Skip directly to searchSkip directly to the site navigationSkip directly to the page's main content

Health Indicator Report of Fair/poor health

Self-rated health (SRH) has been collected for many years on National Center for Health Statistics surveys and since 1993 on the state-based BRFSS. SRH is an independent predictor of important health outcomes including mortality, morbidity, and functional status. It is considered to be a reliable indicator of a person's perceived health and is a good global assessment of a person's well being.
Year19931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220230.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%Age-adjusted percentage of adultsFair or poor general health, Utah and U.S., 1993-2023UT Old MethodologyUS Old MethodologyUT New MethodologyUS New Methodology

Fair or poor general health, Utah and U.S., 1993-2023

 BRFSS Utah vs. U.S.YearAge-adjusted percentage of adultsLower 95% CIUpper 95% CI

UT Old Methodology

 1UT Old Methodology199312.6%10.9%14.4%
 1UT Old Methodology199412.2%10.5%13.9%
 1UT Old Methodology199513.2%11.6%14.9%
 1UT Old Methodology199612.2%10.7%13.7%
 1UT Old Methodology199711.9%10.3%13.5%
 1UT Old Methodology199811.6%10.1%13.0%
 1UT Old Methodology199911.0%9.6%12.4%
 1UT Old Methodology200012.3%10.7%13.8%
 1UT Old Methodology200110.8%9.5%12.0%
 1UT Old Methodology200211.9%10.7%13.2%
 1UT Old Methodology200312.3%10.9%13.6%
 1UT Old Methodology200413.7%12.6%14.8%
 1UT Old Methodology200514.5%13.3%15.7%
 1UT Old Methodology200614.2%13.0%15.4%
 1UT Old Methodology200711.9%10.9%13.0%
 1UT Old Methodology200811.7%10.7%12.7%
 1UT Old Methodology200911.6%10.9%12.4%
 1UT Old Methodology201012.5%11.7%13.4%
 1UT Old Methodology2011n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2012n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2013n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2014n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2015n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2016n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2017n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2018n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2019n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2020n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2021n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2022n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2023n/an/a

US Old Methodology

 2US Old Methodology199313.9%13.6%14.2%
 2US Old Methodology199414.2%13.9%14.6%
 2US Old Methodology199514.2%13.9%14.6%
 2US Old Methodology199614.4%14.1%14.7%
 2US Old Methodology199714.3%14.0%14.6%
 2US Old Methodology199814.7%14.4%15.0%
 2US Old Methodology199914.6%14.3%14.9%
 2US Old Methodology200015.3%15.0%15.6%
 2US Old Methodology200115.5%15.2%15.7%
 2US Old Methodology200215.9%15.6%16.1%
 2US Old Methodology200315.9%15.6%16.1%
 2US Old Methodology200416.2%15.9%16.5%
 2US Old Methodology200516.3%16.1%16.6%
 2US Old Methodology200616.0%15.8%16.3%
 2US Old Methodology200716.2%16.0%16.5%
 2US Old Methodology200815.9%15.6%16.1%
 2US Old Methodology200915.5%15.3%15.8%
 2US Old Methodology201015.5%15.3%15.7%
 2US Old Methodology2011n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2012n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2013n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2014n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2015n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2016n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2017n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2018n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2019n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2020n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2021n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2022n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2023n/an/a

UT New Methodology

 3UT New Methodology1993n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology1994n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology1995n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology1996n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology1997n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology1998n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology1999n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology2000n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology2001n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology2002n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology2003n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology2004n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology2005n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology2006n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology2007n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology2008n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology200913.2%12.3%14.0%
 3UT New Methodology201014.0%13.2%14.8%
 3UT New Methodology201114.3%13.5%15.1%
 3UT New Methodology201213.7%12.9%14.5%
 3UT New Methodology201313.1%12.4%13.9%
 3UT New Methodology201412.7%12.1%13.4%
 3UT New Methodology201512.9%12.2%13.7%
 3UT New Methodology201612.2%11.4%13.0%
 3UT New Methodology201713.9%13.1%14.8%
 3UT New Methodology201814.9%14.1%15.8%
 3UT New Methodology201914.7%13.9%15.6%
 3UT New Methodology202011.0%10.3%11.8%
 3UT New Methodology202112.7%11.9%13.6%
 3UT New Methodology202214.2%13.3%15.2%
 3UT New Methodology202314.5%13.6%15.4%

US New Methodology

 4US New Methodology1993n/an/a
 4US New Methodology1994n/an/a
 4US New Methodology1995n/an/a
 4US New Methodology1996n/an/a
 4US New Methodology1997n/an/a
 4US New Methodology1998n/an/a
 4US New Methodology1999n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2000n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2001n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2002n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2003n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2004n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2005n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2006n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2007n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2008n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2009n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2010n/an/a
 4US New Methodology201117.5%17.2%17.7%
 4US New Methodology201217.4%17.2%17.6%
 4US New Methodology201317.4%17.2%17.6%
 4US New Methodology201417.3%17.0%17.5%
 4US New Methodology201516.9%16.2%17.5%
 4US New Methodology201617.2%17.0%17.5%
 4US New Methodology201717.9%17.7%18.2%
 4US New Methodology201817.8%17.5%18.0%
 4US New Methodology201918.0%17.8%18.3%
 4US New Methodology202013.9%13.6%14.1%
 4US New Methodology202116.1%15.9%16.4%
 4US New Methodology202217.3%17.0%17.5%
 4US New Methodology202318.6%18.3%18.8%

Notes

Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 population. U.S. data are the average of all states and the District of Columbia; they do not include U.S. territories.

Starting in 2009, the BRFSS included both landline and cell phone respondent interviews along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. More details about these changes can be found at: https://ibis.utah.gov/ibisph-view/pdf/opha/resource/brfss/RakingImpact2011.pdf.

Note: At the time of this update, the BRFSS U.S. dataset did not include an age variable but did include five age categories up to age 80+ (vs. the typical weighting scheme that includes 85+). Comparisons with both weighting schemes were compared using Utah data, and the difference was about 1/100 of a percentage point.

Data Sources

Data Interpretation Issues

Question Text: "Would you say that in general your health is excellent, very good, good, fair or poor?"

Beginning in 2011, BRFSS data include both landline and cell phone respondent data along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. This methodology utilizes additional demographic information (such as education, race, and marital status) in the weighting procedure. Both of these methodology changes were implemented to account for an increased number of U.S. households without landline phones and an under-representation of certain demographic groups that were not well-represented in the sample. More details about these changes can be found at: https://ibis.utah.gov/ibisph-view/pdf/opha/resource/brfss/RakingImpact2011.pdf.

As with all surveys, some error results from nonresponse (e.g., refusal to participate in the survey or to answer specific questions), and measurement (e.g., social desirability or recall bias). Error was minimized by use of strict calling protocols, good questionnaire design, standardization of interviewer behavior, interviewer training, and frequent, on-site interviewer monitoring and supervision.

Definition

Percentage of adults aged 18 years and older who reported fair or poor general health.

Numerator

Number of survey respondents who reported fair or poor general health.

Denominator

Total number of survey respondents except those with missing, "Don't know/Not sure," and "Refused" responses.

Other Objectives

Fair/poor health is one of the population outcome indicators tracked by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services to measure success in ensuring its objective that "All Utahns have fair and equitable opportunities to be healthy and safe." https://dhhs.utah.gov/dhhs-performance-measures-hub/dhhs-scorecard/

How Are We Doing?

In 2023, approximately 14.5% (age-adjusted rate) of Utah adults aged 18 and older reported fair or poor general health status. In the same time period, 85.5% of Utah adults reported good, very good, or excellent general health status.

How Do We Compare With the U.S.?

Between the years 1993-2023, the proportion of adults who reported good or better health was significantly higher in Utah than for the U.S. as a whole (age-adjusted rates). These age-adjusted rates in 2023 were 85.5% in Utah compared to 81.4% in the U.S.

What Is Being Done?

The Utah Department of Health and Human Services, through many programs, works to prevent avoidable illness, injury, disability, and premature death; assure access to affordable, quality healthcare; and to promote healthy lifestyles.

Available Services

Utah Health Information Phone Numbers:

Check Your Health: 1-888-222-2542
Utah Tobacco Quit Line: 1-888-567-TRUTH (8788)
Utah Cancer Control Resource Line: 1-800-717-1811
Utah Medicaid Program Information 1-800-662-9651
Page Content Updated On 10/17/2024, Published on 10/22/2024
The information provided above is from the Utah Department of Health and Human Services IBIS-PH website (https://ibis.utah.gov/ibisph-view/). The information published on this website may be reproduced without permission. Please use the following citation: " Retrieved Fri, 10 January 2025 11:12:35 from Utah Department of Health and Human Services, Indicator-Based Information System for Public Health website: https://ibis.utah.gov/ibisph-view/ ".

Content updated: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:26:53 MDT