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), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Rate

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 descending
Oklahoma N/A No 150.3 (148.2, 152.5) N/A 3,872 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.3, -0.5)
United States N/A No 126.4 (126.2, 126.6) N/A 285,526 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
Cotton County Urban Yes 99.6 (63.0, 154.9) 75 (29, 75) 5 falling falling trend -14.5 (-32.9, -2.8)
Ellis County Rural Yes 103.3 (58.1, 177.3) 74 (7, 75) 3
*
*
Latimer County Rural Yes 109.6 (79.2, 150.3) 73 (29, 75) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 1.0)
Greer County Rural Yes 115.1 (70.3, 182.2) 72 (7, 75) 4 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.5)
Wagoner County Urban Yes 117.0 (104.1, 131.1) 71 (54, 75) 63 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Major County Rural Yes 119.8 (81.0, 172.5) 70 (12, 75) 7 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.6, 3.0)
Woodward County Rural No 123.3 (97.2, 154.7) 69 (30, 75) 16 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.9, -1.2)
Washita County Rural No 128.7 (93.9, 173.4) 68 (11, 75) 10 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.0, 1.4)
Canadian County Urban No 129.7 (119.1, 141.0) 67 (47, 72) 114 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Cleveland County Urban No 129.9 (122.3, 137.9) 66 (50, 71) 222 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Roger Mills County Rural No 130.5 (73.4, 220.9) 65 (1, 75) 3
*
*
Harper County Rural No 132.0 (76.7, 222.0) 64 (1, 75) 4
*
*
Kingfisher County Rural No 132.1 (101.1, 170.1) 63 (13, 75) 13 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.1)
Woods County Rural No 132.1 (93.1, 184.1) 62 (6, 75) 8 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.3)
Logan County Urban No 135.0 (117.3, 154.9) 61 (30, 74) 44 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.2)
Delaware County Rural No 135.2 (117.0, 155.9) 60 (28, 73) 46 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Bryan County Rural No 135.5 (117.7, 155.4) 59 (29, 73) 44 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Noble County Rural No 136.9 (103.4, 179.5) 58 (8, 75) 12 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 0.9)
Tulsa County Urban No 138.1 (133.0, 143.3) 57 (46, 66) 581 falling falling trend -1.3 (-3.5, -1.0)
Texas County Rural No 139.1 (108.4, 176.0) 56 (9, 75) 14 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Custer County Rural No 140.3 (114.8, 170.0) 55 (13, 74) 23 falling falling trend -15.2 (-25.0, -0.3)
Marshall County Rural No 141.9 (113.4, 176.6) 54 (11, 74) 18 stable stable trend -6.1 (-20.5, 0.4)
Pontotoc County Rural No 143.5 (123.1, 166.6) 53 (17, 72) 38 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.2)
Rogers County Urban No 144.1 (131.0, 158.2) 52 (29, 68) 92 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Pawnee County Urban No 146.2 (116.6, 182.1) 51 (7, 74) 18 falling falling trend -1.5 (-9.7, -0.1)
Garfield County Urban No 146.2 (129.6, 164.5) 50 (21, 69) 61 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.5)
Washington County Rural No 147.4 (130.4, 166.2) 49 (16, 69) 60 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Osage County Urban No 148.0 (129.9, 168.3) 48 (18, 70) 53 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.3)
Oklahoma County Urban No 148.9 (143.9, 154.0) 47 (35, 57) 703 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.8, -0.4)
Dewey County Rural No 149.5 (95.1, 227.8) 46 (1, 75) 5 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.5)
Lincoln County Urban No 151.3 (130.0, 175.6) 45 (12, 70) 38 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.7)
Craig County Rural No 152.4 (120.0, 192.0) 44 (4, 73) 17 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.8)
Grady County Urban No 152.7 (135.0, 172.3) 43 (15, 68) 56 stable stable trend -1.2 (-8.3, 0.2)
Comanche County Urban No 155.6 (142.2, 169.9) 42 (17, 60) 103 falling falling trend -1.2 (-5.7, -0.5)
Jackson County Rural No 158.7 (131.4, 190.3) 41 (5, 70) 25 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.1)
Beckham County Rural No 158.9 (129.2, 193.8) 40 (5, 71) 21 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.8)
McClain County Urban No 160.5 (138.9, 184.7) 39 (8, 66) 41 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.6)
Alfalfa County Rural No 161.6 (109.4, 236.9) 38 (1, 75) 6 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.3, 1.9)
Choctaw County Rural No 162.1 (129.6, 201.3) 37 (3, 72) 18 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.0, 1.1)
Seminole County Rural No 163.8 (137.0, 194.8) 36 (4, 68) 28 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.6)
Payne County Rural No 164.3 (146.6, 183.5) 35 (9, 59) 67 stable stable trend 1.9 (0.0, 8.5)
Atoka County Rural No 165.9 (129.9, 210.0) 34 (2, 72) 16 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.8, 1.7)
McIntosh County Rural No 166.3 (138.6, 199.0) 33 (3, 67) 29 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.1)
Stephens County Rural No 166.8 (146.8, 188.9) 32 (7, 61) 57 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.5)
Muskogee County Rural No 167.5 (150.8, 185.7) 31 (8, 55) 77 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.3)
Kay County Rural No 167.8 (147.8, 190.1) 30 (6, 59) 56 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.7)
Cherokee County Rural No 168.0 (147.9, 190.1) 29 (6, 59) 54 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6)
Pottawatomie County Rural No 168.5 (152.5, 185.9) 28 (8, 53) 84 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.3)
Pittsburg County Rural No 168.7 (149.0, 190.6) 27 (6, 58) 58 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.7)
Okmulgee County Urban No 169.4 (147.4, 194.1) 26 (5, 61) 46 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.6)
Nowata County Rural No 169.5 (129.2, 220.3) 25 (1, 72) 13 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.1, 1.6)
Johnston County Rural No 170.0 (128.1, 222.3) 24 (1, 73) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.0)
Creek County Urban No 173.0 (156.9, 190.4) 23 (6, 49) 90 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.5)
Le Flore County Rural No 173.4 (153.9, 194.9) 22 (5, 56) 60 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.4, 0.8)
Pushmataha County Rural No 174.3 (137.3, 220.3) 21 (1, 70) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.4)
Love County Rural No 174.7 (130.9, 229.5) 20 (1, 73) 11 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.4, 2.0)
Tillman County Rural No 175.1 (126.6, 238.3) 19 (1, 73) 9 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.0)
Murray County Rural No 175.5 (139.6, 218.8) 18 (1, 69) 18 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.2)
Mayes County Rural No 176.4 (154.3, 201.1) 17 (3, 56) 49 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.4)
Kiowa County Rural No 177.4 (131.6, 235.6) 16 (1, 72) 11 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.8, 2.4)
Carter County Rural No 178.0 (158.0, 200.0) 15 (3, 50) 60 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.4)
Hughes County Rural No 178.9 (141.6, 224.3) 14 (1, 69) 17 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.5, 1.5)
Adair County Rural No 186.0 (153.0, 224.4) 13 (1, 61) 23 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Ottawa County Rural No 188.2 (162.8, 216.8) 12 (2, 48) 42 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Okfuskee County Rural No 189.2 (145.1, 243.6) 11 (1, 70) 14 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.5, 1.3)
Haskell County Rural No 190.3 (150.4, 238.8) 10 (1, 63) 17 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 1.1)
Grant County Rural No 194.2 (122.8, 294.1) 9 (1, 75) 6 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.1, 3.6)
Coal County Rural No 196.4 (138.8, 273.2) 8 (1, 73) 8 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.5, 2.3)
Sequoyah County Urban No 198.7 (175.8, 224.0) 7 (1, 34) 57 stable stable trend 2.3 (-4.4, 12.3)
McCurtain County Rural No 201.4 (174.2, 231.9) 6 (1, 40) 42 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.5, 1.0)
Garvin County Rural No 205.6 (175.7, 239.5) 5 (1, 37) 36 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.2, 1.6)
Jefferson County Rural No 208.0 (148.8, 286.3) 4 (1, 69) 9 stable stable trend 1.5 (0.0, 3.0)
Blaine County Rural No 211.7 (161.4, 274.2) 3 (1, 64) 14 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.6, 1.7)
Caddo County Rural No 213.5 (182.8, 248.4) 2 (1, 32) 37 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.1, 1.8)
Harmon County Rural No 221.4 (122.7, 369.3) 1 (1, 75) 3 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.0, 3.9)
Beaver County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cimarron County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/08/2024 10:20 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