8 (137.8, 229.4) 45 (2, 76) 13 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
Lincoln County Urban No 185.5 (168.3, 204.1) 40 (11, 66) 89 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.0)
McCurtain County Rural No 218.2 (197.8, 240.2) 11 (1, 39) 88 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.0)
McIntosh County Rural No 203.8 (181.9, 228.0) 17 (3, 56) 69 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.3)
Muskogee County Rural No 197.2 (183.8, 211.3) 26 (9, 50) 169 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.7, -0.1)
Payne County Rural No 177.1 (163.9, 191.2) 48 (23, 67) 137 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.0)
Pittsburg County Rural No 202.7 (187.1, 219.4) 18 (6, 48) 131 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.0)
Roger Mills County Rural No 162.2 (116.0, 223.4) 64 (2, 76) 9 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.2)
Sequoyah County Urban No 227.1 (209.1, 246.3) 8 (1, 26) 122 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Carter County Rural No 198.4 (182.7, 215.2) 24 (7, 51) 122 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.2)
Ellis County Rural No 139.6 (98.1, 195.2) 75 (11, 76) 8 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 0.8)
Haskell County Rural No 205.2 (175.3, 239.3) 16 (1, 65) 36 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.2)
Ottawa County Rural No 219.9 (199.5, 242.0) 10 (1, 37) 89 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.2)
Pushmataha County Rural No 201.5 (172.5, 235.0) 20 (2, 67) 37 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.4)
Harper County Rural No 170.4 (121.7, 235.1) 57 (1, 76) 8 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 0.8)
Mayes County Rural No 195.7 (178.8, 213.8) 28 (8, 55) 104 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Stephens County Rural No 189.7 (174.3, 206.2) 35 (12, 60) 121 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.9, -0.2)
Woods County Rural No 155.1 (123.6, 192.9) 68 (15, 76) 18 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.4)
Adair County Rural No 200.7 (175.8, 228.2) 22 (3, 64) 49 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
McClain County Urban No 178.2 (161.4, 196.3) 46 (18, 69) 86 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Osage County Urban No 165.9 (152.1, 180.8) 60 (35, 73) 114 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.3)
Pontotoc County Rural No 170.6 (154.3, 188.4) 56 (25, 73) 83 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Texas County Rural No 163.4 (138.8, 191.0) 61 (18, 76) 33 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Cleveland County Urban No 147.9 (141.9, 154.2) 72 (61, 75) 467 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Johnston County Rural No 193.2 (161.0, 230.4) 30 (2, 73) 27 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Noble County Rural No 175.1 (147.6, 206.8) 51 (9, 75) 30 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Oklahoma County Urban No 172.0 (168.0, 176.1) 52 (42, 62) 1,465 falling falling trend -0.8 (-0.9, -0.7)
Murray County Rural No 186.9 (160.8, 216.5) 38 (5, 71) 39 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Rogers County Urban No 168.0 (157.6, 178.8) 58 (37, 69) 203 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.5)
Canadian County Urban No 149.3 (140.8, 158.1) 70 (59, 75) 240 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Craig County Rural No 170.7 (146.1, 198.8) 54 (12, 75) 36 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.4)
Delaware County Rural No 161.7 (148.0, 176.6) 65 (38, 74) 114 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Pawnee County Urban No 185.2 (160.2, 213.4) 41 (7, 72) 41 falling falling trend -1.0 (-5.3, -0.3)
Comanche County Urban No 180.7 (170.1, 191.9) 43 (24, 62) 224 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.7, -0.8)
Dewey County Rural No 162.8 (120.8, 216.3) 63 (4, 76) 10 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.2)
Latimer County Rural No 175.9 (146.9, 209.9) 49 (7, 75) 27 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.2)
Logan County Urban No 152.4 (138.7, 167.3) 69 (47, 76) 95 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.6)
Tillman County Rural No 186.7 (150.8, 229.8) 39 (2, 75) 20 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1)
Wagoner County Urban No 145.9 (135.4, 157.0) 73 (59, 76) 150 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.6)
Bryan County Rural No 175.3 (160.3, 191.3) 50 (21, 69) 105 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Grady County Urban No 171.9 (158.0, 186.6) 53 (28, 70) 119 falling falling trend -1.4 (-7.3, -0.5)
Tulsa County Urban No 160.2 (156.1, 164.4) 66 (54, 70) 1,209 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.2)
Woodward County Rural No 145.7 (125.3, 168.6) 74 (40, 76) 37 falling falling trend -1.5 (-4.3, -0.6)
Beaver County Rural Yes 118.4 (86.3, 160.5) 76 (50, 76) 9 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -0.6)
Cimarron County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/04/2024 5:00 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.


Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).

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