One-year and five-year net survival for adults (15-99) in England diagnosed with one of 29 common cancers, by age and sex.

Update 2 March 2023: Following the merger of NHS Digital and NHS England on 1st February 2023 we are reviewing the future presentation of the NHS Outcomes Framework indicators. As part of this review, the annual publication which was due to be released in March 2023 has been delayed. Further announcements about this dataset will be made on this page in due course. A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with any type of cancer in a year who are still alive five years after diagnosis. This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with any type of cancer. As of May 2020, please refer to the data tables published by Public Health England (PHE). This publication is released on an annual basis. A link to the PHE publications, within which the data is held, is available via the resource link below. On the publication page select the ‘Data Tables index of cancer survival 20xx to 20xx’. The data for this indicator is available by applying suitable filters to the dataset contained within the 'Data_Complete’ tab. Legacy unique identifier: P01735

A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with any type of cancer in a year who are still alive five years after diagnosis.

Purpose

This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with any type of cancer.

Current version updated: Feb-17

Next version due: Feb-18

A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with any type of cancer in a year who are still alive one year after diagnosis. Purpose This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with any type of cancer. Current version updated: Feb-17 Next version due: Feb-18

Cervical Cancer Risk Factors for Biopsy: This Dataset is Obtained from UCI Repository and kindly acknowledged! This file contains a List of Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer leading to a Biopsy Examination! About 11,000 new cases of invasive cervical cancer are diagnosed each year in the U.S. However, the number of new cervical cancer cases has been declining steadily over the past decades. Although it is the most preventable type of cancer, each year cervical cancer kills about 4,000 women in the U.S. and about 300,000 women worldwide. In the United States, cervical cancer mortality rates plunged by 74% from 1955 - 1992 thanks to increased screening and early detection with the Pap test. AGE Fifty percent of cervical cancer diagnoses occur in women ages 35 - 54, and about 20% occur in women over 65 years of age. The median age of diagnosis is 48 years. About 15% of women develop cervical cancer between the ages of 20 - 30. Cervical cancer is extremely rare in women younger than age 20. However, many young women become infected with multiple types of human papilloma virus, which then can increase their risk of getting cervical cancer in the future. Young women with early abnormal changes who do not have regular examinations are at high risk for localized cancer by the time they are age 40, and for invasive cancer by age 50. SOCIOECONOMIC AND ETHNIC FACTORS Although the rate of cervical cancer has declined among both Caucasian and African-American women over the past decades, it remains much more prevalent in African-Americans -- whose death rates are twice as high as Caucasian women. Hispanic American women have more than twice the risk of invasive cervical cancer as Caucasian women, also due to a lower rate of screening. These differences, however, are almost certainly due to social and economic differences. Numerous studies report that high poverty levels are linked with low screening rates. In addition, lack of health insurance, limited transportation, and language difficulties hinder a poor woman’s access to screening services. HIGH SEXUAL ACTIVITY Human papilloma virus (HPV) is the main risk factor for cervical cancer. In adults, the most important risk factor for HPV is sexual activity with an infected person. Women most at risk for cervical cancer are those with a history of multiple sexual partners, sexual intercourse at age 17 years or younger, or both. A woman who has never been sexually active has a very low risk for developing cervical cancer. Sexual activity with multiple partners increases the likelihood of many other sexually transmitted infections (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis).Studies have found an association between chlamydia and cervical cancer risk, including the possibility that chlamydia may prolong HPV infection. FAMILY HISTORY Women have a higher risk of cervical cancer if they have a first-degree relative (mother, sister) who has had cervical cancer. USE OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES Studies have reported a strong association between cervical cancer and long-term use of oral contraception (OC). Women who take birth control pills for more than 5 - 10 years appear to have a much higher risk HPV infection (up to four times higher) than those who do not use OCs. (Women taking OCs for fewer than 5 years do not have a significantly higher risk.) The reasons for this risk from OC use are not entirely clear. Women who use OCs may be less likely to use a diaphragm, condoms, or other methods that offer some protection against sexual transmitted diseases, including HPV. Some research also suggests that the hormones in OCs might help the virus enter the genetic material of cervical cells. HAVING MANY CHILDREN Studies indicate that having many children increases the risk for developing cervical cancer, particularly in women infected with HPV. SMOKING Smoking is associated with a higher risk for precancerous changes (dysplasia) in the cervix and for progression to invasive cervical cancer, especially for women infected with HPV. IMMUNOSUPPRESSION Women with weak immune systems, (such as those with HIV / AIDS), are more susceptible to acquiring HPV. Immunocompromised patients are also at higher risk for having cervical precancer develop rapidly into invasive cancer. DIETHYLSTILBESTROL (DES) From 1938 - 1971, diethylstilbestrol (DES), an estrogen-related drug, was widely prescribed to pregnant women to help prevent miscarriages. The daughters of these women face a higher risk for cervical cancer. DES is no longer prsecribed.

A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with any type of cancer in a year who are still alive five years after diagnosis. Purpose This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with any type of cancer. Current version updated: Feb-17 Next version due: Feb-18

A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with breast, lung or colorectal cancer in a year who are still alive one year after diagnosis.

ONS still publish survival percentages for individual types of cancers. These can be found at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cancer-unit/cancer-survival/cancer-survival-in-england--patients-diagnosed-2007-2011-and-followed-up-to-2012/index.html

A time series for one-year survival figures for breast, lung and colorectal cancer individually (previous NHS Outcomes Framework indicators 1.4.i, 1.4.iii and 1.4.v) is still published and can be found under the link 'Indicator data - previous methodology (.xls)' below.

Purpose

This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with breast, lung or colorectal cancer.

Current version updated: Feb-14

Next version due: To be confirmed

A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with any type of cancer in a year who are still alive one year after diagnosis. This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with any type of cancer. As of May 2020, please refer to the data tables published by Public Health England (PHE). This publication is released on an annual basis. A link to the PHE publications, within which the data is held, is available via the resource link below. On the publication page select the ‘Data Tables index of cancer survival 20xx to 20xx’. The data for this indicator is available by applying suitable filters to the dataset contained within the 'Data_Complete’ tab. Legacy unique identifier: P01734

One-year net survival for adults diagnosed with cancer (aged 15 - 99 years), 95% confidence intervals.

Current version updated: Mar-17

Next version due: Mar-18

Describe real-world epidemiology, treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) in France. Retrospective study including all adults with la/mUC diagnosis during January 2017 to December 2020 in the PMSI database. Annual prevalence and incidence ranged from 36.4 to 38.9 and 16.4 to 18.5 cases per 100,000 people, respectively. Of the 25,314 patients with incident la/mUC, 37.6% did not receive first-line systemic treatment. Of the 14,656 patients who started first-line systemic treatment, 66.6%, 22.5%, and 10.9% received 1, 2, and 3 lines of therapy, respectively. Annual per-patient costs in second-/third-line setting ranged from €8803 to €16,012. The substantial disease burden of la/mUC in France highlights the unmet need for new therapies. What is this article about? Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a type of cancer affecting the urinary system. It can spread to other parts of the body, described as locally advanced or metastatic (la/m). We used information from a French database recording hospitalizations in France to find out how many people have la/mUC, how many new cases develop each year, what treatments they receive, how many die in the hospital, and how much their care costs. What were the results? Based on database information, 37 to 39 of every 100,000 people have la/mUC and 17 to 19 of every 100,000 people are identified with a new case yearly. Slightly more than one-third of patients with la/mUC did not receive recommended treatment (chemotherapy) when first diagnosed. Chemotherapy was the most common treatment type for the first, second, or third treatment; checkpoint inhibitors (a unique treatment) became more commonly used as a second treatment over time. Yearly in-hospital death rates were high, ranging from 47.8% of patients who died within 1 year from diagnosis to 62.9% dying within 3 years. Yearly cost of care was high (costing €8803 to €16,012) in patients starting a second or third treatment. What do the results of the study mean? The study shows many patients may not be fit enough or choose not to receive treatment. Even those receiving treatment are at high risk for poor outcomes. The burden of la/mUC in France is high, underscoring the need for more therapies and better supportive care early in disease management.

This release summarises the survival of adults diagnosed with cancer in England between 2016 and 2020 and followed to 2021, and children diagnosed with cancer in England between 2002 and 2020 and followed to 2021. Adult cancer survival estimates are presented by age, deprivation, gender, stage at diagnosis, and geography.

1-year and 5-year age-standardised net survival (per cent) for men, women and all adults diagnosed with cancer of the lung: England, NHS Region, Clinical Senate, Area Team

A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with breast, lung or colorectal cancer in a year who are still alive five years after diagnosis. ONS still publish survival percentages for individual types of cancers. These can be found at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cancer-unit/cancer-survival/cancer-survival-in-england--patients-diagnosed-2007-2011-and-followed-up-to-2012/index.html A time series for five-year survival figures for breast, lung and colorectal cancer individually (previous NHS Outcomes Framework indicators 1.4.ii, 1.4.iv and 1.4.vi) is still published and can be found under the link 'Indicator data - previous methodology (.xls)' below. Purpose This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with breast, lung or colorectal cancer. Current version updated: May-14 Next version due: To be confirmed

MY-Health is a cross sectional study where a population-based sample of 5,500 adult cancer patients were be recruited for a mailed survey (with telephone follow-up of non-responders) to evaluate the equivalence of PROMIS measures across socio-demographic and clinical sub-groups. Patients diagnosed with any of seven cancers were eligible (female breast cancer, uterine and cervical cancers, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, non- small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma) to ensure a wide age range of adults (ages 21-84) with varying treatment experiences and potential symptoms. MY-Health focused on seven domains that are important to cancer outcomes and that are relevant to other chronic diseases: pain, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, fatigue, social function, and physical function. Since MY-Health is a “validation” study focusing on minorities and the underserved, racial/ethnic minorities drawn from 4 registries in 3 states (California, New Jersey, Louisiana) were oversampled Study Aims Use item-response theory (analysis of Differential Item Function (DIF)) to evaluate the measurement properties of PROMIS item banks across age and race/ethnic groups from a population-based sample of cancer patients. Evaluate the ability of PROMIS measures to detect differences in population-based patient outcomes across age, race-ethnicity, and cancer sub-groups defined by type, stage/severity, comorbidity, treatments, and disease phase (known-groups, construct validity). Evaluate the responsiveness of measures to detect clinically meaningful changes in selected health-related quality of life domains. To estimate cancer-specific population norms by patient age, severity, and other clinically important characteristics.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of obesity, inactivity and inactivity/obesity-related illnesses. Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.The analysis incorporates data relating to the following:Obesity/inactivity-related illnesses (asthma, cancer, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, depression, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, stroke and transient ischaemic attack)Excess weight in children and obesity in adults (combined)Inactivity in children and adults (combined)The analysis was designed with the intention that this dataset could be used to identify locations where investment could encourage greater levels of activity. In particular, it is hoped the dataset will be used to identify locations where the creation or improvement of accessible green/blue spaces and public engagement programmes could encourage greater levels of outdoor activity within the target population, and reduce the health issues associated with obesity and inactivity.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY1. Obesity/inactivity-related illnessesThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to:- Asthma (in persons of all ages)- Cancer (in persons of all ages)- Chronic kidney disease (in adults aged 18+)- Coronary heart disease (in persons of all ages)- Depression (in adults aged 18+)- Diabetes mellitus (in persons aged 17+)- Hypertension (in persons of all ages)- Stroke and transient ischaemic attack (in persons of all ages)This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.For each of the above illnesses, the percentage of each MSOA’s population with that illness was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of patients registered with each GP that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with each illness was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with each illness, within the relevant age range.For each illness, each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA predicted to have that illness, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to suffer from an illness, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that illness within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.The scores for each of the 8 illnesses were added together then converted to a relative score between 1 – 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best), to give an overall score for each MSOA: a score close to 1 would indicate that an area has high predicted levels of all obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, and these are areas where the local population could benefit the most from interventions to address those illnesses. A score close to 0 would indicate very low predicted levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses and therefore interventions might not be required.2. Excess weight in children and obesity in adults (combined)For each MSOA, the number and percentage of children in Reception and Year 6 with excess weight was combined with population data (up to age 17) to estimate the total number of children with excess weight.The first part of the analysis detailed in section 1 was used to estimate the number of adults with obesity in each MSOA, based on GP-level statistics.The percentage of each MSOA’s adult population (aged 18+) with obesity was estimated, using GP-level data (see section 1 above). This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of adult patients registered with each GP that are obeseThe estimated percentage of each MSOA’s adult population with obesity was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of adults in each MSOA with obesity.The estimated number of children with excess weight and adults with obesity were combined with population data, to give the total number and percentage of the population with excess weight.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have excess weight/obesityB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have excess weight/obesityAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA predicted to have excess weight/obesity, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to suffer from excess weight/obesity, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that excess weight/obesity within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.3. Inactivity in children and adultsFor each administrative district, the number of children and adults who are inactive was combined with population data to estimate the total number and percentage of the population that are inactive.Each district was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that district who are estimated to be inactiveB) the NUMBER of people within that district who are estimated to be inactiveAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the district predicted to be inactive, compared to other districts. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to be inactive, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that inactivity within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.Summary datasetAn average of the scores calculated in sections 1-3 was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer the score to 1, the greater the number and percentage of people suffering from obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses. I.e. these are areas where there are a large number of people (both children and adults) who are obese, inactive and suffer from obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, and where those people make up a large percentage of the local population. These are the locations where interventions could have the greatest health and wellbeing benefits for the local population.LIMITATIONS1. For data recorded at the GP practice level, data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England). Areas with data missing’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children, we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of

A measure of the number of adults diagnosed with breast, lung or colorectal cancer in a year who are still alive one year after diagnosis. ONS still publish survival percentages for individual types of cancers. These can be found at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cancer-unit/cancer-survival/cancer-survival-in-england--patients-diagnosed-2007-2011-and-followed-up-to-2012/index.html A time series for one-year survival figures for breast, lung and colorectal cancer individually (previous NHS Outcomes Framework indicators 1.4.i, 1.4.iii and 1.4.v) is still published and can be found under the link 'Indicator data - previous methodology (.xls)' below. Purpose This indicator attempts to capture the success of the NHS in preventing people from dying once they have been diagnosed with breast, lung or colorectal cancer. Current version updated: Feb-14 Next version due: To be confirmed

These data are being released in BETA version to facilitate early access to the study for research purposes. This collection has not been fully processed by NACDA or ICPSR at this time; the original materials provided by the principal investigator were minimally processed and converted to other file types for ease of use. As the study is further processed and given enhanced features by ICPSR, users will be able to access the updated versions of the study. Please report any data errors or problems to user support and we will work with you to resolve any data related issues. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted annually and sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the U.S. Public Health Service. The purpose of the NHIS is to obtain information about the amount and distribution of illness, its effects in terms of disability and chronic impairments, and the kinds of health services people receive across the United States population through the collection and analysis of data on a broad range of health topics. The redesigned NHIS questionnaire introduced in 1997 (see National Health Interview Survey, 1997 [ICPSR 2954]) consists of a core that remains largely unchanged from year to year, plus an assortment of supplements varying from year to year. The 2010 NHIS Core consists of three modules: Family, Sample Adult, and Sample Child. The datasets derived from these modules include Household Level, Family Level, Person Level, Injury/Poison Episode Level, Injury/Poison Verbatim Level, Sample Adult Level, and Sample Child level. The 2010 NHIS supplements consist of stand alone datasets for Cancer Level and Quality of Life data derived from the Sample Adult core and Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level derived from the Family core questionnaire. Additional supplementary questions can be found in the Sample Child dataset on the topics of cancer, immunization, mental health, and mental health services and in the Sample Adult dataset on the topics of epilepsy, immunization, and occupational health. Part 1, Household Level, contains data on type of living quarters, number of families in the household responding and not responding, and the month and year of the interview for each sampling unit. Parts 2-5 are based on the Family Core questionnaire. Part 2, Family Level, provides information on all family members with respect to family size, family structure, health status, limitation of daily activities, cognitive impairment, health conditions, doctor visits, hospital stays, health care access and utilization, employment, income, participation in government assistance programs, and basic demographic information. Part 3, Person Level, includes information on sex, age, race, marital status, education, family income, major activities, health status, health care costs, activity limits, and employment status. Parts 4 and 5, Injury/Poisoning Episode Level and Injury/Poisoning Verbatim Level, consist of questions about injuries and poisonings that resulted in medical consultations for any family members and contains information about the external cause and nature of the injury or poisoning episode and what the person was doing at the time of the injury or poisoning episode, in addition to the date and place of occurrence. A randomly-selected adult in each family was interviewed for Part 6, Sample Adult Level, regarding specific health issues, the relation between employment and health, health status, health care and doctor visits, limitation of daily activities, immunizations, and behaviors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Demographic information, including occupation and industry, also was collected. The respondents to Part 6 also completed Part 7, Cancer Level, which consists of a set of supplemental questions about diet and nutrition, physical activity, tobacco, cancer screening, genetic testing, family history, and survivorship. Part 8, Sample Child Level, provides information from an adult in the household on medical conditions of one child in the household, such as developmental or intellectual disabilities, respiratory problems, seizures, allergies, and use of special equipment like hearing aids, braces, or wheelchairs. Parts 9 through 13 comprise the additional Supplements and Paradata for the 2010 NHIS. Part 9, Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of physical activity with all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortalities among older adults. METHODS: A study sample consisting of 77,541 community-dwelling Taipei citizens aged >/= 65 years was selected based on data obtained from the government-sponsored Annual Geriatric Health Examination Program between 2006 and 2010. Subjects were asked how many times they had physical activity for >/= 30 min during the past 6 months. Mortality was determined by matching cohort identifications with national death files. RESULTS: Compared to subjects with no physical activity, those who had 1-2 times of physical activity per week had a decreased risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.77； 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71-0.85). Subjects with 3-5 times of physical activity per week had a further decreased risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.64； 95% CI: 0.58-0.70). An inverse dose-response relationship was observed between physical activity and all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality. According to stratified analyses, physical activity was associated with a decreased risk of mortality in most subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity had an inverse association with all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality among older adults. Furthermore, most elderly people can benefit from an active lifestyle.

This bulletin presents the latest one- and five-year age-standardised net survival estimates for adults (aged 15-99 years) diagnosed in England with one of the 21 most common cancers. These cancers comprise over 90% of all newly diagnosed cancers. Source agency: Office for National Statistics Designation: National Statistics Language: English Alternative title: Cancer survival rates

This dataset contains model-based Census tract level estimates for the PLACES project by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. It represents a first-of-its kind effort to release information uniformly on this large scale. Data sources used to generate these model-based estimates include Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2019 or 2018 data, Census Bureau 2010 population estimates, and American Community Survey (ACS) 2015–2019 or 2014–2018 estimates. The 2021 release uses 2019 BRFSS data for 22 measures and 2018 BRFSS data for 7 measures (all teeth lost, dental visits, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, core preventive services among older adults, and sleeping less than 7 hours a night). Seven measures are based on the 2018 BRFSS data because the relevant questions are only asked every other year in the BRFSS. This data only covers the health of adults (people 18 and over) in East Baton Rouge Parish. All estimates lie within a 95% confidence interval.