2011 Lake County Community Health Asessment

8/3/2019 2011 Lake County Community Health Asessment

1/136

The 2011 Lake County Community

Health Assessment

Developed by the Lake County General Health District

and made possible in part with funding from Lake Health.


2/136

2


3/136

33 Mill St. Painesville, Ohio 44077Painesville: (440) 350-2543

Cleveland: (440) 918-2543Madison: (440) 428-4348 Ext. 2543

www.lcghd.org

Frank Kellogg, R.S., M.P.H., Health Commissioner

September 2011

The Lake County General Health District continually seeks to provide efficient, cost-effective, and evidence basedservices to the residents and communities within Lake County. The declining economic environment over the lastseveral years has led to an increased number of residents unable to access health services and a decrease in manycommunity based agency resources necessary to meet these needs.

The purpose of the Lake County General Health Districts 2011 Community Health Assessment is three fold; (1) Itallows the Health District to meet the current needs of the community, based on actual data, by providing servicesrelevant to our residents, (2) It allows prevention programs to be better tailored to specific populations (i.e., people

ages 35-45 versus people ages 65 and older), and (3) It allows us to utilize the data in preparing for federal and stategrants to support critical services in Lake County. Furthermore, there is an inherent benefit to conducting onecommunity health assessment, developed by multiple stakeholders, so that questions and results may be shared withcountless community based agencies and political leaders to help each of them make informed decisions.

Community health assessments are invaluable tools at both the state and local levels. Conducting healthassessments is a core function of public health and is included in the newly developed national accreditationstandards (Public Health Accreditation Board or PHAB standards). The systematic collection and analysis of healthand health-related dataprovides a basis for decision-making; the partnershipsthat are built and strengthened byimplementing a collaborative health assessment process enhance the community, providing multiple perspectives onhealth status, health needs, community assets, resources, and other determinants of health status.

The 2011 Community Health Assessment was conducted randomly both on-line and in hard copy to Lake Countyresidents. The large sample size was purposely collected in order to maximize the depth of analysis allowing theHealth District to analyze many responses based on age, race, gender, economic income, and residency. Thenumber of potential variables is virtually limitless and would be extremely difficult to present in a functional manner.Therefore, the following areas were determined to be the critical data sets as identified by the Community Health

Assessment Advisory Committee and are identified in the introduction to each section. The Health District highlyencourages both private and public sectors to utilize the following information to help improve, create, and prioritizetheir programming in order to promote and provide services that will improve the health of our Lake County residentsand reduce healthcare costs in the long term.

The Lake County General Health District would like to extend its gratitude to all of the community agencies andprofessionals who donated their time and resources to make this assessment a success, as well as, the residents of

Lake County who took the time to complete the survey and helped to be part of our efforts to improve services withinLake County.

Questions, comments, and requests for additional copies of the 2011 Community Health Assessment may bedirected to the Lake County General Health District at (440) 350-2543 or by visitingwww.lcghd.org.

Sincerely,

Frank Kellogg, R.S., M.P.H.Health Commissioner

Lake CountyGeneral Health District
http://www.lcghd.org/http://www.lcghd.org/http://www.lcghd.org/http://www.lcghd.org/http://www.lcghd.org/http://www.lcghd.org/http://www.lcghd.org/


4/136


5/136

5

Submitted by

Jeff M Kretschmar, Ph.D.and

Thomas W. Brewer, Ph.D.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The 2011 Lake County Community Health Assessment .......................................................... 7

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 8Survey design and construction .................................................................................................................. 8

Online survey specifications ......................................................................................................................... 8

Participant Eligibility ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Data Entry ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

Data Analysis Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 9

Data Weighting ............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

Demographics ................................................................................................................................................. 11

Quality of Life .................................................................................................................................................. 20

Community Problems and Issues ............................................................................................................. 25Physical Health ............................................................................................................................................... 41

Mental Health .................................................................................................................................................. 57

Immunization Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 72

Prescription Medication Assessment ..................................................................................................... 75

Healthy Living ................................................................................................................................................. 79

Family Health .................................................................................................................................................. 92

Preparedness ................................................................................................................................................ 106

Personal Health Attitudes ......................................................................................................................... 110

Community Health ....................................................................................................................................... 114

References .......................................................................................................................................... 122

Appendix A ......................................................................................................................................... 123


6/136

6


7/136

7

THE 2011 LAKE COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

From October 2010 through January 2011, the Lake County General Health District, in

partnership with several local partners, conducted the 2011 Lake County Community

Health Assessment (LCCHA). The LCCHA was designed to gather important health-related

information from the residents of Lake County. The information collected allows

community agencies in Lake County to improve services by changing existing programs,

tailoring services to those most likely to need them, or creating new services or programs.

The participating agencies included:

Lake County General Health District Lake County Free Medical Clinic YMCA of Lake County Lake County Educational Service Center Lake County Catholic Charities Lake County Board of Developmental Disabilities Lake County United Way Lake County ADAMHS Board Lake County Department of Job and Family Services Mayors and Managers Association of Lake County Starting Point Lake County Council on Aging Family Planning Association Lake County Probate Court Lifeline, Inc. Lake Health System Lake County Juvenile Court

Lake-Geauga United Head Start, Inc.


8/136

8

METHODOLOGY

SURVEY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

The survey was designed to gather health-related information from Lake County residents.

Participating agencies submitted items for inclusion on the survey. Through an iterative

process, items were added, eliminated, and fine-tuned until there was consensus on a final

version. The final survey contained 72 questions, and depending on how the respondent

answered, there were often follow-up questions (111 total items).

The LCCHA was separated into the following sections: Demographics, Quality of Life,

Community Problems and Issues, Physical Health, Mental Health, Immunization

Assessment, Prescription Medication Assessment, Healthy Living, Family Health,

Preparedness, Personal Health Attitudes, and Community Health. While the majority of the

items asked respondents to select from one or more of the available options, there werealso several qualitative items.

The survey was administered face-to-face and online and was available in both English and

Spanish. Participant names were not associated with survey responses. Face-to-face

surveys were administered by two employees working with the Health District. The

employees canvassed populated areas in Lake County, including grocery stores, apartment

buildings, county agencies, churches, malls, school events, and libraries. Kiosks with

computers were set up in several Lake County agencies so that visitors to the agency could

complete the online version of the LCCHA.

Upon the completion of the survey, participants were asked if they wanted to be entered

into a drawing for one of several prizes, including a Nintendo Wii, iPod Shuffle, and a $50

gift card. If they wanted to be entered, they were asked to provide contact information in

the event they were chosen. This information was kept separately from their survey

responses for both face-to-face respondents and online respondents.

ONLINE SURVEY SPECIFICATIONS

The online version of the LCCHA was created using LimeSurvey, which is an open sourcemultifunction online survey tool. The software was hosted on an enterprise grade server

located in Columbus, Ohio. Backups were made of the data nightly to multiple, off-site,

locations which guarded against catastrophic failure. All communication between the

respondent computer and the server was encrypted using SSL (Secure Socket Layer)

technology. This is the same encryption protocol used by banks and other secure websites.

Although there was no identifying information supplied by respondents, we felt that the


9/136

9

personal nature of questions demanded the added security. This was also done to reassure

respondents that the information they supplied was kept secure and used for legitimate

purposes only. The survey software itself had multiple security features built in as added

protection.

A separate Structured Query Language database was kept on an independent server, whichalso used SSL encryption, to collect personal information for the purposes of the drawing

for the optional prizes. The identifying information was incapable of being connected in

any way to the substantive responses.

PARTICIPANT ELIGIBILITY

Participation in the LCCHA was limited to Lake County residents 18 years of age or older. If

face-to-face, potential respondents were first asked if they were Lake County residents and

at least 18 years of age. If the individual answered no to either question, the survey was

not administered. The first two items of the online survey asked the same age and

residency qualifying questions. Only positive responses allowed the participant to move on

to the remainder of the survey.

DATA ENTRY

Employees of the Lake County General Health District entered data collected from face-to-face interviews. Data entry trainings were provided by Drs. Kretschmar and Brewer.County employees were provided with a "back door" in the survey software where theycould directly enter paper surveys into the database. This access still performed logic,

error checking, and other auditing functions to help ensure accurate recording ofresponses.

Data from online surveys were stored in a separate database. Upon completion of the datacollection period, both databases were exported into separate Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences files and then merged to create one complete database.

DATA ANALYSIS PLAN

All data were analyzed using SPSS 18 and are presented in sections corresponding to those

found in the survey. When possible, we present frequencies of survey respondents who

endorsed the item. At times, the overall percentage of respondents is presented whileother times we present the percentage for different groups, such as males and females or

other demographic characteristics (we examined residency (east/west/central) and found

little or no effect for most items, and therefore do not present these data for most items).

When possible, we compared data from the LCCHA to two similar health assessments: the

Center for Disease Control and Preventions Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System


10/136

10

(BRFSS) (2009) and the Ohio Family Health Survey (OFHS) (2010). While the OFHS (2010)

reports specific Lake County information, the BRFSS reports data for the Cuyahoga-Elyria-

Mentor metropolitan area. This reporting area includes Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain,

and Medina counties and therefore direct comparisons to Lake County cannot be made.

Since we have data from only a single sample, it is likely that the proportions found in thesample data would be different if we conducted the survey multiple times. In order to

account for the variations in these proportions, we provide 95% confidence intervals

around percentages when possible (the BRFSS used 99% confidence intervals, so when

comparing LCCHA data to BFRSS data, we also use 99% confidence intervals). A confidence

interval provides a range of values that is likely to contain the population parameter of

interest, in this case, a proportion of respondents who endorsed a particular item. If we

were to take 100 random samples with a 95% confidence interval for each sample, then we

would expect that for 95 of the 100 samples (95%), the range of values produced by the

confidence interval procedure would include the true mean of the population. Although weonly had a single sample, the confidence intervals allow us to be confident that the true

population proportion is within the range provided.

DATA WEIGHTING

Many times, the demographic characteristics of survey respondents do not mirror those of

the population from which the sample was drawn. Data weighting is a valuable procedure

used to adjust for these differences. A data weight is a multiplier that makes a given

respondent's contribution larger or smaller to compensate for intended or unintended

disparities between the sample and the population.

In order to create data weights, it is necessary to have accurate information about the

population characteristics. For example, it is common in survey research that females are

overrepresented in the sample. That is, females may represent 50% of the population but

account for 65% of survey responses. If the data are not weighted to account for this

overrepresentation, conclusions drawn from the data will be inaccurate.

In order to create weights related to sex, we must know two pieces of information: the

proportion of males and females represented in the survey sample and the proportion of

males and females in the population of interest (e.g., city, county, state, etc.). Specificallyfor the LCCHA, we needed to know the proportion of males and females aged 18 and over.

For this report, these data were obtained from the American Community Survey (U.S.

Census, 2009). While preliminary data from the 2010 U.S. Census has been released,

detailed demographic information was not available at the time of analysis.


11/136

11

We examined several demographic characteristics of the sample and compared them to

data available for Lake County from the American Community Survey (2009). After

comparing the sample and population data, weights were created for sex, race, age, and

education level.

Weights were created separately and sequentially for each variable. That is, a weight wascreated for the variable for which the sample characteristic was most divergent from the

population data. In this case, that variable was sex. Once the sex weight was created, the

data were weighted using the sex weight variable and a frequency table was created for the

second-most divergent variable of interest (i.e. race). Once the race weight was created, we

multiplied the sex weight by the race weight and weighted the data by this new sex by

race weight. This process was repeated until all variables of interest were weighted once.

At that point, the data were weighted by the combined weight (composed of all four

weights) and the process started over. This process continued until the weighted

frequencies and the population frequencies remained constant. The resulting weight, orthe final weight, was used throughout this report.

RESULTS

DEMOGRAPHICS

The first section in the LCCHA contained 16 demographic questions. Because the data

presented in this section focus mainly on traditional demographic information related to

the sample (e.g. sex, age, race, etc.), most results are unweighted. Weighted data were used

throughout the remainder of the report.

2568 respondents participated in the 2011 LCCHA. Nearly three-quarters (73.8%, n =

1669) of the survey respondents were female while 26.2% (n = 593) were male (see Figure

1). According to the American Community Survey (ACS) (U.S. Census, 2009), females

(51.6%) slightly outnumbered males (48.4%) in Lake County. The average age of the

sample was 43.1 years old (n = 2237, SD = 14.75) and ranged between 18 and 93 years of

age. The ACS (2009) reported the average age in Lake County was 42.4 years, however this

estimate includes residents under 18 years old.


12/136

12

Figure 1

In Lake County, 93.8% of the residents were Caucasian, 3.1% were African American, and

3.1% identified as one of several other races, including Asian, American Indian, or consider

themselves multiracial (ACS, 2009). LCCHA survey respondents were primarily Caucasians

(90.8%, n = 1961) and African Americans (6.3%, n = 137) (see Figure 2). While 3.7% of

Lake County residents are Hispanic or Latino (of any race), 6.7% of survey respondents

identified as Hispanic or Latino. Slightly over 10% (n = 229) of survey respondent

reported speaking another language at home. Of those who spoke another language at

home, the majority (75%) spoke Spanish.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Female Male

73.8

26.2%

Sex of Survey Respondents


13/136

13

Figure 2

The majority of survey respondents were married (55.4%, n = 1232), single/never married

(22.4%, n = 499), or divorced (12.3%, n = 273) (see Figure 3). Similarly, the majority of

Lake County residents were married (51.2%), never married (28.3%), or divorced (11.8%).

When asked about the highest level of education attained, one-quarter (25.2%, n = 560) of

respondents selected high school diploma, 30.2% (n = 671) reported some college or

associates degree and 20.3% reported a Bachelors degree (see Figure 4). Over 11% of

respondents identified having a Masters, Doctoral, or Professional School (e.g. law school,

etc.) degree. The ACS used slightly different response options and provided estimates for

only those over 25 years old but in general, the survey sample reported slightly higher

educational attainment than the population estimates for Lake County.

0102030405060708090

10090.8

6.30.8 0.2 0.1 1.7

%

Race of Survey Respondents


14/136

14

Figure 3

Figure 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Married Single/never

married

Divorced Separated Domestic

partner

Widowed

55.4

22.4

12.3

3.4 2.4 4

%

Marital Status of Survey Respondents

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

6.6

25.2

6.6

30.2

20.3

9.1

1.3 0.8

%

Highest Level of Education Completed


15/136

15

Over 20% (n = 435) of the respondents reported a household income of less than $14999

(see Figure 5). The next most common income response category was $50,000 - $74,999

(18.3%, n = 395). Nearly 13% (n = 276) of respondents reported an annual household

income of over $100,000. While the ACS provides estimates of household income for Lake

County, the manner in which they gathered this information differed from the LCCHA,

therefore comparisons are challenging.

The ACS prompted respondents with several specific questions designed to ensure

participants recalled all types of income, including benefits, social security income,

unemployment income, and retirement income. The LCCHA simply asked participants to

select the option that best reflected their total household income before taxes. Without the

prompting questions, it is possible that LCCHA respondents did not think to include all

forms of income, including social security income, in their household income estimates.

Therefore, data from the survey respondents likely underestimated the actual household

income as measured by the ACS (2009). While 20% of survey respondents reported ahousehold income of less than $14,999, the 2009 ACS estimates that 9% of Lake County

residents had a household income of $14,999 or less.

Figure 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Lessthan$14999

$15 -$24999 $25 -$34999 $35 -$49999 $50 -$74999 $75 -$99999 $100 -$124999 $125 -$149999 Over$150000

20.2

13.6

11.2 11.8

18.3

12.1

6.7

3.3 2.7

%

Annual Household Income


16/136

16

Participants were asked to identify their employment status and could choose more than

one option. The majority of respondents were employed full-time (42.8%, n = 1068) or

part-time (16.2%, n = 404). Over 12% (n = 311) of LCCHA participants identified

themselves as unemployed (see Figure 6). Comparably, the 2009 ACS estimated that 7.8%

of Lake County residents were unemployed.

Figure 6

0

5

1015

20

25

30

35

40

4542.8

16.2

3.75.6

7.7 6.7

0.12.9

12.5

1.8

%

Employment Status


17/136

17

Nearly all (97.9%, n = 1221) of the respondents who completed the LCCHA online reported

they had access to the Internet for personal use. Over three-quarters (76.9%, n = 741) of

the participants who completed the paper version of the survey had access to the internet.

The most common uses of the internet were for communication (68.4%, n = 1756), news

(58.7%, n = 1508), and reading/recreation (55.7%, n = 1431) (see Figure 7).

Figure 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

34.9

58.7

30.6

68.4

55.7

%

Common Uses of the Internet


18/136

18

Participants were asked to identify their place of residence (see Table 1). Respondents

identified Mentor (16.7%), Painesville City (16.6%), and Painesville Township (10.0%)

most often, although 23 cities were represented.

Table 1

City Frequency

Concord 7.2% (n = 161)Eastlake 5.7% (n = 126)Fairport 2.2% (n = 49)Grand River 0.4% (n = 10)Kirtland 1.8% (n = 40)Kirtland Hills 0.2% (n = 5)Lakeline 0.1% (n = 1)Leroy Township 1.5% (n = 34)Madison Township 6.7% (n = 148)Madison Village 1.3% (n = 29)

Mentor 16.7% (n = 372)Mentor on the Lake 3.1% (n = 69)Painesville City 16.6% (n = 370)Painesville Township 10.0% (n = 223)Perry 5.2% (n = 116)North Perry 0.4% (n = 9)Perry Village 0.5% (n = 12)Timberlake 0.5% (n = 11)Waite Hill 0.1% (n = 3)Wickliffe 4.5% (n = 100)Willowick 4.4% (n = 98)Willoughby 8.6% (n = 192)

Willoughby Hills 2.1% (n = 46)Total 100% (n = 2224)

Nearly 4% (n = 84) of the survey sample reported being homeless at some point during the

past year (this number increased to 4.4% using the weighted dataset). Of those who

reported they were homeless in the past year, 33.7% (n = 28) were currently homeless. Of

those 28 participants, 18 provided information about where they slept the night before

they completed the survey. Slightly over 60% (n = 11) reported they slept at a friends

house, 22.2% (n = 4) slept outside, and 16.7% (n = 3) slept at a shelter.

Respondents were asked their height in inches and their weight in pounds. From this

information, we calculated Body Mass Index (BMI) using the standard formula: (weight in

pounds * 703) / height in inches2. The average BMI for the weighted sample was 28.4 (n =

1940, SD = 6.2). The range in BMI scores was between 13.8 and 56.1. The distribution of

BMI scores for the sample is found in Figure 8. According to the U.S. Department of Health


19/136

19

and Human Services, scores below 18.5 are considered underweight, 18.5 24.9 is

considered normal, 25 - 29.9 is considered overweight, and 30 and above is considered

obese. The BMI for LCCHA survey respondents and for comparable samples from the Ohio

Family Health Survey (OFHS) and the BRFSS are presented in Table 2. It is important to

note that the BRFSS data are not calculated for a single county, but for groups of contiguous

counties. Data from Lake County are combined with data from Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lorain,

and Medina counties.

Figure 8

Table 2

BRFSS 2009 OFHS 2010 LCCHA 2010

Neither overweightor obese

34.0%(30.2 37.7)

(n = 358)

33.9%(24.4 43.0)

(n = 58)

31.5%(28.8 34.2)

(n = 611)Overweight 37.1%(33.3 40.8)(n = 392)

32.1%(22.8 41.1)(n = 55)

33.8%(31.1 36.6)(n = 657)

Obese 29.0%(25.2 32.7)(n = 299)

34.0%23.9 42.4)(n = 57)

34.7%(31.9 37.4)(n = 672)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.2

4.8

26.5

33.8

21

9.3

2.51.1 0.6 0.1

6.5

27.4

32.1

21.8

9.2

0.8 0.31.9

%

BMI Score

BMI Scores

LCCHA

OFHS Lake County


20/136

20

QUALITY OF LIFE

This section contained 9 items that asked respondents about how they see certain parts of

life in Lake County. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with each of the 9

items on a five-point likert scale, with 1 corresponding to strongly disagree and 5

corresponding to strongly agree.

Over two-thirds of participants agree or strongly agree that the quality of health care in

Lake County is very good (see Figure 9), although slightly over one-third agree or strongly

agree that the cost of health care in Lake County is very good (see Figure 10). Over 60%

(CI: 60.1 65.1) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there are many options for

health care in Lake County (see Figure 11) and 67% (CI: 64.7 68.9) agreed or strongly

agreed that health care in Lake County is widely accessible (see Figure 12).

Over 80% (CI: 78.6 82.2) of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that Lake County is

a good place to raise children (see Figure 13) and 70% (CI: 68.1 72.2) agreed or stronglyagreed that Lake County is a good place to grow old (Figure 14). Slightly over 35% (CI:

33.0 37.3) agreed or strongly agreed that there is plenty of economic opportunity in Lake

County (Figure 15). Over 70% (CI: 70.1 74.8) of LCCHA respondents agreed or strongly

agreed that Lake County is a safe place to live (Figure 16) and over 60% (CI: 59.0 63.4)

agreed or strongly agreed that there is plenty of help for individuals and families during

times of need in Lake County (see Figure 17).

Figure 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

3.8 6.8

22.2

42

25.2

%

The quality of health care in Lake County is very good


21/136

21

Figure 10

Figure 11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3540

Stronglydisagree


8.4

16.3

38.6

27

9.6

%

The cost of health care in Lake County is very good

0

5

10

15

20

2530

35

40

Stronglydisagree


6.68.7

21.8

39

23.8

%

There are many options for health care in Lake County


22/136

22

Figure 12

Figure 13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4045

Stronglydisagree


5.9 7.4

19.9

40.6

26.2

%

Health care in Lake County is widely accessible

0

5

10

15

20

25

3035

40

45

Stronglydisagree


3.8 3.9

11.9

35.6

44.8

%

Lake County is a good place to raise children


23/136

23

Figure 14

Figure 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3540

Strongly

disagree


4.16

19.6

35.3 34.9

%

Lake County is a good place to grow old

0

5

10

15

20

25

3035

40

Stronglydisagree


11.4

16.5

37

24.9

10.3

%

There is plenty of economic opportunity in Lake County


24/136

24

Figure 16

Figure 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4045

Strongly

disagree


3.5 4.9

19.1

44

28.6

%

Lake County is a safe place to live

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Stronglydisagree


5.79

23.9

40.2

21.3

%

There is plenty of help for individuals and families during times ofneed in Lake County


25/136

25

COMMUNITY PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

This section contained three items that asked respondents to pick the five most important

health problems facing Lake County, the top five unhealthy behaviors facing Lake County,

and the top five community issues that have the greatest effect on the quality of life in Lake

County. Table 3 provides results for the most important health problems facing Lake

County. Over half (53.4%, CI: 51.1 55.6) of all respondents identified adult obesity as a

top health problem. In addition to adult obesity, participants selected drug addiction

(44.4%, CI: 42.2 46.7), mental health (42.2%, CI: 40.0 44.5), child obesity (42.2%, CI:

40.0 44.5), and aging problems (39.9%, CI: 37.7 42.2) as the five most important health

problems in Lake County (see also Table 4 through Table 7 for these data by demographic

groups).

Table 3

Most important health problems facingLake County

Frequency

Adult obesity 53.4% (n = 1003)Drug addiction 44.4% (n = 835)Mental health 42.2% (n = 794)Child obesity 42.2% (n = 793)Aging problems 39.9% (n = 751)Alcohol addiction 39.8% (n = 748)Heart disease/heart attacks 33.9% (n = 637)Cancer 31.7% (n = 597)Teenage pregnancy 24.0% (n = 451)Diabetes mellitus 20.0% (n = 376)Arthritis 14.1% (n = 266)Motor vehicle accidents 13.2% (n = 248)Dental health 12.1% (n = 228)Sexually transmitted diseases 8.8% (n = 165)Autism 7.8% (n = 147)Asthma 7.0% (n = 132)Lung disease 7.0% (n = 131)Child developmental delays 6.4% (n = 120)Stroke 5.5% (n = 104)

Infectious/contagious diseases 5.2% (n = 97)Other injuries 3.8% (n = 72)Neurological disorders 3.5% (n = 66)HIV/AIDS 2.8% (n = 52)Gun-related injuries 2.5% (n = 47)Infant death 1.9% (n = 36)Kidney disease 1.6% (n = 31)Birth defects 1.6% (n = 30)Liver disease 1.1% (n = 22)


26/136

26

Table 4

Most important healthproblems facing Lake County

18-35 years 36-53 years 54 years and over

Aging problems 15.8% (n = 77) 35.2% (n = 226) 59.7% (n = 448)Alcohol addiction 48.4% (n = 237) 45.1% (n = 289) 29.6% (n = 222)Arthritis 8.3% (n = 40) 8.1% (n = 52) 23.1% (n = 173)Asthma 8.9% (n = 43) 9.5% (n = 61) 3.7% (n = 28)Birth defects 2.5% (n = 12) 1.1% (n = 7) 1.5% (n = 11)Cancer 23.9% (n = 117) 30.9% (n = 198) 37.6% (n = 282)Dental Health 17.2% (n = 84) 12.6% (n = 81) 8.4% (n = 63)Diabetes mellitus 15.2% (n = 74) 18.5% (n = 119) 24.4% (n = 183)Drug addiction 50.5% (n = 247) 47.5% (n = 305) 37.7% (n = 283)Gun-related injuries 3.6% (n = 18) 1.9% (n = 12) 2.3% (n = 17)Heart disease 21.9% (n = 107) 31.6% (n = 203) 43.7% (n = 328)Autism 8.2% (n = 40) 8.4% (n = 54) 7.1% (n = 53)Infant death 5.8% (n = 28) 1.2% (n = 8) 0

Infectious/contagious diseases 6.6% (n = 32) 5.4% (n = 35) 4.0% (n = 30)Kidney disease 3.2% (n = 16) 1.3% (n = 9) 0.9% (n = 7)Liver disease 1.5% (n = 7) 1.6% (n = 10) 0.6% (n = 4)Mental health 45.0% (n = 220) 45.8% (n = 294) 37.4% (n = 280)Motor vehicle accidents 18.0% (n = 88) 12.0% (n = 77) 11.1% (n = 83)Neurological disorders 4.3% (n = 21) 2.2% (n = 14) 4.1% (n = 31)Other injuries 6.5% (n = 32) 2.8% (n = 18) 2.9% (n = 22)Adult obesity 48.0% (n = 235) 54.9% (n = 353) 55.5% (n = 416)Child obesity 43.5% (n = 213) 47.8% (n = 307) 36.5% (n = 273)Lung disease 5.7% (n = 28) 6.0% (n = 39) 8.6% (n = 64)Sexually transmitted diseases 17.7% (n = 87) 7.7% (n = 49) 3.8% (n = 29)HIV/AIDS 4.0% (n = 19) 3.0% (n = 19) 1.7% (n = 13)

Stroke 2.7% (n = 13) 4.8% (n = 31) 8.0% (n = 60)Teenage pregnancy 42.0% (n = 205) 20.9% (n = 134) 14.9% (n = 111)Child developmental delays 8.8% (n = 43) 8.3% (n = 53) 3.2% (n = 24)


27/136

27

Table 5


Caucasian AfricanAmerican

Other

Aging problems 41.1% (n = 723) 33.2% (n = 21) 12.0% (n = 7)Alcohol addiction 39.6% (n = 697) 47.6% (n = 30) 37.6% (n = 22)Arthritis 14.2% (n = 250) 16.1% (n = 10) 10.4% (n = 6)Asthma 6.6% (n = 115) 12.0% (n = 7) 15.8% (n = 9)Birth defects 1.6% (n = 28) 3.6% (n = 2) 0Cancer 32.4% (n = 570) 23.1% (n = 14) 21.7% (n = 12)Dental Health 10.9% (n = 192) 29.4% (n = 18) 31.6% (n = 18)Diabetes mellitus 19.4% (n = 341) 28.4% (n = 18) 30.0% (n = 17)Drug addiction 43.9% (n = 774) 51.3% (n = 32) 51.3% (n = 29)Gun-related injuries 2.3% (n = 41) 2.9% (n = 2) 6.9% (n = 4)Heart disease 34.7% (n = 661) 21.5% (n = 13) 22.1% (n = 13)Autism 8.0% (n = 141) 6.6% (n = 4) 4.4% (n = 3)Infant death 1.9% (n = 33) 2.9% (n = 2) 1.5% (n = 1)

Infectious/contagious diseases 4.7% (n = 82) 7.7% (n = 5) 18.0% (n = 10)Kidney disease 1.6% (n = 28) 2.4% (n = 2) 2.2% (n = 1)Liver disease 0.9% (n = 16) 5.9% (n = 4) 4.1% (n = 2)Mental health 42.3% (n = 745) 43.8% (n = 27) 39.1% (n = 22)Motor vehicle accidents 13.5% (n = 238) 4.5% (n = 3) 12.6% (n = 7)Neurological disorders 3.5% (n = 62) 5.7% (n = 4) 0Other injuries 3.8% (n = 67) 0 7.3% (n = 4)Adult obesity 54.0% (n = 950) 31.1% (n = 19) 58.8% (n = 34)Child obesity 42.8% (n = 754) 16.0% (n = 10) 51.4% (n = 29)Lung disease 7.2% (n = 126) 4.3% (n = 3) 3.9% (n = 2)Sexually transmitted diseases 8.1% (n = 143) 20.9% (n = 13) 15.1% (n = 9)HIV/AIDS 2.5% (n = 44) 3.8% (n = 2) 9.4% (n = 5)

Stroke 5.8% (n = 102) 2.5% (n = 2) 0Teenage pregnancy 23.7% (n = 417) 27.5% (n = 17) 28.2% (n = 16)Child developmental delays 6.5% (n = 114) 8.7% (n = 5) 1.9% (n = 1)


28/136

28

Table 6

Most important health problems facing Lake County Male Female

Aging problems 36.8% (n = 369) 35.4% (n = 382)Alcohol addiction 36.0% (n = 362) 35.9% (n = 386)Arthritis 14.5% (n = 146) 11.1% (n = 120)Asthma 6.7% (n = 67) 6.0% (n = 65)Birth defects 1.4% (n = 14) 1.5% (n = 16)Cancer 30.2% (n = 303) 27.2% (n = 293)Dental Health 11.9% (n = 120) 10.0% (n = 108)Diabetes mellitus 18.8% (n = 189) 17.3% (n = 187)Drug addiction 41.0% (n = 412) 39.3% (n = 423)Gun-related injuries 1.3% (n = 13) 3.2% (n = 34)Heart disease 35.2% (n = 353) 26.4% (n = 284)Autism 6.4% (n = 64) 7.7% (n = 83)Infant death 2.0% (n = 21) 1.4% (n = 15)Infectious/contagious diseases 2.5% (n = 25) 6.7% (n = 72)

Kidney disease 1.3% (n = 13) 1.6% (n = 18)Liver disease 1.5% (n = 15) 0.6% (n = 6)Mental health 33.4% (n = 335) 42.6% (n = 459)Motor vehicle accidents 11.4% (n = 114) 12.4% (n = 134)Neurological disorders 4.1% (n = 42) 2.3% (n = 25)Other injuries 2.2% (n = 22) 4.6% (n = 50)Adult obesity 46.7% (n = 469) 49.6% (n = 534)Child obesity 39.7% (n = 399) 36.6% (n = 395)Lung disease 7.3% (n = 74) 5.3% (n = 57)Sexually transmitted diseases 9.1% (n = 92) 6.8% (n = 73)HIV/AIDS 3.0% (n = 30) 2.0% (n = 21)Stroke 5.7% (n = 58) 4.3% (n = 46)

Teenage pregnancy 18.2% (n = 183) 24.9% (n = 268)Child developmental delays 4.6% (n = 46) 6.9% (n = 74)


29/136

29

Table 7


$0-$34,999 $35k-$74,999 $75k and above

Aging problems 27.2% (n = 246) 44.9% (n = 269) 42.9% (n = 206)Alcohol addiction 43.0% (n = 389) 29.4% (n = 176) 31.9% (n = 153)Arthritis 16.0% (n = 145) 11.3% (n = 68) 7.1% (n = 34)Asthma 6.4% (n = 58) 7.3% (n = 44) 5.0% (n = 24)Birth defects 1.7% (n = 16) 1.3% (n = 8) 1.3% (n = 6)Cancer 24.2% (n = 219) 28.3% (n = 170) 37.3% (n = 179)Dental Health 15.4% (n = 139) 9.2% (n = 55) 4.4% (n = 21)Diabetes mellitus 16.4% (n = 148) 19.2% (n = 115) 22.0% (n = 105)Drug addiction 44.6% (n = 404) 34.4% (n = 206) 41.0% (n = 197)Gun-related injuries 3.3% (n = 30) 1.2% (n = 7) 1.5% (n = 7)Heart disease 26.0% (n = 235) 33.2% (n = 198) 36.2% (n = 174)Autism 6.6% (n = 59) 8.2% (n = 49) 6.3% (n = 30)Infant death 3.2% (n = 29) 0.8% (n = 5) 0

Infectious/contagious diseases 6.0% (n = 54) 3.7% (n = 22) 3.6% (n = 17)Kidney disease 2.2% (n = 20) 0.9% (n = 5) 0,7% (n = 4)Liver disease 1.7% (n = 16) 0.5% (n = 3) 0.5% (n = 2)Mental health 37.4% (n = 339) 39.5% (n = 237) 42.1% (n = 202)Motor vehicle accidents 13.1% (n = 118) 12.2% (n = 73) 9.8% (n = 47)Neurological disorders 2.8% (n = 25) 4.7% (n = 28) 2.6% (n = 13)Other injuries 4.4% (n = 40) 2.7% (n = 16) 3.0% (n = 14)Adult obesity 41.7% (n = 377) 54.1% (n = 324) 56.0% (n = 269)Child obesity 30.5% (n = 276) 42.7% (n = 255) 47.1% (n = 226)Lung disease 6.5% (n = 59) 3.9% (n = 23) 8.6% (n = 41)Sexually transmitted diseases 11.5% (n = 104) 4.5% (n = 27) 5.4% (n = 26)HIV/AIDS 3.6% (n = 33) 1.9% (n = 12) 1.0% (n = 5)

Stroke 5.1% (n = 46) 8.1% (n = 48) 1.9% (n = 9)Teenage pregnancy 26.5% (n = 240) 20.3% (n = 121) 13.5% (n = 65)Child developmental delays 5.8% (n = 53) 5.1% (n = 30) 6.6% (n = 31)


30/136

30

The next item asked respondents to identify the top five unhealthy behaviors facing Lake

County (see Table 8 for overall data and Table 9 through Table 12 for data by demographic

group). Alcohol and drug abuse were by far the most commonly selected items, with over

60% (CI: 61.2 65.6 & CI: 61.0 65.4) of participants selecting these two options.

Rounding out the top five unhealthy behaviors were lack of exercise (46.7% CI: 44.5

49.0), poor eating habits (42.3%, CI: 40.1 44.5), and smoking/tobacco use (38.6%, CI:

36.4 40.8). Three out of the five top unhealthy behaviors were substance use-related

(alcohol, drugs, tobacco) while the remaining two items address lack of exercise and poor

eating habits. These data are consistent with the results from Table 3.

Table 8

Unhealthy behaviors facing Lake County Frequency

Alcohol abuse 63.4% (n = 1192)Drug abuse 63.2% (n = 1188)Lack of exercise 46.7% (n = 879)Poor eating habits 42.3% (n = 795)Smoking/tobacco use 38.6% (n = 726)Poor parenting 30.3% (n = 570)Domestic violence 28.7% (n = 539)Bullying 25.7% (n = 483)Not going to the doctor for yearly check-ups/screenings 24.9% (n = 469)Reckless/drunk driving 21.8% (n = 410)Having unprotected sex 21.1% (n = 397)Not going to a dentist for preventative check-ups/care 16.2% (n = 305)

Suicide 15.0% (n = 281)Violent behavior 11.6% (n = 218)Not using seat belts 11.4% (n = 213)Not getting immunizations to prevent disease 6.1% (n = 115)Not using child safety seats 5.8% (n = 110)Not getting prenatal care 3.3% (n = 62)


31/136

31

Table 9

Unhealthy behaviors facing LakeCounty

18-35 years 36-53 years 54 years andover

Alcohol abuse 62.6% (n = 306) 63.1% (n = 405) 64.1% (n = 481)Drug abuse 65.2% (n = 319) 60.6% (n = 389) 64.1% (n = 480)Lack of exercise 42.0% (n = 205) 50.2% (n = 322) 46.9% (n = 351)Poor eating habits 33.5% (n = 164) 44.7% (n = 287) 46.0% (n = 345)Smoking/tobacco use 34.8% (n = 170) 38.1% (n = 245) 41.6% (n = 311)Poor parenting 29.9% (n = 146) 33.1% (n = 212) 28.2% (n = 211)Domestic violence 29.8% (n = 146) 26.6% (n = 170) 29.7% (n = 223)Bullying 26.4% (n = 129) 28.2% (n = 181) 23.1% (n = 173)Not going to the doctor for yearlycheck-ups/screenings

21.1% (n = 103) 27.0% (n = 173) 25.7% (n = 192)

Reckless/drunk driving 21.6% (n = 106) 21.8% (n = 140) 21.9% (n = 164)Having unprotected sex 33.0% (n = 161) 19.7% (n = 126) 14.5% (n = 109)Not going to a dentist for

preventative check-ups/care

16.8% (n = 82) 17.9% (n = 115) 14.4% (n = 108)

Suicide 16.5% (n = 81) 16.0% (n = 102) 13.1% (n = 98)Violent behavior 12.5% (n = 61) 13.4% (n = 86) 9.5% (n = 71)Not using seat belts 16.2% (n = 79) 6.6% (n = 43) 12.2% (n = 92)Not getting immunizations toprevent disease

5.6% (n = 27) 5.0% (n = 32) 7.4% (n = 55)

Not using child safety seats 8.3% (n = 41) 7.5% (n = 48) 2.7% (n = 21)Not getting prenatal care 4.6% (n = 23) 3.2% (n = 21) 2.5% (n = 18)


32/136

32

Table 10

Unhealthy behaviors facingLake County


Other

Alcohol abuse 63.9% (n = 1125) 70.5% (n = 44) 40.1% (n = 23)Drug abuse 63.3% (n = 1114) 71.8% (n = 45) 52.2% (n = 30)Lack of exercise 47.6% (n = 839) 28.6% (n = 18) 39.3% (n = 23)Poor eating habits 42.4% (n = 747) 33.3% (n = 21) 48.4% (n = 28)Smoking/tobacco use 39.7% (n = 698) 31.7% (n = 20) 14.2% (n = 8)Poor parenting 30.4% (n = 536) 23.8% (n = 15) 32.7% (n = 19)Domestic violence 28.6% (n = 503) 37.4% (n = 23) 21.4% (n = 12)Bullying 26.0% (n = 458) 18.8% (n = 12) 22.1% (n = 13)Not going to the doctor foryearly check-ups/screenings

24.2% (n = 426) 35.6% (n =22) 35.5% (n = 20)



16.3% (n = 287) 13.7% (n = 8) 16.4% (n = 9)


5.6% (n = 98) 4.0% (n = 2) 24.6% (n = 14)



33/136

33

Table 11

Unhealthy behaviors facing Lake County Male Female

Alcohol abuse 60.1% (n = 604) 57.4% (n = 618)Drug abuse 59.2% (n = 594) 58.3% (n = 628)Lack of exercise 45.9% (n = 461) 40.5% (n = 436)Poor eating habits 42.9% (n = 430) 34.7% (n = 374)Smoking/tobacco use 39.5% (n = 396) 32.2% (n = 347)Poor parenting 28.1% (n = 282) 28.5% (n = 307)Domestic violence 27.0% (n = 271) 26.3% (n = 283)Bullying 20.9% (n = 210) 26.6% (n = 286)Not going to the doctor for yearly check-ups/screenings

25.9% (n = 260) 19.9% (n = 214)

Reckless/drunk driving 19.1% (n = 191) 22.2% (n = 239)Having unprotected sex 19.1% (n = 192) 20.8% (n = 224)Not going to a dentist for preventative check-ups/care

14.6% (n = 146) 15.5% (n = 167)

Suicide 11.5% (n = 115) 15.8% (n = 170)Violent behavior 10.3% (n = 103) 11.6% (n = 125)Not using seat belts 9.3% (n = 93) 12.4% (n = 134)Not getting immunizations to preventdisease

6.2% (n = 63) 5.3% (n = 57)

Not using child safety seats 3.6% (n = 36) 7.3% (n = 78)Not getting prenatal care 2.8% (n = 28) 3.2% (n = 34)


34/136

34

Table 12

Unhealthy behaviors facing LakeCounty

$0-$34,999 $35k-$74,999 $75k and above

Alcohol abuse 60.8% (n = 550) 57.9% (n = 347) 57.6% (n = 276)Drug abuse 63.0% (n = 570) 55.1% (n = 330) 57.1% (n = 274)Lack of exercise 33.4% (n = 302) 47.5% (n = 284) 56.3% (n = 270)Poor eating habits 30.9% (n = 280) 41.6% (n = 249) 49.4% (n = 237)Smoking/tobacco use 32.4% (n = 294) 34.7% (n = 208) 42.3% (n = 203)Poor parenting 25.4% (n = 229) 33.7% (n = 202) 29.8% (n = 143)Domestic violence 31.1% (n = 281) 23.6% (n = 142) 19.3% (n = 93)Bullying 24.8% (n = 224) 26.1% (n = 156) 21.4% (n = 103)Not going to the doctor for yearlycheck-ups/screenings

23.0% (n = 209) 19.9% (n = 214) 25.0% (n = 120)



19.5% (n = 177) 21.1% (n = 127) 8.5% (n = 41)


5.8% (n = 53) 4.5% (n = 27) 6.3% (n = 30)



35/136

35

The final item in this section asked respondents to select the top five community issues that

have the greatest effect on the quality of life in Lake County (see Table 13). By a large

margin, the most commonly identified community issue was unemployment (59.4%, CI:

57.2 61.6). Slightly more than 41% (CI: 39.5 43.9) of LCCHA participants identified

affordable health services as the second most important community issue affecting quality

of life. The remainder of the top five community issues included: low income/poverty

(39.2%, CI: 36.9 41.4), inadequate health insurance (32.0%, CI: 29.5 34.1), and

unsupervised youth/children (26.8%, CI: 24.8 28.8). Table 14 through Table 18 presents

these data by demographic groups.

Table 13

Community issues that have the greatest effect on

quality of life in Lake County

Frequency

Unemployment 59.4% (n = 1117)Affordable health services 41.7% (n= 784)Low income/poverty 39.2% (n = 736)Inadequate health insurance 32.0% (n = 601)Unsupervised youth/children 26.8% (n = 504)Immigration 25.9% (n = 486)Homelessness 22.7% (n = 426)Availability of positive teen activities 19.6% (n = 368)Domestic violence 19.5% (n = 367)Dropping out of school 18.5% (n = 348)Child abuse 16.3% (n = 307)

Availability of healthier food choices 13.1% (n = 246)Lack of transportation options 12.5% (n = 224)Availability of child care 12.2% (n = 230)Parenting support 11.3% (n = 213)Availability of healthy family activities 11.2% (n = 210)Racism 10.6% (n = 199)Violent crime 8.7% (n = 164)Pollution 8.3% (n = 156)Animal control 8.0% (n = 150)Elder abuse 6.8% (n = 128)Unsafe, un-maintained roads 6.4% (n = 121)Lack of recreational facilities 6.3% (n = 118)

Availability of Medicaid providers 5.4% (n = 101)Lack of health care providers 3.1% (n = 58)Lack of culturally appropriate health services 2.3% (n = 43)Bioterrorism 0.8% (n = 14)


36/136

36

Table 14

Community issues that havethe greatest effect on qualityof life in Lake County

18-35 years 36-53 years 54 years andover

Unemployment 56.1% (n = 274) 62.4% (n = 400) 59.1% (n = 443)Affordable health services 36.6% (n= 179) 40.6% (n= 260) 46.1% (n= 345)Low income/poverty 46.2% (n = 226) 44.6% (n = 286) 29.9% (n = 224)Inadequate health insurance 23.8% (n = 117) 30.8% (n = 197) 38.3% (n = 287)Unsupervised youth/children 28.9% (n = 141) 27.8% (n = 178) 24.6% (n = 184)Immigration 26.5% (n = 129) 25.0% (n = 161) 26.2% (n = 196)Homelessness 26.5% (n = 130) 23.6% (n = 152) 19.3% (n = 145)Availability of positive teenactivities

17.6% (n = 86) 23.8% (n = 153) 17.3% (n = 130)

Domestic violence 17.8% (n = 87) 16.8% (n = 108) 22.9% (n = 171)Dropping out of school 23.6% (n = 115) 12.4% (n = 80) 20.3% (n = 152)Child abuse 22.7% (n = 111) 12.5% (n = 80) 15.4% (n = 116)

Availability of healthier foodchoices 14.3% (n = 70) 16.3% (n = 105) 9.6% (n = 72)

Lack of transportationoptions

8.1% (n = 40) 11.4% (n = 73) 16.2% (n = 121)

Availability of child care 15.5% (n = 76) 11.0% (n = 71) 11.2% (n = 84)Parenting support 12.2% (n = 60) 12.8% (n = 82) 9.5% (n = 71)Availability of healthy familyactivities

14.1% (n = 69) 11.2% (n = 72) 9.2% (n = 69)

Racism 15.5% (n = 76) 11.4% (n = 73) 6.8% (n = 51)Violent crime 8.8% (n = 43) 11.0% (n = 71) 6.7% (n = 50)Pollution 9.6% (n = 47) 7.8% (n = 50) 7.8% (n = 59)Animal control 7.9% (n = 39) 6.6% (n = 42) 9.2% (n = 69)

Elder abuse 4.5% (n = 22) 4.7% (n = 30) 10.1% (n = 76)Unsafe, un-maintained roads 6.9% (n = 34) 5.6% (n = 36) 6.8% (n = 51)Lack of recreational facilities 9.4% (n = 46) 8.0% (n = 51) 2.7% (n = 20)Availability of Medicaidproviders

7.0% (n = 34) 4.0% (n = 26) 5.5% (n = 41)

Lack of health care providers 2.4% (n = 12) 2.6% (n = 17) 4.0% (n = 30)Lack of culturally appropriatehealth services

2.5% (n = 12) 2.1% (n = 13) 2.4% (n = 18)

Bioterrorism 0.6% (n = 3) 1.3% (n = 8) 0.4% (n = 3)


37/136

37

Table 15

Community issues that have thegreatest effect on quality of lifein Lake County


Other

Unemployment 60.5% (n = 1065) 44.8% (n = 28) 43.0% (n = 25)Affordable health services 42.2% (n= 744) 37.4% (n= 23) 30.8% (n= 18)Low income/poverty 39.3% (n = 693) 40.8% (n = 25) 31.6% (n = 18)Inadequate health insurance 32.0% (n = 564) 24.3% (n =15) 38.6% (n = 22)Unsupervised youth/children 27.4% (n = 483) 18.5% (n = 11) 16.2% (n = 9)Immigration 26.0% (n = 459) 17.3% (n = 11) 29.3% (n = 17)Homelessness 21.8% (n = 383) 46.4% (n = 29) 24.8% (n = 14)Availability of positive teenactivities

20.0% (n = 353) 21.2% (n = 13) 3.9% (n = 2)



Lack of transportation options 12.7% (n = 224) 10.1% (n = 6) 8.0% (n = 5)Availability of child care 11.9% (n = 209) 19.6% (n = 12) 15.1% (n = 9)Parenting support 11.7% (n = 205) 6.3% (n = 4) 6.3% (n = 4)Availability of healthy familyactivities

11.4% (n = 200) 5.6% (n = 3) 10.5% (n = 6)

Racism 9.3% (n = 163) 28.2% (n = 17) 33.1% (n = 19)Violent crime 8.9% (n = 157) 3.7% (n = 2) 8.3% (n = 5)Pollution 8.4% (n = 147) 5.8% (n = 4) 7.9% (n = 5)Animal control 7.0% (n = 124) 20.6% (n = 13) 22.2% (n =13)Elder abuse 6.9% (n = 122) 7.1% (n = 4) 3.4% (n = 2)

Unsafe, un-maintained roads 6.1% (n = 107) 11.6% (n = 7) 10.9% (n = 6)Lack of recreational facilities 5.9% (n = 104) 14.1% (n = 9) 9.2% (n = 5)Availability of Medicaidproviders

5.4% (n = 96) 3.5% (n = 2) 5.9% (n = 3)


2.2% (n = 38) 3.6% (n = 2) 4.7% (n = 3)



38/136

38

Table 16

Community issues that have the greatest effecton quality of life in Lake County

Male Female

Unemployment 54.5% (n = 547) 55.5% (n = 598)Affordable health services 40.5% (n= 407) 37.0% (n= 399)Low income/poverty 33.9% (n = 340) 39.1% (n = 421)Inadequate health insurance 29.5% (n = 296) 29.7% (n = 319)Unsupervised youth/children 25.4% (n = 255) 24.7% (n = 266)Immigration 29.0% (n = 291) 19.2% (n = 206)Homelessness 19.8% (n = 199) 22.1% (n = 238)Availability of positive teen activities 16.0% (n = 161) 19.9% (n = 214)Domestic violence 19.5% (n = 196) 16.6% (n = 179)Dropping out of school 18.0% (n = 181) 16.5% (n = 178)Child abuse 14.2% (n = 143) 15.9% (n = 171)Availability of healthier food choices 12.1% (n = 121) 12.0% (n = 129)Lack of transportation options 8.5% (n = 86) 14.1% (n = 151)

Availability of child care 9.9% (n = 99) 12.7% (n = 137)Parenting support 9.2% (n = 92) 11.7% (n = 126)Availability of healthy family activities 10.4% (n = 105) 10.3% (n = 111)Racism 12.4% (n = 125) 7.8% (n = 84)Violent crime 8.6% (n = 86) 7.8% (n = 84)Pollution 7.7% (n = 78) 7.6% (n = 82)Animal control 8.8% (n = 88) 6.1% (n = 66)Elder abuse 7.3% (n = 74) 5.0% (n = 54)Unsafe, un-maintained roads 6.8% (n = 69) 5.1% (n = 55)Lack of recreational facilities 5.7% (n = 57) 6.0% (n = 64)Availability of Medicaid providers 4.2% (n = 42) 5.9% (n = 64)Lack of health care providers 2.6% (n = 27) 3.0% (n = 33)

Lack of culturally appropriate health services 2.4% (n = 24) 2.1% (n = 22)Bioterrorism 1.1% (n = 11) 0.4% (n = 5)


39/136

39

Table 17

Community issues that havethe greatest effect onquality of life in LakeCounty

East Central West

Unemployment 58.8% (n = 142) 60.5% (n = 617) 59.4% (n = 346)Affordable health services 41.7% (n= 100) 41.9% (n= 428) 41.5% (n= 242)Low income/poverty 42.7% (n = 103) 40.6% (n = 415) 35.1% (n = 204)Inadequate healthinsurance

42.4% (n = 102) 29.0% (n =296) 32.8% (n = 191)

Unsupervisedyouth/children

30.9% (n = 74) 25.0% (n = 255) 28.7% (n = 167)

Immigration 27.2% (n = 65) 29.2% (n = 298) 19.6% (n = 114)Homelessness 19.1% (n = 46) 27.9% (n = 285) 14.3% (n = 83)Availability of positive teenactivities

19.4% (n = 47) 21.0% (n = 214) 17.9% (n = 105)

Domestic violence 16.4% (n = 40) 18.7% (n = 190) 22.6% (n = 132)Dropping out of school 10.7% (n = 26) 19.9% (n = 203) 20.2% (n = 118)Child abuse 14.2% (n = 34) 14.5% (n = 148) 20.7% (n = 120)Availability of healthierfood choices

10.0% (n = 24) 13.1% (n = 134) 14.4% (n = 84)

Lack of transportationoptions

17.1% (n = 41) 13.0% (n = 133) 9.6% (n = 56)

Availability of child care 15.6% (n = 38) 11.6% (n = 118) 12.2% (n = 71)Parenting support 14.4% (n = 35) 11.1% (n = 113) 10.3% (n = 60)Availability of healthyfamily activities

12.9% (n = 31) 10.4% (n = 106) 12.2% (n = 71)

Racism 7.7% (n = 19) 12.1% (n = 124) 9.2% (n = 54)

Violent crime 10.4% (n = 25) 8.2% (n = 84) 8.8% (n = 51)Pollution 9.8% (n = 24) 7.7% (n = 78) 9.1% (n = 53)Animal control 5.0% (n = 12) 7.6% (n = 78) 9.7% (n =57)Elder abuse 3.2% (n = 8) 6.0% (n = 61) 10.0% (n = 58)Unsafe, un-maintainedroads

4.2% (n = 10) 5.1% (n = 52) 8.7% (n = 51)

Lack of recreationalfacilities

9.8% (n = 24) 7.0% (n = 72) 3.6% (n = 21)

Availability of Medicaidproviders

11.1% (n = 27) 4.1% (n = 42) 5.4% (n = 32)

Lack of health careproviders

4.1% (n = 10) 2.4% (n = 24) 3.4% (n = 20)

Lack of culturallyappropriate health services

1.2% (n = 3) 2.1% (n = 22) 3.2% (n = 19)



40/136

40

Table 18

Community issues that have thegreatest effect on quality of lifein Lake County

$0-$34,999 $35k-$74,999 $75k and above

Unemployment 53.2% (n = 481) 56.8% (n = 340) 55.2% (n = 265)Affordable health services 37.5% (n= 340) 40.5% (n= 242) 40.1% (n= 193)Low income/poverty 41.4% (n = 375) 34.7% (n = 208) 30.2% (n = 145)Inadequate health insurance 29.3% (n = 265) 32.2% (n = 193) 28.4% (n = 136)Unsupervised youth/children 22.2% (n = 201) 28.8% (n = 172) 28.0% (n = 135)Immigration 23.0% (n = 208) 24.7% (n = 148) 27.0% (n = 129)Homelessness 29.2% (n = 264) 15.0% (n = 90) 13.5% (n = 65)Availability of positive teenactivities

13.6% (n = 123) 23.2% (n = 139) 21.5% (n = 103)



Lack of transportation options 11.9% (n = 108) 11.6% (n = 69) 10.5% (n = 50)Availability of child care 12.2% (n = 110) 9.4% (n = 57) 11.3% (n = 54)Parenting support 9.6% (n = 87) 10.2% (n = 61) 13.2% (n = 63)Availability of healthy familyactivities

9.8% (n = 89) 8.9% (n = 53) 14.2% (n = 68)

Racism 12.7% (n = 114) 6.6% (n = 40) 9.5% (n = 46)Violent crime 10.1% (n = 91) 6.4% (n = 38) 7.4% (n = 36)Pollution 7.1% (n = 64) 7.6% (n = 82) 9.9% (n = 47)Animal control 10.9% (n = 98) 6.5% (n = 39) 3.2% (n = 15)Elder abuse 5.8% (n = 53) 7.0% (n = 42) 6.4% (n = 31)

Unsafe, un-maintained roads 6.9% (n = 62) 4.9% (n = 30) 5.9% (n = 28)Lack of recreational facilities 6.3% (n = 57) 4.5% (n = 27) 7.4% (n = 36)Availability of Medicaidproviders

6.7% (n = 61) 4.3% (n = 26) 3.8% (n = 18)


2.3% (n = 20) 1.8% (n = 11) 1.7% (n = 8)



41/136

41

PHYSICAL HEALTH

The physical health section asked questions related to general health, medical and dental

insurance coverage, barriers to health care, and the types of health care participants have

accessed. When possible, comparison data from the BRFSS and OFHS are provided.

Participants were asked about their general health on a five-point likert scale (see Figure

18). Over two-thirds of respondents reported that their general health was either very

healthy (15.0%, CI: 13.4 16.6) or healthy (48.3%, CI: 46.0 50.5) and nearly one-third

reported that they were somewhat healthy (30.5%, CI: 28.4 32.5). The BRFSS and OFHS

use slightly different response options, so direct comparisons are not possible. Figure 19

displays the general health data for both the BRFSS and OFHS.

Figure 18

0

5

1015

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Very healthy Healthy Somewhat healthy

Unhealthy Very unhealthy

15

48.3

30.5

5.9

0.4

%

General Health


42/136

42

Figure 19

When asked about health insurance, 86.9% (n = 1668, CI: 85.4 88.4) of respondents

reported having coverage (see Figure 20). Data from the 2009 BRFSS estimated that 90.4%

of residents had health insurance while the OFHS estimated that 89.2% of Lake County

residents had health insurance. More Caucasian females (90.0%, CI: 88.1 91.9) reported

having health insurance than any other group. While over 84% of Caucasian females,

Caucasian males, and non-Caucasian females reported having health insurance, only 67.8%

(CI: 58.0 77.6) of non-Caucasian males had health insurance (see Figure 21).

Figure 20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

18.8

39.7

27

11.6

2.8

23.1

29.831.2

11

4.8

%

General Health from the BRFSS and OFHS

BRFSS

OFHS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

86.9

13.1

%

Do you have health insurance?


43/136

43

Figure 21

Of those who had insurance, over half the respondents had private insurance provided

either through their employer (45.3%, CI: 42.9 47.7) or another entity (6.3%, CI: 5.1

7.5) (see Figure 22). Over 20% (CI: 19.7 23.8) reported insurance through Medicare and

another 13.7% (CI: 12.0 15.3) identified their insurance as Medicaid. Nearly 70% (69.1%,

CI: 66.9 71.4) of those with health insurance reported that dental insurance was included

in their insurance plan.

Figure 22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

CaucasianFemales

Non-CaucasianFemales

Caucasian Males Non-CaucasianMales

9084.4 85.5

67.8

1015.6 14.5

32.2%

Do you have health insurance?

Yes

No

05

101520253035404550

13.7

21.7

45.3

6.31.3

7.611

0.6

%

What type of insurance do you have?


44/136

44

Nearly 83% (CI: 80.8 84.2) of participants reported having a primary care physician (see

Figure 23). Those without a primary care physician were asked to identify the reasons

they did not have one (see Figure 24). Of the 208 individuals who provided an answer,

57.2% (CI: 50.5 63.9) reported they had no primary care physician because they did not

have insurance. Nearly 20% (CI: 13.9 24.6) stated they did not know where to go, and

nearly 13% (CI: 8.4 17.6) reported the share of the cost was too high. Table 19 presents

these data by demographic groups.

Figure 23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

82.5

17.5

%

Do you have a primary care physician?


45/136

45

Table 19

Do you have a primary care physician? Yes

Age18-35 years 67.0% (n = 334)36-53 years 81.1% (n = 526)

54 years and over 94.2% (n = 43)

RaceCaucasian 84.0% (n = 1492)

African American 70.0% (n = 42)Other 47.4% (n = 25)

SexMale 78.8% (n = 717)

Female 86.0% (n = 843)

ResidencyEast 86.8% (n = 211)Central 78.5% (n = 801)

West 87.1% (n = 518)

Household income*$0-$34,999 71.1% (n = 590)

$35k-$74,999 90.4% (n = 495)$75k and above 93.6% (n = 405)

Figure 24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Share ofcost too

high

Wouldn'ttake

insurance

Didn'tknow

where togo

Significantwait

Don't haveinsurance

No way toget there

Couldn'tget appt

13

4.3

19.2

2.4

57.2

2.9 1

%

Why do you not have a primary care physician?


46/136

46

Participants were asked where they get most of their health and illness-related information

or advice (see Figure 25). Over half of respondents got their information from health care

providers (55.3%, CI: 52.9 57.6), 16.3% (CI: 14.5 18.0) from the internet, and 15.2% (CI:

14.5 18.0) from family and friends. Just over 4% got their information from books (4.3%,

CI: 3.3 5.2) or the hospital (4.1%, CI: 3.1 5.0). Table 20 and Table 21display these data

by demographic groups.

Figure 25

Table 20

Caucasian African American Other

Family and friends 14.7% (n = 239) 17.7% (n = 10) 27.0% (n = 15)Health care provider 56.2% (n = 911) 48.0% (n = 26) 37.3% (n = 21)Internet 16.9% (n = 274) 6.6% (n = 4) 7.0% (n = 4)Pharmacist 1.8% (n = 29) 2.0% (n = 1) 10.8% (n = 6)Health Department 1.1% (n = 18) 4.2% (n = 2) 9.5% (n = 5)Help lines 0.1% (n = 2) 0 0Books/magazines 4.3% (n = 69) 6.3% (n = 3) 2.1% (n = 1)Complimentary medicineprovider

0.6% (n = 10) 0 0

Hospital 3.7% (n = 60) 12.8% (n = 7) 5.2% (n = 3)School 0.5% (n = 8) 0 0Church 0 1.8% (n = 1) 1.1% (n = 1)

0

10

2030

40

50

60

15.2

55.3

16.3

2.1 1.5 0.14.3

0.64.1

0.5 0.1

%

Where do you get most of your health and illness-relatedinformation?


47/136

47

Table 21

$0-$34,999 $35k-$74,999 $75k and above

Family and friends 20.4% (n = 151) 10.7% (n = 55) 11.1% (n = 45)Health care provider 43.8% (n = 323) 63.8% (n = 328) 64.8% (n = 266)Internet 14.9% (n = 110) 16.5% (n = 85) 18.5% (n = 76)Pharmacist 4.2% (n = 31) 0.3% (n = 2) 0.6% (n = 2)Health Department 2.6% (n = 19) 0.8% (n = 4) 0.3% (n = 1)Help lines 0.2% (n = 1) 0.1% (n = 1) 0Books/magazines 4.6% (n = 34) 4.8% (n = 25) 3.4% (n = 14)Complimentary medicineprovider

1.0% (n = 7) 0.3% (n = 2) 0.2% (n = 1)

Hospital 7.2% (n = 53) 2.4% (n = 12) 0.9% (n = 4)School 0.9% (n = 7) 0.2% (n = 1) 0Church 0.2% (n = 2) 0 0.2% (n = 1)

The next item asked respondents to identify where they go most often when they are sick

(see Figure 26). The vast majority of participants went to a doctor (72.4%, CI: 70.4 74.5),

a medical clinic (9.9%, CI: 8.5 11.3), or an urgent care center (7.7, CI: 6.4 8.9).

Figure 26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 72.4

3.7 1.37.7

1 1.99.9

0.2 2

%

Where do you go most often when you are sick?


48/136

48

Over one-quarter (CI: 24.5 30.1) of females reported that they had been pregnant with an

unexpected pregnancy (see Figure 27). Table 22 presents these data by demographic

group.

Figure 27

Table 22

Have you ever been pregnant with an

unexpected pregnancy?

Yes




African American 31.0% (n =9)Other 28.1% (n = 9)

Household income

$0-$34,999 33.9% (n = 179)$35k-$74,999 23.9% (n = 74)

$75k and above 15.4% (n = 30)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yes No

27.2

72.6

%

Have you ever been pregnant with an unexpected pregnancy?


49/136

49

Just over 18% (CI: 16.5 20.0) of participants reported having problems getting the health

care that they or a family member needed in the past 12 months. Of those who had

problems accessing health care, 33.6% (CI: 28.8 38.7) said the problems were caused by a

lack of health insurance and 31.0% (CI: 26.0 35.7) reported that insurance did not cover

what was needed (see Figure 28). Nearly 27% (CI: 22.1 31.5) said that they could not

afford the medication prescribed and 21.9% (CI: 17.6 26.3) reported that the share of the

cost was too high. Table 23 presents these data by demographic groups and Table 24

displays barriers to health care based on insurance type.

Table 23

In the past 12 months, have you had a problemgetting the healthcare you needed for you or a

family member?

Yes





Household income

$0-$34,999 26.1% (n = 222)$35k-$74,999 15.8% (n = 86)$75k and above 7.9% (n = 35)


50/136

50

Figure 28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 31

21.9

12

26.9

11.112.9 12.5

7.4 7.13.3

33.6

%

Barriers to Health Care


51/136

51

Table 24

Barriers tohealth care

Medicaid Medicare Private(employer)

Private(non-employer)

COBRA HMO PPO

Insurancedidnt cover

what wasneeded

42.5%(n = 23)

29.6%(n = 13)

31.8%(n = 25)

32.4%(n = 6)

0 38.3%(n = 6)

19.2%(n = 3)

Share of thecost was toohigh

14.0%(n = 8)

41.6%(n = 18)

27.2%(n = 22)

35.0%(n = 7)

100%(n = 2)

24.7%(n = 4)

6.7%(n = 1)

Doctorwouldnt take

myinsurance/Medicaid

34.4%(n = 19)

2.7%(n = 1)

10.1%(n = 8)

9.2%(n = 2)

0 18.9%(n = 3)

4.4%(n = 1)

Could notafford themedicationsas prescribed

22.2%(n = 12) 38.3%(n = 17) 19.5%(n = 16) 21.0%(n = 4) 100%(n = 2) 2.4%(n = 1) 14.4%(n = 2)

Significantwaitingperiod

15.6%(n = 9)

12.4%(n = 5)

15.7%(n = 13)

17.9%(n = 3)

0 24.0%(n = 4)

19.0%(n = 3)

Could not getanappointment

11.7%(n = 6)

13.2%(n = 6)

19.9%(n = 16)

33.2%(n = 6)

0 3.7%(n = 1)

29.0%(n = 4)

Did not knowwhere to go

5.5%(n = 3)

6.1%(n = 3)

5.4%(n = 4)

0 0 3.5%(n = 1)

10.7%(n = 1)

Did not havea way to getthere

14.1%(n = 8) 3.6%(n = 2) 2.3%(n = 2) 0 0 0 0

Hospitalwouldnt takemy insurance

3.0%(n = 2)

7.2%(n = 3)

3.5%(n = 3)

0 0 5.0%(n = 1)

0

Did not havehealthinsurance

23.7%(n = 13)

5.6%(n = 2)

16.6%(n = 13)

10.6%(n = 2)

0 9.5%(n = 2)

10.3%(n = 1)

Lack of timewith health

care providerduring visit

6.0%(n = 3)

5.1%(n = 2)

11.8%(n = 9)

3.9%(n = 1)

0 11.4%(n = 2)

4.5%(n = 1)


52/136

52

In the past 12 months, just over 10% (CI: 9.1 11.8) of LCCHA respondents needed health

care but were unable to receive it. When asked what tests they were unable to receive,

49.3% (CI: 42.3 56.2) identified medical/doctor appointments, 46.0% (CI: 39.2 53.2)

selected dental appointments, and 35.2% (CI: 28.4 41.7) chose prescriptions (see Figure

29).

Figure 29

05

10152025

3035404550

49.3

16.5 12.7

46

23.9

14.5

30.735.2

2.1

15.1%

What health care were you unable to receive?


53/136

53

Respondents were asked what types of medical tests they have had in the past year. The

most common tests identified were blood pressure checks (68.6%, CI: 66.6 70.6), pap

smears (48.7%, CI: 45.7 51.6), eye exams (44.8%, CI: 42.7 46.9), and cholesterol

screenings (44.6%, CI: 42.5 46.8).

Figure 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

41.8

48.7

15.913.1

68.6

42.9

9

44.8 44.6

24

11.4

%

What tests have you had in the past year?


54/136

54

The majority of participants (60.1%, CI: 57.9 62.3) reported visiting a dentist in the past

year (see Figure 31 and Table 25). While over three-quarters of respondents have visited a

dentist in the past two years, over 10% (CI: 9.1 11.9) have either not been to a dentist in

the past five years or have never been to the dentist. Data from the OFHS indicated that

86.0% of respondents have seen a dentist in the last two years. Just over 20% (CI: 19.1

22.7) of LCCHA respondents and 13% of OFHS participants reported that there was a time

in the last 12 months that they were unable to get the dental care they needed (see also

Table 26). The most common reasons respondents could not get dental care were that they

could not afford the cost (65.7%, CI: 60.7 70.2), they did not have dental insurance

(57.1%, CI: 52.0 62.0), and their insurance did not cover what was needed (15.5%, CI:

11.9 19.2) (see Figure 32).

Figure 31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Within pastyear

1-2 years 2-5 years More than 5years

Never

60.1

16.313.1

9.4

1.2

%

How long has it been since your last dental visit?


55/136

55

Table 25

How long has it beensince you last visited

a dentist?

Within pastyear

1-2 years 2-5 years More than5 years

Never

Age18-35 years 47.7%

(n = 239)24.0%

(n = 121)15.8%

(n = 79)10.8%

(n = 54)1.7%

(n = 9)36-53 years 60.5%

(n = 399)14.9%

(n = 99)13.0%

(n = 86)10.6%

(n = 70)0.9%

(n = 6)54 years and over 67.9%

(n = 512)12.4%

(n = 94)11.4%

(n = 86)7.3%

(n = 55)1.0%

(n = 7)

RaceCaucasian 61.6%

(n = 1103)16.1%

(n = 288)12.6%

(n = 227)8.8%

(n = 158)0.9%

(n = 16)African American 43.4%

(n = 27)

23.1%

(n = 14)

20.1%

(n =12)

13.4%

(n = 8)

0

Other 33.7%(n = 21)

17.0%(n = 11)

19.4%(n = 12)

20.0%(n = 13)

9.9%(n = 6)

Household income$0-$34,999 43.3%

(n = 368)22.0%

(n = 186)17.7%

(n = 151)14.5%

(n = 123)2.5%

(n = 21)$35k-$74,999 64.5%

(n = 354)16.7%

(n = 92)11.8%

(n = 65)6.9%

(n = 38)0.1%

(n = 1)$75k and above 82.7%

(n = 363)7.4%

(n = 32)5.9%

(n = 26)3.9%

(n = 17)0

Table 26

Was there a time during the past 12 months when youneeded dental care for yourself but could not get it?

Yes



Race

Caucasian 20.2% (n = 361)African American 35.9% (n =22)

Other 27.0% (n = 17)

Household income$0-$34,999 34.9% (n = 299)

$35k-$74,999 13.5% (n = 74)$75k and above 3.8% (n = 17)


56/136

56

Figure 32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

57.1

65.7

4.7 4.99.8

15.6

6.4 7.32.3

%

Why could you not get dental care?


57/136

57

MENTAL HEALTH

The Mental Health section contained 12 items related to the respondents' emotional,

mental, and behavioral health. Participants were asked on how many of the past 30 days

their mental health impaired their ability to function normally. The majority of

participants answered 0 days (66.4%, CI: 64.2 68.5) or 1-5 days (18.0%, CI: 16.2

19.7). Over 4% reported their mental health status impaired their ability to function

normally on at least 26 of the past 30 days (see Figure 33). Table 27 presents these data by

demographic group.

Gender and race also had an impact on mental health and functioning (see Figure 34). Non-

Caucasian females were more likely than Caucasian females to report having days where

their mental health status affected their ability to function normally. The same pattern

emerged with Caucasian and non-Caucasian males. Non-Caucasian females and males were

also more likely to report having at least 15 days where their mental health status

impacted their functioning.

Figure 33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30

66.4

18

4.9 2.8 2.5 1.34.2

%

Days

In the past month, how many days has your mental health impariedyour normal functioning?


58/136

58

Table 27

In the past 30 days, how many days has your mental health impairedyour ability to function normally?

0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30Age

18-35 years 53.8%(n = 257)

25.4%(n = 121)

4.3%(n = 20)

4.0%(n = 19)

4.1%(n = 20)

1.9%(n = 9)

6.5%(n = 31)

36-53 years 60.5%(n = 379)

19.6%(n = 123)

7.2%(n = 45)

4.2%(n = 27)

2.8%(n = 18)

1.5%(n = 9)

4.2%(n = 26)

54 years andover

79.9%(n = 568)

11.6%(n = 82)

3.2%(n = 23)

0.8%(n = 5)

1.2%(n = 8)

0.7%(n = 5)

2.7%(n = 19)

RaceCaucasian 66.7%

(n = 1139)18.0%(n = 308)

4.8%(n = 81)

2.8%(n = 48)

2.6%(n = 44)

1.2%(n = 20)

4.0%(n = 68)

African

American

55.2%

(n = 31)

22.0%

(n = 12)

7.5%

(n = 4)

2.0%

(n = 1)

1.6%

(n = 1)

2.7%

(n = 1)

9.1%

(n = 5)Other 68.3%(n = 34)

12.2%(n = 6)

5.1%(n = 3)

3.5%(n = 2)

0 2.9%(n = 1)

7.2%(n = 4)

SexMale 70.5%

(n = 614)14.3%(n = 125)

4.8%(n = 42)

2.8%(n = 24)

2.3%(n = 20)

1.1%(n = 9)

4.3%(n = 37)

Female 62.5%(n = 589)

21.4%(n = 201)

4.9%(n = 46)

2.8%(n = 27)

2.7%(n = 26)

1.5%(n = 14)

4.2%(n = 39)

Householdincome

$0-$34,999 54.0(n = 433) 20.1%(n = 161) 7.0%(n = 56) 4.4%(n = 35) 4.9%(n = 39) 2.3%(n = 18) 7.4%(n = 59)$35k-$74,999 72.0%

(n = 378)18.2%(n = 96)

4.1%(n = 22)

1.7%(n = 9)

0.7%(n = 4)

0.8%(n = 4)

2.5%(n = 13)

$75k andabove

80.2%(n = 335)

14.6%(n = 61)

1.9%(n = 8)

1.7%(n = 7)

0.7%(n = 3)

0 0.9%(n = 4)


59/136

59

Figure 34

Table 28

Do you engage in any exercise activity atleast once per week?

Yes

Mental health impairment0 days 76.0% (n = 877)

1-5 days 71.6% (n = 231)

6-10 days 68.8% (n = 58)11-15 days 75.4% (n = 38)16-20 days 61.2% (n = 26)21-25 days 49.5% (n = 12)26-30 days 57.8% (n =40)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 More than 15

62.8

5.3

52

12

70.8

5.1

64.2

10.6

%

Days

In the past month, how many days has your mental health impariedyour normal functioning?

Caucasian females

Non-Caucasian females

Caucasian males

Non-Caucasian males


60/136

60

The next item asked respondents to indicate, on a scale of 1 to 5, the importance of several

mental health-related programs and services. Overall, the majority of respondents

reported that the identified mental health programs were important. For each of the five

items, between 82% and 87% of the participants selected 4 or 5 (important) (see

Figure 35 through Figure 39 and Table 29).

Figure 35

Figure 36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1(Unimportant)

2 3 4 5 (Important)

4 3.29.2

16.8

66.8

%

How important are suicide prevention programs in schools?

0

10

2030

40

50

60

1(Unimportant)

2 3 4 5 (Important)

3.8 3

10.923.2

59.1

%

How important is specialized training for police officers/firstresponders that teaches them how to react safely and effectively

when they encounter individuals with mental illness?


61/136

61

Figure 37

Figure 38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1(Unimportant)

2 3 4 5 (Important)

2.2 2.2

9.6

20.4

65.7

%

How important are counseling and related services for troubledchildren in Lake County?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1(Unimportant)

2 3 4 5 (Important)

2.7 1.9

9

26.6

59.8

%

How important are counseling and related services for local adultswho have depression and other mental illnesses?


62/136

62

Figure 39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1(Unimportant)

2 3 4 5 (Important)

3 2.78.3

19.7

66.3

%

How important are counseling and related services for local peoplewho have drug or alcohol addictions?


63/136

63

Table 29

Suicidepreventionprograms inschools

Specializedtraining forfirstresponders

Counseling/relatedservices fortroubledchildren

Counseling/relatedservices forlocal adults

Counseling/relatedservices forlocals withalcohol/drugaddictions

Age18-35 years 4.34

(SD = 1.15)4.06(SD = 1.19)

4.39(SD = 1.00)

4.27(SD = 1.06)

4.37(SD = 1.08)

36-53 years 4.42(SD = .97)

4.32(SD = .98)

4.51(SD = .87)

4.42(SD = .88)

4.45(SD = .90)

54 years andover

4.40(SD = 1.03)

4.47(SD = .90)

4.45(SD = .87)

4.44(SD = .86)

4.48(SD = .93)

Race

Caucasian 4.42(SD = 1.00) 4.34(SD = .99) 4.48(SD = .87) 4.41(SD = .89) 4.46(SD = .93)African

American4.42(SD = 1.22)

4.09(SD = 1.43)

4.62(SD = .85)

4.60(SD = .84)

4.64(SD = .82)

Other 3.44(SD = 1.66)

3.68(SD = 1.42)

3.53(SD = 1.32)

3.63(SD = 1.48)

3.61(SD = 1.53)

SexMale 4.19

(SD = 1.16)4.12(SD = 1.13)

4.28(SD = .98)

4.22(SD = .99)

4.27(SD = 1.08)

Female 4.58(SD = .88)

4.49(SD = .89)

4.62(SD = .80)

4.55(SD = .83)

4.59(SD = .82)

Householdincome

$0-$34,999 4.38(SD = 1.10)

4.23(SD = 1.15)

4.37(SD = 1.03)

4.36(SD = 1.01)

4.44(SD = 1.02)

$35k-$74,999

4.43(SD = .98)

4.40(SD = .91)

4.57(SD = .73)

4.50(SD = .73)

4.55(SD = .79)

$75k andabove

4.39(SD = .97)

4.33(SD = .92)

4.50(SD = .81)

4.34(SD = .924)

4.36(SD = .95)


64/136

64

Nearly 15% (CI: 10.7 13.6) of respondents attempted to access mental health services in

the past year. Females (17%, CI: 14.6 19.3) reported attempting to access mental health

services more than males (12.5%, CI: 10.3 14.7). There was no difference between

Caucasians (14.8%, CI: 13.3 16.5) and non-Caucasians (14.3%, CI: 8.0 20.6) in attempts

to access mental health services. Table 30 presents these data by demographic groups.

Table 30

Have you attempted to access mental healthservices in the last year?

Yes





SexMale 12.5% (n = 112)

Female 17.0% (n = 165)

Household income$0-$34,999 21.4% (n = 178)

$35k-$74,999 10.4% (n = 56)$75k and above 8.8% (n = 38)


65/136

65

Those who attempted to access mental health services were asked what types of services

they tried to access and if they found them to be helpful. The majority identified

psychiatric services (including medications) as the service they most often sought (see

Figure 40 and Table 31). The majority of participants found these mental health services to

be helpful (see Figure 41 and Table 32).

Figure 40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

PsychiatricServices

Counseling Individual/familycounseling

Case management

63.656.4

42.6

Documents

2011 Lake County Community Health Asessment