THE COMMUNITY HEALTH PROFILE - Funded by the CDC · network of over 40 non-profit community health ... The collection of data to update the Community Health Profile was ... classification

THE COMMUNITY HEALTH PROFILE

2009-2010 Edition

Compendium of Public Health Data for Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury

and the Lower Naugatuck Valley Towns of Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxford, Seymour, & Shelton

Release Date: August 2012

Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center

130 Division St.

Derby, CT

Produced by

Community Health Profile 2009/10 Edition Jesse Reynolds, MS2

Tracyann Johnson, BS3

Lauren Bifulco, MPH3 Michelle Pinto-Evans2

Community Health Profile 2007 Edition

Jesse Reynolds, MS 2 Mario Edwards 2

Yasemin Kavak 2

Maria Taame 1

Anna Davidhi 2

Community Health Profile 2005 Edition Veronika Northrup, MPH2

Lauren Zwicky1 Diane Dugan1

Community Health Profile 2003 Edition

Hilary Alonzo, MPH2 Alyse Sabina, MPH2

Zubaida Faridi, MPH2 Louise Ackerman, MPH2

Valley Health Profile 2000 Edition

Pedram Fatehi1

Hirut Gebrekristos1

Susan Nappi1

Walter Oh1

Kunjal Patel1

Tara Pigo-Cronin1

Valley Health Profile 1998 Edition

Pezhman Eliaszadeh1

Editor-In-Chief David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP1, 2

1 Yale School of Public Health 2 Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center 3 Southern CT State University

For questions, comments or concerns please contact:

David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP Director, Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center

130 Division Street Derby, CT 06418

Tel: (203) 732-1265 Fax: (203) 732-1264

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and Methods Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Methods

Data Collection .............................................................................................................................. 2 Data Sources .................................................................................................................................. 3 Definition of Terms................................................................................................................... 4 - 7

Tables and Graphs Description of Presentation ............................................................................................................ 8 Population Statistics Resident Population ................................................................................................................... 10 Population Pyramids ............................................................................................................ 11 - 24 Crude Birth and Death Rates ...................................................................................................... 25 Population Statistics- Projections, Race and Ethnicity ............................................................... 26 Prenatal Statistics Births to Teenage Mothers, Infant Birthweight, Prenatal Care Status .................................. 28 - 30 Morbidity Statistics

Summary of Results for Communicable Disease Incidence ................................................. 32 - 36 HIV/AIDS ....................................................................................................................... 37 - 39 Hepatitis B ...................................................................................................................... 40 - 42 Lyme Disease .................................................................................................................. 43 - 45 Streptopneumococcus ..................................................................................................... 46 - 48 Tuberculosis (Active) ..................................................................................................... 49 – 51

Influenza ................................................................................................................................ 52 Sexually Transmitted Diseases .............................................................................................. 53

Chlamydia ....................................................................................................................... 54 - 56 Gonorrhea ....................................................................................................................... 57 - 59 Syphilis ........................................................................................................................... 60 - 62 Lead Poisoning............................................................................................................................ 64

Mortality Statistics Summary of Results for Top Ten Causes of Death .............................................................. 66 - 68 All Causes of Death .............................................................................................................. 69 - 74 Heart Disease ........................................................................................................................ 75 - 80 Cerebrovascular Disease ....................................................................................................... 81 - 86

Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease ..................................................................................... 87 - 92 Cancer Statistics

Summary of Results for Most Commonly Occurring Cancers ............................................. 94 - 98 Malignant Neoplasm (All Cancer) Incidence ..................................................................... 99 - 103 Mortality by the Cancers Most Commonly Causing Death ...................................................... 104 Malignant Neoplasm (All Cancer) Mortality .................................................................... 105 - 110 Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality ............................................................................. 111 - 117 Cervical Cancer Incidence ................................................................................................ 118 - 120 Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality ...................................................................... 121 - 129 Leukemia Incidence .......................................................................................................... 130 - 132 Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality .............................................................................. 133 - 141 Melanoma Incidence ......................................................................................................... 142 - 144 Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality .......................................................................... 145 - 151 Thyroid Cancer Incidence ................................................................................................. 152 - 154

Further Discussion Discussion & Conclusions ................................................................................................ 156 - 160 Limitations to the Current Report .............................................................................................. 160

Overview

The first Valley Health Profile was produced in 1998 at approximately the same time the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center was founded.1 It was created to assess the health and well-being of Naugatuck Valley residents. The purpose was to create a report whereby comparisons could be made between the health of the populations of the Valley and the state of Connecticut and to present Valley agencies with a useful, comprehensive document to inform program and policy decision-making. A second edition, including identified trends from previous and updated data, was produced in 2000. A third edition, renamed the “Community Health Profile (CHP)”, was published in 2004 and included health information for not only the Valley and the state of Connecticut, but also for three of Connecticut’s largest cities, Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven. The 2008 version of the CHP added the towns: Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury. The addition of these towns allowed for both the Nauagutuck and Pomperaug Health Districts to access data covering their entire respective areas.

The continued goal of the CHP is to develop an efficient and meaningful way of tracking various causes of morbidity and mortality in the people of the Valley, nearby towns, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven and Connecticut as a whole.

The current edition of the CHP continues to include the most recently available data describing aspects of the population; as well as data covering ten year time periods that describe trends in morbidity, mortality and cancer (incidence and mortality). The availability of data for certain time points was the determinant of which time span was used (1998 to 2008 or 1999 to 2009) and is consistent across the types of data being presented.

The previous version of the CHP omitted the Social Indicators of Health section and this current version has scaled back some of its population statistics around economic indicators. These data are presented in the Valley CARES initiative. The Valley CARES (Community Assessment, Research and Education for Solutions) initiative is a long-term project designed to track critical information about community well-being in Connecticut’s Lower Naugatuck Valley. It is sponsored by the Valley Council for Health and Human Services, a partnership network of over 40 non-profit community health and human service organizations working in Valley towns. The Valley CARES: Quality of Life Report 2010 is available at: http://www.valleycouncil.org/2011/ValleyCARESFULLREPORT.pdf.

As with prior versions of the Valley Health Profile and the CHP, included in this report are the methods and sources that were used to collect the data, summaries of results for each health risk, and a discussion of limitations in the data, analyses, and interpretation of results. The continued goal is to increase the collection of comprehensive data to be included in subsequent editions of the Community Health Profile.

Through your feedback and suggestions, we have continually made efforts to update and tailor the CHP to needs of the public it is intended to serve. If you have comments or suggestions, please contact the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at (203) 732-1265.

1 Eliaszadeh, Jekel, Katz. Valley Health Profile 1998

1

http://www.valleycouncil.org/2011/ValleyCARESFULLREPORT.pdf

Methods and Sources of Data Population: Data were collected on the six towns of the Lower Naugatuck Valley (Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxford, Seymour and Shelton), Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury from publicly available data sources (e.g. the Department of Public Health). Specific demographics of these towns are available in subsequent sections of this document (see Population Statistics). Assessment of the Previous Reports: The 1998, 2000, 2003 Valley Health Profiles and 2005 Community Health Profile were reviewed to assess sections of the document that needed updating. Data acquisition: The collection of data to update the Community Health Profile was conducted mainly via publicly available datasets. Data sources used in the previous report were contacted and electronic data were accessed through the Internet or hard copies were sent to the center for manual data re-entry. Data storage: Phone interviews, data collection, manipulation and presentation took place at the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center in Griffin Hospital, Derby, CT under the supervision of David Katz, MD, MPH, and Jesse Reynolds, MS. Data Analysis: Incidence and mortality data are presented in frequency tables, rates (per 100,000 people), and graphs. For trend analysis, rates of individual towns in the Valley, as well as total Valley rates were compared to rates of Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury and Connecticut, by examining confidence intervals around the rates (see Definitions of Rates and Terms). An overlap in confidence intervals indicated no statistically significant difference between rates. The purpose of this statistical testing is to establish whether two rates are truly different, or that there is a statistical chance that the rates are not different. That statistical chance is based on the existence of a random error in the calculation of the true rate. (Such error can come from a reporting error or a mistake in entering data). For example, if a rate is 100 with 95 percent of the time falling within the bounds of 89 and 111 interval, is that rate statistically different from a rate of 115, which 95 percent of the time falls within the bounds of 105 and 125? In this case, there is a chance that the first rate (given that a random error in the calculation of the rate exists) can be equal to 105, which is the number that falls within the bounds of the second rate’s true value. Therefore, the two rates are not statistically different. Caution should be taken in translating a statistical finding, or a lack thereof, into a significant finding. If a rare event, such as a rare disease, takes place in a small population, the magnitude of an incidence rate can fluctuate from one time point to another time point. However, a seemingly large difference between two incidence rates of a rare event in a small population may not be statistically significant based on the examination of the confidence intervals around each rate. A decision to establish a significant trend of some event should take into consideration a statistical significance testing, the nature of the event and the size of the population.

2

Data Sources and Contacts for the

Community Health Profile 2009 - 2010 Data Description Source Contact Phone Number Email address URL

Communicable Diseases* Dept of Public HealthAIDS and Hepatitis B Aaron Roome (860) 509-7900 [email protected] www.ct.gov/dphInfluenza Alan Siniscalchi (860) 509-7994 [email protected] Penny Lane (860) 509-7920 [email protected] Streptococcus pneumoniae Pat Mshar [email protected] Tom Condron (860) 509-7222 [email protected] www.ct.gov/dphLatent TB Ed Debord (860) 402-5880 [email protected]

Incident Cases of Cancer Director of Epidemiologic Research Mary Lou Fleissner Dr PH (860) 509-7739 [email protected] Cases of Cancer Connecticut Tumor Registry Anthony polednek, PhD (860) 509-7144 [email protected] Poisoning Dept. of Public Health Krista Veneziano (860) 509-7299 [email protected]

Lyme Disease Data Dept. of Public Health Matt Cartter(860) 509-7910 (860) 509-7994 [email protected] www.ct.gov/dph

Mortality Data Dept. of Public Health Frederico Amadeo (860) 509-7148US Census Bureau www.census.govDept. of Public Health Kolie Chang [email protected] Economic Resource Center Inc Dale Shannon [email protected] www.cerc.com

Prenatal/Birth Statistics Dept. of Public Health www.ct.gov/dphGriffin Hospital William Powanda (203) 732-7515Naugatuck Valley Health District Karen Spargo (203) 924-9548 [email protected]

Population Statistics

Valley Contacts

3

Definition of Rates and Terms

Several terms are defined here for ease of interpretation of the graphs presented in this document. Age-adjusted death rate: To allow for valid comparisons of rates between populations, the

age-specific death rate is multiplied by the number of persons in the corresponding age group in the standard population (in this case Connecticut). This method shows the number of deaths that would have occurred in the standard population if the age-specific death rates in the individual population had occurred.

Age-specific Number of deaths in a specific age group death rate = ---------------------------------------------------------- x 100,000

Total resident population in specific age group Birth weight: The first weight of a fetus or infant at time of delivery. This weight is usually

measured during the first hour of life, before postnatal weight loss occurs. Cause of death: The underlying cause of death determined to be the primary condition leading

to death, based on the international rules and sequential procedure set forth for manual classification of the underlying causes of death by the National Center for Health Statistics and the World Health Organization (International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision).

Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease (CLRD): currently the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, CLRD compromises three major diseases, i.e. chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. The airway obstruction is irreversible in chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and reversible in asthma. Before 1999, CLRD was called Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The International Classification of Diseases used by the World Health Organization (WHO) to code diseases and mortality was revised in 1999, with slight changes to the category between the 9th and 10th editions. Confidence Limit of SMR (Lower 95%): SMR – [(1.96 X Standard Error) X 100] Confidence Limit of SMR (Upper 95%): SMR + [(1.96 X Standard Error) X 100] Confidence Limit of IR (Lower 95%): IR – (1.96 X Standard Error) Confidence Limit of IR (Upper 95%): IR + (1.96 X Standard Error) Crude vs. Specific Rate: A crude rate is a rate that applies to an entire population, for example, a crude incidence rate of a disease refers to the number of new cases of that disease divided by the total population, without reference to age or gender or any other population characteristic. A specific rate is a rate that applies to or is calculated within a particular sub-group of a population, for example, the age-specific death rate is the number of deaths due to a certain health risk occurring in a particular age group, divided by the number of people at risk in that age group.

4

Number of resident live births Crude birth rate = -------------------------------------------------------- x 1,000 Total resident population Crude death rate (CDR):

Number of resident deaths

CDR = ---------------------------------------------------- x 100,000 Total resident population The number of deaths per 100,000 people. This rate should not be used for making comparisons between different populations when the age, race, and sex distributions of the populations are different. (See "Age-adjusted death rate" and "Age-specific death rate.")

Fetal death: Death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of a product of

conception, which has passed through at least the 20th week of gestation. The fetus shows no signs of life such as heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or movement of voluntary muscles.

Number of fetal deaths

Fetal death rate* = -------------------------------------------------------- x 1,000 Number of live births

*This fraction is often referred to as a ratio, rather than a rate, because the denominator (live births) does not contain the numerator (fetal deaths).

Gestational age: The number of completed weeks elapsed between the first day of the last

normal menstrual period (LMP) and the date of delivery. Incidence: The frequency (number) of new occurrences of disease, injury, or death in the study

population during the time period being examined. Incidence Rate (IR): The number of new cases during a defined period of time, divided by the

population at risk Expected Number of Deaths

IR = ------------------------------------------ Population Size at midpoint of the study period

Income Estimates: All income estimates are expressed in current year dollars using the “money income” definition reported in the 2000 census. In contrast to the 1990 census, which reported income for the previous calendar year (1989), income estimates are for the calendar year relevant to each set of estimates and projections. As with the demographic estimates and projections, data are produced first at the national level, then for progressively smaller areas, with successive ratio adjustments ensuring consistency between levels. Per capita

5

and aggregate income are estimated first. Aggregate income is the total of all income for all persons in an area, and per capita is the average income per person—or aggregate income divided by total estimated population. Income earned by persons in group quarters facilities is estimated separately, and subtracted from aggregate income to derive aggregate household income—or the total income earned by persons living in households. Aggregate household income divided by total estimated households is the estimate of average household income.

Infant death: Death occurring to an individual of less than one year (365 days) of age,

comprising the sum of neonatal death and postneonatal death.

Number of infant deaths Infant death rate = -------------------------------------------------------- x 1,000

Number of live births

Kessner Index (Modified): The Kessner Index is a composite indicator of the adequacy of prenatal care a mother receives during her pregnancy. Prenatal care is categorized as adequate, intermediate, or inadequate based on three items from the birth certificate: timing of the first prenatal visit; total number of prenatal visits; and length of gestation. The term, non-adequate prenatal care, which is the sum of the intermediate and the inadequate levels of care, is used in Table 2-A, B, C of the present report. A more detailed definition of the Modified Kessner Index and reference documents can be obtained from the Connecticut Department of Public Health, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.

Live birth: The complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of a product of conception,

regardless of the duration of pregnancy; after such separation, shows signs of life (e.g., heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or movement of voluntary muscles.)

Live birth order: The number of children born alive to the same mother, including the current

birth (first born, second born, third born, etc.). Low birth weight: A birth weight of less than 2,500 grams (approximately 5 lbs., 8 oz.). Neonatal death: Death occurring to an infant less than 28 days of age. Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR): Observed Crude Death Rate SMR = -------------------------------------- X 100 Expected Crude Death Rate

The Standardized Mortality Ratio is used to compare the cause-specific death rate in a standard population to the cause-specific death rate for the same disease in other populations. Comparisons are possible because the standard population (namely

6

Connecticut) will have an SMR equal to 100 for each cause of death in question. Thus, if the ‘population under study’ (e.g. Valley) has an SMR that is under 100 for a specific cause of death (e.g. heart disease), then the rate of death for heart disease will be lower in the Valley than in Connecticut. On the other hand, if the Valley has an SMR for Heart Disease that is greater than 100, then the rate of death for heart disease would be higher in the Valley than in Connecticut.

Standard Error of the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SESMR):

SESMR = Square root of the variance of the SMR

Note: Normally the square root of the variance equals the standard deviation and not the standard error. The standard error is derived by dividing the standard deviation by the square root of the sample size. However, (according to statistical proofs that are beyond the scope of this paper), in these calculations the standard error is simply the square root of the variance.

Standard Error of the SMR multiplied by 1.96 (SESMR X 1.96):

Multiplying the Standard Error by 1.96 allows for the calculation of the 95% confidence interval for the Standardized Mortality Ratio. Thus, the 95% confidence interval would signify that the Standardized Mortality Ratio of a particular disease in a specific ‘population under study’ would range from the lower limit to the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval.

Standard Error of the Incidence Rate (SEIR):

SEIR = IR / √Incident Cases Tuberculosis (TB) – Active – Exhibiting a positive PPD (purified protein derivative) and signs

and symptoms of TB.

.

7

TABLE AND GRAPH PRESENTATION

All statistics are presented in the following manner: Tables: • Number of cases/deaths stratified by age and gender, when available • Cases of disease/deaths and their occurrence per 100,000 people (rates) Graphs: • The Valley towns vs. Connecticut (collapsed gender/age) by year • Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury and the Valley vs.

Connecticut by year • Units vary by each graph

8

Population Statistics

9

Table1-A. Resident Population by Age and Gender: 2010

Gender & TownTotal

Population<5

years 5-9 years10-14 years

15-19 years

20-24 years

25-29 years

30-34 years

35-39 years

40-44 years

45-49 years

50-54 years

55-59 years

60-64 years

65-69 years

70-74 years

75-79 years

80-84 years 85+ years

All Persons Ansonia 19,249 1,184 1,260 1,289 1,316 1,173 1,352 1,277 1,196 1,403 1,578 1,450 1,178 1,001 762 546 443 422 419 Beacon Falls 6,049 321 384 417 381 302 308 327 409 530 548 552 393 394 314 179 122 80 88 Derby 12,902 804 715 693 760 803 989 788 849 960 1,002 995 801 728 549 420 354 305 387 Oxford 12,683 683 940 936 774 478 440 553 818 1,109 1,186 1,135 1,031 888 645 435 277 192 163 Seymour 16,540 858 1,011 1,049 1,074 861 941 911 1,133 1,305 1,432 1,506 1,123 986 651 431 398 375 495 Shelton 39,559 1,851 2,249 2,635 2,342 1,901 1,910 1,934 2,387 2,985 3,442 3,520 2,852 2,648 2,018 1,469 1,197 1,013 1206 Valley 106,982 5,701 6,559 7,019 6,647 5,518 5,940 5,790 6,792 8,292 9,188 9,158 7,378 6,645 4,939 3,480 2,791 2,387 2,758 Naugatuck 31,862 1,887 1,937 2,151 2,139 2,001 2,277 2,227 2,123 2,422 2,611 2,582 1,970 1,729 1,191 813 619 543 640 Southbury 19,904 707 1,138 1,331 1,183 650 507 570 904 1,348 1,645 1,725 1,526 1,435 1,193 837 975 1,002 1228 Woodbury 9,975 396 569 685 614 386 370 389 516 734 938 1,008 856 811 584 393 283 226 217 Bridgeport 144,229 10,731 9,639 9,607 11,043 12,968 12,280 10,986 9,822 10,089 9,899 9,264 7,345 6,068 4,382 3,192 2,528 2,124 2,262 Hartford 124,775 9,452 8,460 8,638 11,593 13,301 10,580 8,752 7,752 7,970 8,141 7,554 6,223 5,256 3,646 2,655 1,983 1,391 1428 New Haven 129,779 9,150 7,865 7,650 11,286 15,378 13,710 10,947 8,386 7,902 7,570 7,001 5,866 5,072 3,737 2,709 2,040 1,716 1,794Connecticut 3,574,097 202,106 222,571 240,265 250,834 227,898 214,145 206,232 222,401 262,037 291,272 284,325 240,157 203,295 149,281 105,663 89,252 77,465 84,898

Gender & TownTotal

Population<5


15-19 years

20-24 years

25-29 years

30-34 years

35-39 years

40-44 years

45-49 years

50-54 years

55-59 years

60-64 years

65-69 years

70-74 years

75-79 years


Female Ansonia 9,984 572 633 591 651 611 724 653 600 722 827 728 610 539 402 304 255 266 296 Beacon Falls 3,029 143 194 199 187 141 148 173 209 259 278 270 198 203 166 91 66 52 52 Derby 6,710 414 333 334 366 410 498 399 432 468 529 485 415 385 294 246 208 203 291 Oxford 6,376 336 482 451 356 223 204 292 446 546 596 592 524 440 331 213 137 108 99 Seymour 8,499 420 517 499 539 408 469 466 595 640 721 765 556 510 343 218 244 229 360 Shelton 20,375 902 1,089 1,330 1,117 899 927 981 1,252 1,514 1,752 1,768 1,440 1,363 1,083 799 684 615 860 Valley 54,973 2,787 3,248 3,404 3,216 2,692 2,970 2,964 3,534 4,149 4,703 4,608 3,743 3,440 2,619 1,871 1,594 1,473 1,958 Naugatuck 16,239 912 927 1,037 1,028 987 1,157 1,120 1,111 1,200 1,339 1,310 982 924 615 462 337 325 466 Southbury 10,604 337 527 660 575 307 224 307 487 716 849 837 764 758 651 499 607 647 852 Woodbury 5,138 196 277 351 290 184 183 188 275 374 494 515 453 424 311 198 153 141 131 Bridgeport 74,233 5,213 4,756 4,763 5,523 6,424 6,083 5,606 4,987 5,197 5,040 4,747 3,824 3,354 2,399 1,896 1,515 1,332 1,574 Hartford 64,515 4,697 4,146 4,249 5,835 6,771 5,445 4,492 3,993 4,064 4,236 3,842 3,305 2,848 1,995 1,551 1,198 853 995 New Haven 67,271 4,429 3,861 3,796 5,847 7,784 7,023 5,565 4,271 4,030 3,869 3,658 3,151 2,751 2,080 1,595 1,222 1,062 1277Connecticut 1,834,483 98,631 108,808 117,341 121,885 110,781 106,159 104,194 113,764 134,482 149,515 145,364 123,458 106,356 79,023 58,332 51,344 47,096 57,950

Gender & TownTotal

Population<5


15-19 years

20-24 years

25-29 years

30-34 years

35-39 years

40-44 years

45-49 years

50-54 years

55-59 years

60-64 years

65-69 years

70-74 years

75-79 years


Male Ansonia 9,265 612 627 698 665 562 628 624 596 681 751 722 568 462 360 242 188 156 123 Beacon Falls 3,020 178 190 218 194 161 160 154 200 271 270 282 195 191 148 88 56 28 36 Derby 6,192 390 382 359 394 393 491 389 417 492 473 510 386 343 255 174 146 102 96 Oxford 6,307 347 458 485 418 255 236 261 372 563 590 543 507 448 314 222 140 84 64 Seymour 8,041 438 494 550 535 453 472 445 538 665 711 741 567 476 308 213 154 146 135 Shelton 19,184 949 1,160 1,305 1,225 1,002 983 953 1,135 1,471 1,690 1,752 1,412 1,285 935 670 513 398 346 Valley 52,009 2,914 3,311 3,615 3,431 2,826 2,970 2,826 3,258 4,143 4,485 4,550 3,635 3,205 2,320 1,609 1,197 914 800 Naugatuck 15,623 975 1,010 1,114 1,111 1,014 1,120 1,107 1,012 1,222 1,272 1,272 988 805 576 351 282 218 174 Southbury 9,300 370 611 671 608 343 283 263 417 632 796 888 762 677 542 338 368 355 376 Woodbury 4,837 200 292 334 324 202 187 201 241 360 444 493 403 387 273 195 130 85 86 Bridgeport 69,996 5,518 4,883 4,844 5,520 6,544 6,197 5,380 4,835 4,892 4,859 4,517 3,521 2,714 1,983 1,296 1,013 792 688 Hartford 60,260 4,755 4,314 4,389 5,758 6,530 5,135 4,260 3,759 3,906 3,905 3,712 2,918 2,408 1,651 1,104 785 538 433 New Haven 62,508 4,721 4,004 3,854 5,439 7,594 6,687 5,382 4,115 3,872 3,701 3,343 2,715 2,321 1,657 1,114 818 654 517Connecticut 1,739,614 103,475 113,763 122,924 128,949 117,117 107,986 102,038 108,637 127,555 141,757 138,961 116,699 96,939 70,258 47,331 37,908 30,369 26,948

10

200000 150000 100000 50000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐A. Connecticut Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Series2

Series1

11

6000 4000 2000 0 2000 4000 6000

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐B. Valley Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

12

1000 800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐C. Ansonia Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

13

400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐D. Beacon Falls Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

14

600 400 200 0 200 400 600

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐E. Derby Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

15

800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 800

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐F. Oxford Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

16

1000 800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐G. Seymour Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

17

2000 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐H. Shelton Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

18

1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐I. Naugatuck Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

19

1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐J. Southbury Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

20

600 400 200 0 200 400 600

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐K. Woodbury Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

21

8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐L. Bridgeport Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

22

8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐M. Hartford Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

23

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

0‐4

5‐9

10‐14

15‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39

40‐44

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60‐64

65‐69

70‐74

75‐79

80‐85

85+

Population

Age

Figure 1‐N. New Haven Population Pyramid ‐ 2010

Females

Males

24

2007 ESTIMATED INFANT DEATHSGEOGRAPHIC AREA POPULATION Total Neonatal Postneonatal

Number Ratec Number Ratec Number Rated Number Rated Number Rated Number Rated

Connecticut 3,502,309 41,597 11.9 28,563 8.2 210 5.0 275 6.6 211 5.1 64 1.5 Ansonia 18,550 242 13.0 204 11.0 - - 2 a 1 a 1 a Beacon Falls 5,770 72 12.5 35 6.1 - - 1 a 1 a - - Derby 12,434 168 13.5 126 10.1 - - - - - - - - Oxford 12,527 140 11.2 75 6.0 - - - - - - - - Seymour 16,240 180 11.1 142 8.7 1 a 1 a 1 a - - Shelton 40,011 327 8.2 321 8.0 - - - - - - - - Naugatuck 31,931 405 12.7 243 7.6 1 a 7 17.3 5 12.3 2 a Southbury 19,678 128 6.5 260 13.2 - - 1 a - - 1 a Woodbury 9,654 72 7.5 66 6.8 - - - - - - - - Bridgeport 136,695 2,327 17.0 1,021 7.5 12 5.2 22 9.5 17 7.3 5 2.1 Hartford 124,563 2,140 17.2 881 7.1 16 7.5 28 13.1 23 10.7 5 2.3 New Haven 123,932 2154 17.4 849 6.9 15 7 18 8.4 11 5.1 7 3.2



Connecticut 3,501,252 40,388 11.5 28,752 8.2 225 5.6 240 5.9 179 4.4 61 1.5 Ansonia 18,503 227 12.3 189 10.2 2 a 1 a 1 a - - Beacon Falls 5,807 56 9.6 48 8.3 - - - - - - - - Derby 12,393 152 12.3 123 9.9 - - 1 a 1 a - - Oxford 12,734 116 9.1 70 5.5 - - - - - - - - Seymour 16,251 173 10.6 158 9.7 - - 1 a 1 a - - Shelton 39,991 358 9.0 356 8.9 3 a - - - - - - Naugatuck 31,931 346 10.8 250 7.8 1 a 3 a 2 a 1 a Southbury 19,702 107 5.4 240 12.2 - - - - - - - - Woodbury 9,650 75 7.8 58 6.0 1 a - - - - - - Bridgeport 136,405 2,335 17.1 980 7.2 17 7.3 17 7.3 13 5.6 4 a Hartford 124,062 2,154 17.4 823 6.6 19 8.8 15 7.0 11 5.1 4 a New Haven 123,669 2122 17.2 837 6.8 23 10.8 33 15.6 23 10.8 10 4.7



Connecticut 3,518,288 38,876 11.0 28,394 8.1 188 4.8 216 5.6 164 4.2 52 1.3 Ansonia 18,514 224 12.1 184 9.9 1 a 2 a 1 a 1 a Beacon Falls 5,866 59 10.1 47 8.0 - - - - - - - - Derby 12,385 136 11.0 140 11.3 - - - - - - - - Oxford 12,890 103 8.0 82 6.4 3 a - - - - - - Seymour 16,320 171 10.5 133 8.1 - - 1 a 1 a - - Shelton 40,305 358 8.9 367 9.1 2 a 1 a 1 a - - Naugatuck 32,019 365 11.4 249 7.8 3 a 5 13.7 5 13.7 - - Southbury 19,706 96 4.9 287 14.6 - - 2 a 2 a - - Woodbury 9,700 59 6.1 55 5.7 1 a - - - - - - Bridgeport 137,298 2,334 17.0 907 6.6 23 9.9 18 7.7 12 5.1 6 2.6 Hartford 124,060 2,196 17.7 842 6.8 11 5 24 10.9 17 7.7 7 3.2 New Haven 123,330 2054 16.7 821 6.7 10 4.9 24 11.7 15 7.3 9 4.4

g Out-of-state occurrence refers to events to Connecticut residents that occurred in other states. Out-of-state residence refers to events that occurred in Connecticut to residents of other states.

BIRTHS DEATHS FETAL DEATHS

a Rates are not calculated for less than five events because of the high degree of variability associated with small numbers. b A dash ( - ) represents the quantity zero. c Live birth and death rates are per 1,000 population. CT town of residence was unknown for 1 births and 102 deaths.d Fetal and infant death rates are per 1,000 live births. CT town of residence was unknown for 4 infant deaths.

BIRTHS DEATHS

Table 1-B. Population, Births, Deaths, Fetal Deaths, and Infant Deaths by Place of Residence a,b

NOTES:

e Marriage statistics are based on the number of events occurring in a county or town and may or may not reflect the county or town of residence of either party.f Health District statistics are tabulated using the districting that is current at the time this report is tabulated: June 2009.

FETAL DEATHS

BIRTHS DEATHS FETAL DEATHS

25

Town 2008 2009 2010

2015

(Projected)

Ansonia 18,737 18,530 18,531 18,132Beacon Falls 5,782 5,733 5,708 5,916Derby 12,683 12,396 12,598 12,313Oxford 12,321 12,368 12,678 14,372Seymour 15,984 16,163 16,059 16,202Shelton 38,739 39,669 39,261 40,880Naugatuck 31,678 31,827 31,488 30,818Southbury 19,580 19,842 19,838 19,676Woodbury 9,826 9,143 9,316 9,093Bridgeport 144,516 136,715 143,748 144,925Hartford 122,616 123,925 121,599 121,689New Haven 128,875 123,628 127,124 131,023Connecticut 3,540,846 3,497,398 3,511,137 3,545,169

2009 Town White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific

Native

American Other

Ansonia 15,189 1,712 1,932 385 70 1,052Beacon Falls 5,357 158 73 65 12 68Derby 10,741 817 440 128 10 260Oxford 11,767 70 126 138 7 260Seymour 14,720 353 451 298 0 341Shelton 36,986 835 828 780 32 208Naugatuck 27,767 1,398 902 897 27 836Southbury 18,464 476 572 433 24 445Woodbury 8,832 64 286 99 25 123Bridgeport 66,304 47,605 16,609 3,469 151 2,577Hartford 39,986 46,375 29,895 3,107 760 3,802New Haven 54,689 44,678 13,803 6,442 508 3,508Connecticut 2,756,861 319,730 426,255 120,457 9,990 290,360

2010 Town White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific

Native

American Other

Ansonia 15,169 1,845 1,834 397 49 1,071Beacon Falls 5,262 180 181 114 4 148Derby 10,809 706 1,280 366 17 700Oxford 11,780 376 360 199 18 305Seymour 14,448 581 688 477 29 524Shelton 36,024 839 1,939 1,203 31 1,164Naugatuck 27,496 1,556 1,922 892 66 1,478Southbury 18,335 566 486 443 11 483Woodbury 8,964 48 276 167 11 126Bridgeport 65,750 41,707 57,679 6,702 333 29,256Hartford 35,212 46,766 56,780 2,996 507 36,118New Haven 55,768 45,326 34,165 6,975 368 18,687Connecticut 2,786,761 337,299 411,629 128,651 6,418 252,008

Table 1-C. Population Statistics

26

Prenatal Statistics

27

2007TOTAL

GEOGRAPHIC AREA BIRTHS No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % CONNECTICUTMother's Race/Ethnicityf All Races 41,597 33 0.1 918 2.2 2,872 6.9 633 1.5 3,352 8.1 5,545 13.5 8,517 20.9 17,195 42.1 15,086 37.0 White non-Hispanic 24,424 8 0.0 206 0.8 816 3.3 297 1.2 1,748 7.2 2,039 8.4 4,006 16.6 10,502 43.6 9,600 39.8 Black non-Hispanic 5,056 6 0.1 202 4.0 644 12.7 158 3.1 622 12.3 1,164 23.4 1,485 29.9 1,839 37.0 1,642 33.1 Other non-Hispanic 2,888 1 a 25 0.9 80 2.8 38 1.3 235 8.1 377 13.1 569 19.9 1,254 43.8 1,041 36.3 Unknown non-Hispanic 8,810 18 0.2 483 5.5 1,319 15.0 132 1.5 730 8.3 1,937 22.1 2,426 27.8 3,546 40.6 2,752 31.5 Hispanic 419 0 a 2 a 13 3.1 8 5.7 17 12.1 28 20.3 31 22.8 54 39.7 51 37.5Mother's Hispanic Ethnicity 41,597 33 0.1 918 2.2 2,872 6.9 633 1.5 3,352 8.1 5,545 13.5 8,517 20.9 17,195 42.1 15,086 37.0 Non-Hispanic 8,810 18 0.2 483 5.5 1,319 15.0 132 1.5 730 8.3 1,937 22.1 2,426 27.8 3,546 40.6 2,752 31.5 Hispanic 32,442 15 0.0 433 1.3 1,543 4.8 496 1.5 2,611 8.1 3,592 11.2 6,075 19.0 13,622 42.6 12,315 38.5 Unknown Ethnicity 345 0 a 2 a 10 2.9 5 7.5 11 16.4 16 25.0 16 25.8 27 43.5 19 30.6 Ansonia All Races 242 0 a 3 a 20 8.3 4 a 12 5.0 16 6.7 28 11.8 73 30.7 137 57.6 White non-Hispanic 150 0 a 2 a 7 4.7 1 a 3 a 8 5.4 13 8.7 44 29.5 92 61.7 Black non-Hispanic 34 0 a 0 a 3 a 2 a 3 a 2 a 5 14.7 12 35.3 17 50.0 Other non-Hispanic 7 0 a 0 a 1 a 0 a 0 a 2 a 3 a 2 a 2 a Hispanic 49 0 a 1 a 9 18.4 1 a 6 12.2 4 a 7 14.6 15 31.3 26 54.2 Beacon Falls All Races 72 0 a 0 a 2 a 2 a 7 9.7 3 a 6 8.5 23 32.4 42 59.2 White non-Hispanic 66 0 a 0 a 2 a 2 a 7 10.6 3 a 5 7.7 22 33.8 38 58.5 Black non-Hispanic 1 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a Other non-Hispanic 2 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a 1 a Hispanic 2 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 2 a Derby All Races 168 0 a 2 a 13 7.7 1 a 15 8.9 14 8.4 17 10.4 51 31.3 95 58.3 White non-Hispanic 112 0 a 1 a 7 6.3 0 a 10 8.9 3 a 9 8.3 34 31.5 65 60.2 Black non-Hispanic 21 0 a 0 a 2 a 1 a 3 a 3 a 4 a 8 40.0 8 40.0 Other non-Hispanic 10 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a 1 a 1 a 3 a 6 60.0 Hispanic 25 0 a 1 a 4 a 0 a 1 a 7 28.0 3 a 6 24.0 16 64.0 Oxford All Races 140 0 a 0 a 1 a 0 a 8 5.8 4 a 9 6.5 51 36.7 79 56.8 White non-Hispanic 124 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 7 5.6 3 a 8 6.5 47 37.9 69 55.6 Black non-Hispanic 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Other non-Hispanic 6 0 a 0 a 1 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a 5 83.3 Hispanic 8 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a 1 a 1 a 2 a 5 62.5 Seymour All Races 180 0 a 0 a 8 4.4 4 a 12 6.7 8 4.5 18 10.1 65 36.5 95 53.4 White non-Hispanic 150 0 a 0 a 5 3.3 3 a 10 6.7 6 4.0 14 9.3 55 36.7 81 54.0 Black non-Hispanic 7 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a 1 a 1 a 1 a 4 a 2 a Other non-Hispanic 6 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 2 a 4 a Hispanic 14 0 a 0 a 3 a 0 a 1 a 1 a 3 a 3 a 8 57.1 Shelton All Races 327 0 a 3 a 10 3.1 0 a 20 6.1 17 5.3 37 11.5 121 37.5 165 51.1 White non-Hispanic 273 0 a 1 a 7 2.6 0 a 17 6.2 15 5.5 32 11.8 103 37.9 137 50.4 Black non-Hispanic 9 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a 0 a 0 a 4 a 4 a Other non-Hispanic 20 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a 2 a 6 30.0 12 60.0 Hispanic 24 0 a 2 a 3 a 0 a 2 a 1 a 3 a 8 36.4 11 50.0Valley All Races 1,129 0 a 8 0.7 54 4.8 11 1.0 74 6.6 62 5.5 115 10.2 384 34.0 613 54.3 White non-Hispanic 875 - a 4 0.5 28 3.2 6 0.7 54 6.2 38 4.3 81 9.3 305 34.9 482 55.1 Black non-Hispanic 72 0 a 0 0.0 5 6.9 2 2.8 4 5.6 5 6.9 9 12.5 28 38.9 32 44.4 Other non-Hispanic 43 - a 0 0.0 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 2.3 1 2.3 3 7.0 13 30.2 24 55.8 Hispanic 112 - a 4 3.6 19 17.0 1 0.9 9 8.0 6 5.4 16 14.3 32 28.6 61 54.5 Naugatuck All Races 405 1 a 7 1.7 16 4.0 8 2.0 32 7.9 36 9.0 44 11.1 153 38.5 200 50.4 White non-Hispanic 316 0 a 4 a 12 3.8 8 2.5 24 7.6 23 7.4 29 9.4 117 38.0 162 52.6 Black non-Hispanic 18 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a 4 a 5 27.8 5 27.8 8 44.4 Other non-Hispanic 28 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 3 a 4 a 5 17.9 10 35.7 13 46.4 Hispanic 43 1 a 3 a 4 a 0 a 4 a 5 11.6 5 11.6 21 48.8 17 39.5 Southbury All Races 128 0 a 1 a 3 a 0 a 6 4.7 9 7.2 6 4.8 48 38.7 70 56.5 White non-Hispanic 107 0 a 1 a 3 a 0 a 5 4.7 6 5.8 5 4.9 39 37.9 59 57.3 Black non-Hispanic 1 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a Other non-Hispanic 11 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 1 a 3 a 1 a 4 a 6 54.5 Hispanic 8 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 4 a 4 a Woodbury All Races 72 0 a 0 a 2 a 2 a 7 9.7 3 a 7 9.7 35 48.6 30 41.7 White non-Hispanic 65 0 a 0 a 1 a 2 a 7 10.8 2 a 4 a 34 52.3 27 41.5 Black non-Hispanic 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Other non-Hispanic 2 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 2 a Hispanic 5 0 a 0 a 1 a 0 a 0 a 1 a 3 a 1 a 1 a Bridgeport All Races 2,327 1 a 97 4.2 298 12.8 38 1.6 208 9.0 427 18.5 740 32.2 904 39.4 652 28.4 White non-Hispanic 362 1 a 9 2.5 29 8.0 4 a 28 7.7 35 9.7 68 18.9 167 46.5 124 34.5 Black non-Hispanic 753 0 a 26 3.5 90 12.0 19 2.5 84 11.2 165 22.1 233 31.3 269 36.2 242 32.5 Other non-Hispanic 103 0 a 1 a 6 5.8 0 a 3 a 14 13.6 23 22.3 52 50.5 28 27.2 Hispanic 1,098 0 a 61 5.6 172 15.7 15 1.4 93 8.5 213 19.5 416 38.2 415 38.1 258 23.7 Hartford All Races 2,140 8 0.4 129 6.0 339 15.8 61 2.9 245 11.5 597 28.3 744 35.4 784 37.4 571 27.2 White non-Hispanic 198 0 a 2 a 16 8.1 5 2.5 19 9.6 56 28.9 60 31.1 79 40.9 54 28.0 Black non-Hispanic 774 2 a 41 5.3 113 14.6 28 3.6 92 11.9 211 27.8 299 39.6 259 34.3 197 26.1 Other non-Hispanic 73 0 a 1 a 3 a 0 a 7 9.6 21 28.8 23 31.9 26 36.1 23 31.9 Hispanic 1,075 6 0.6 84 7.8 203 18.9 25 2.3 122 11.3 300 28.2 358 33.7 413 38.9 291 27.4 New Haven All Races 2,154 3 a 108 5.0 309 14.3 40 1.9 228 10.6 580 27.5 574 27.4 856 40.8 666 31.8 White non-Hispanic 434 0 a 7 1.6 24 5.5 5 1.2 35 8.1 73 17.2 81 19.3 216 51.4 123 29.3 Black non-Hispanic 784 2 a 46 5.9 142 18.1 22 2.8 116 14.8 230 30.1 236 31.0 272 35.7 253 33.2 Other non-Hispanic 135 0 a 0 a 3 a 1 a 14 10.4 21 15.7 28 21.1 66 49.6 39 29.3 Hispanic 797 1 a 55 6.9 140 17.6 12 1.5 63 7.9 255 32.4 228 29.2 302 38.7 251 32.1

Notes:a Percentages were not calculated for less than five events, e Late prenatal care is defined as prenatal care beginning in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. because of the high degree of variability associated with small numbers. f "Mother's Race/Ethnicity" comprises five mutually exclusive groups. Denominators used for calculating percentages exclude records Because the unknown ethnicity count is not given, the component values do not sum to the total for "all races." with missing data (i.e., denominator = total births minus unknowns). For counties, health districts, and towns, only the main components of race/ethnicity are shown. b A dash (-) represents the quantity zero.c Very low birthweight is defined as less than 1,500 grams. based on the Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization (APNCU) Index.d Low birthweight is defined as less than 2,500 grams. Beginning with 1999, prenatal care adequacy is not defined by the Kessner Index in this table.

Table 2-A. Births to Teenagers, Low Birthweight Births, and Prenatal Care by Mother's Race and Hispanic Ethnicity a,b

IntensivegLow BWTd (Latee or None) Non-adequateg Adequateg<15 yrs <18 yrs <20 yrs Very Low BWTc

g Non-adequate prenatal care comprises intermediate and inadequate prenatal care,

BIRTHS TO TEENAGERS PRENATAL CARETIMING ADEQUACY (APNCU Index)LOW BIRTHWEIGHT BIRTHS

28

2008TOTAL

GEOGRAPHIC AREA BIRTHS No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % CONNECTICUTMother's Race/Ethnicityf All Races 40,388 26 0.1 872 2.2 2,817 7.0 611 1.5 3,214 8.0 4,947 12.4 8,108 20.4 17,157 43.2 14,473 36.4 White non-Hispanic 23,411 4 a 180 0.8 727 3.1 267 1.1 1,553 6.6 1,874 8.1 3,831 16.5 10,347 44.6 9,045 38.9 Black non-Hispanic 5,019 10 0.2 189 3.8 645 12.9 163 3.3 684 13.6 981 19.8 1,352 27.4 1,963 39.8 1,616 32.8 Other non-Hispanic 2,810 1 a 14 0.5 71 2.5 47 1.7 256 9.1 356 12.7 549 19.7 1,226 44.0 1,012 36.3 Unknown non-Hispanic 8,662 11 0.1 487 5.6 1,364 15.7 132 1.5 706 8.2 1,712 19.9 2,342 27.2 3,519 40.9 2,735 31.8 Hispanic 486 a 2 a 10 2.1 2 a 15 7.1 24 11.5 34 16.9 102 50.7 65 32.3Mother's Hispanic Ethnicity 40,388 26 0.1 872 2.2 2,817 7.0 611 1.5 3,214 8.0 4,947 12.4 8,108 20.4 17,157 43.2 14,473 36.4 Non-Hispanic 8,662 11 0.1 487 5.6 1,364 15.7 132 1.5 706 8.2 1,712 19.9 2,342 27.2 3,519 40.9 2,735 31.8 Hispanic 31,308 15 0.0 383 1.2 1,444 4.6 478 1.5 2,496 8.0 3,222 10.4 5,747 18.5 13,566 43.7 11,696 37.7 Unknown Ethnicity 418 a 2 a 9 2.2 1 a 12 8.4 13 9.3 19 14.3 72 54.1 42 31.6 Ansonia All Races 227 1 a 5 2.2 21 9.3 3 a 22 9.7 18 7.9 32 14.2 75 33.3 118 52.4 White non-Hispanic 134 1 a 1 a 9 6.7 2 a 8 6.0 5 3.7 16 12.1 42 31.8 74 56.1 Black non-Hispanic 32 a a 2 a 1 a 9 28.1 7 21.9 8 25.0 12 37.5 12 37.5 Other non-Hispanic 11 a 1 a 1 a a 1 a 1 a a 5 45.5 6 54.5 Hispanic 50 a 3 a 9 18.0 a 4 a 5 10.0 8 16.0 16 32.0 26 52.0 Beacon Falls All Races 56 a a 1 a a 3 a 1 a 5 8.9 20 35.7 31 55.4 White non-Hispanic 50 a a 1 a a 2 a 1 a 5 10.0 18 36.0 27 54.0 Black non-Hispanic 1 a a a a a a a a 1 a Other non-Hispanic 1 a a a a a a a 1 a a Hispanic 4 a a a a 1 a a a 1 a 3 a Derby All Races 152 a 2 a 10 6.6 2 a 11 7.2 18 11.9 25 16.6 49 32.5 77 51.0 White non-Hispanic 91 a 1 a 4 a 1 a 4 a 7 7.7 11 12.1 31 34.1 49 53.8 Black non-Hispanic 16 a a 2 a 1 a 3 a 3 a 3 a 5 33.3 7 46.7 Other non-Hispanic 10 a a a a a 1 a 1 a 3 a 6 60.0 Hispanic 35 a 1 a 4 a a 4 a 7 20.0 10 28.6 10 28.6 15 42.9 Oxford All Races 116 a 1 a 1 a 1 a 15 12.9 3 a 8 6.9 41 35.3 67 57.8 White non-Hispanic 100 a 1 a 1 a a 14 14.0 3 a 6 6.0 34 34.0 60 60.0 Black non-Hispanic - - - - - - - - - Other non-Hispanic 7 a a a 1 a 1 a a a 3 a 4 a Hispanic 9 a a a a a a 2 a 4 a 3 a Seymour All Races 173 a a 5 2.9 1 a 11 6.4 7 4.0 17 9.9 53 30.8 102 59.3 White non-Hispanic 147 a a 4 a 1 a 11 7.5 7 4.8 15 10.2 44 29.9 88 59.9 Black non-Hispanic 7 a a a a a a 1 a a 6 85.7 Other non-Hispanic 10 a a a a a a a 5 50.0 5 50.0 Hispanic 9 a a 1 a a a a 1 a 4 a 3 a Shelton All Races 358 a 1 a 11 3.1 7 2.0 24 6.7 23 6.5 51 14.5 130 37.0 170 48.4 White non-Hispanic 291 a a 8 2.7 5 1.7 19 6.5 20 6.9 39 13.6 105 36.7 142 49.7 Black non-Hispanic 7 a 1 a 2 a a a a 1 a 3 a 3 a Other non-Hispanic 35 a a a 2 a 2 a 2 a 4 a 15 44.1 15 44.1 Hispanic 24 a a 1 a a 3 a 1 a 7 29.2 7 29.2 10 41.7Valley All Races 1,082 0 a 8 0.7 49 4.5 14 1.3 86 7.9 70 6.5 138 12.8 368 34.0 565 52.2 White non-Hispanic 813 - a 2 0.2 27 3.3 9 1.1 58 7.1 43 5.3 92 11.3 274 33.7 440 54.1 Black non-Hispanic 63 0 a 1 1.6 6 9.5 1 1.6 9 14.3 10 15.9 12 19.0 20 31.7 29 46.0 Other non-Hispanic 66 - a 0 0.0 1 1.5 2 3.0 3 4.5 2 3.0 5 7.6 28 42.4 32 48.5 Hispanic 118 - a 4 3.4 15 12.7 0 0.0 11 9.3 6 5.1 26 22.0 37 31.4 54 45.8 Naugatuck All Races 346 a 4 a 17 4.9 7 2.0 20 5.8 26 7.5 39 11.3 156 45.1 151 43.6 White non-Hispanic 276 a 2 a 10 3.6 6 2.2 15 5.4 26 9.4 30 10.9 127 46.0 119 43.1 Black non-Hispanic 18 a a 4 a a a a 2 a 9 50.0 7 38.9 Other non-Hispanic 22 a a a 1 a 4 a a 2 a 11 50.0 9 40.9 Hispanic 30 a 2 a 3 a a 1 a a 5 16.7 9 30.0 16 53.3 Southbury All Races 107 a a 1 a a 7 6.5 8 7.5 11 10.3 42 39.3 54 50.5 White non-Hispanic 102 a a 1 a a 6 5.9 8 7.8 10 9.8 41 40.2 51 50.0 Black non-Hispanic - - - - - - - - - Other non-Hispanic 3 a a a a 1 a a 1 a 1 a 1 a Hispanic 2 a a a a a a a a 2 a Woodbury All Races 75 a a a a 8 11.0 4 a 9 12.5 26 36.1 37 51.4 White non-Hispanic 68 a a a a 8 11.8 4 a 8 11.9 25 37.3 34 50.7 Black non-Hispanic - - - - - - - - - Other non-Hispanic 2 a a a a a a a a 2 a Hispanic 2 a a a a a a 1 a 1 a a Bridgeport All Races 2,335 2 a 111 4.8 317 13.6 50 2.1 236 10.1 428 18.5 689 29.9 1,028 44.6 590 25.6 White non-Hispanic 391 a 5 1.3 25 6.4 5 1.3 23 5.9 36 9.3 71 18.3 204 52.4 114 29.3 Black non-Hispanic 725 1 a 35 4.8 105 14.5 25 3.5 104 14.4 144 20.1 197 27.6 309 43.2 209 29.2 Other non-Hispanic 97 a a 5 5.2 2 a 8 8.2 10 10.3 23 23.7 49 50.5 25 25.8 Hispanic 1,108 1 a 71 6.4 180 16.2 18 1.6 100 9.0 236 21.4 396 36.0 464 42.2 239 21.7 Hartford All Races 2,154 11 0.5 146 6.8 415 19.3 72 3.3 249 11.6 471 22.2 744 35.1 760 35.9 614 29.0 White non-Hispanic 185 a 2 a 9 4.9 8 4.3 14 7.6 32 17.4 52 28.3 80 43.5 52 28.3 Black non-Hispanic 812 5 0.6 33 4.1 119 14.7 25 3.1 107 13.2 189 23.8 283 35.8 291 36.8 217 27.4 Other non-Hispanic 66 a a 3 a 2 a 4 a 14 21.2 22 33.3 29 43.9 15 22.7 Hispanic 1,085 6 0.6 110 10.1 283 26.1 37 3.4 122 11.3 235 21.9 386 36.0 357 33.3 328 30.6 New Haven All Races 2,122 3 a 107 5.0 276 13.0 45 2.1 234 11.1 451 21.7 508 24.5 892 43.1 671 32.4 White non-Hispanic 471 a 4 a 15 3.2 8 1.7 39 8.3 60 13.1 94 20.6 204 44.7 158 34.6 Black non-Hispanic 743 3 a 52 7.0 130 17.5 27 3.6 120 16.2 190 26.2 199 27.6 301 41.7 221 30.7 Other non-Hispanic 113 a a 1 a a 10 8.8 8 7.1 20 18.3 54 49.5 35 32.1 Hispanic 790 a 51 6.5 130 16.5 10 1.3 65 8.2 193 24.6 195 24.9 332 42.4 256 32.7




Table 2-B. Births to Teenagers, Low Birthweight Births, and Prenatal Care by Mother's Race and Hispanic Ethnicity a,b


29

2009TOTAL

GEOGRAPHIC AREA BIRTHS No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % CONNECTICUTMother's Race/Ethnicityf All Races 38,876 22 0.1 788 2.0 2,626 6.8 557 1.4 3,138 8.1 4,702 12.2 7,598 19.8 17,006 44.3 13,771 35.9 White non-Hispanic 22,297 5 0.0 157 0.7 692 3.1 230 1.0 1,553 7.0 1,763 7.9 3,619 16.4 10,069 45.7 8,364 37.9 Black non-Hispanic 4,860 5 0.1 177 3.6 575 11.8 156 3.2 581 12.0 908 18.9 1,259 26.4 1,930 40.5 1,575 33.1 Other non-Hispanic 2,893 a 17 0.6 73 2.5 30 1.0 260 9.0 354 12.3 593 20.7 1,276 44.5 996 34.8 Unknown non-Hispanic 8,572 12 0.1 435 5.1 1,277 14.9 134 1.6 724 8.5 1,641 19.3 2,093 24.7 3,619 42.7 2,768 32.6 Hispanic 254 a 2 a 9 3.5 7 2.8 20 8.0 36 16.1 34 15.9 112 52.3 68 31.8Mother's Hispanic Ethnicity 38,876 22 0.1 788 2.0 2,626 6.8 557 1.4 3,138 8.1 4,702 12.2 7,598 19.8 17,006 44.3 13,771 35.9 Non-Hispanic 30,087 10 0.0 351 1.2 1,341 4.5 418 1.4 2,396 8.0 3,029 10.1 5,479 18.4 13,291 44.7 10,947 36.8 Hispanic 8,572 12 0.1 435 5.1 1,277 14.9 134 1.6 724 8.5 1,641 19.3 2,093 24.7 3,619 42.7 2,768 32.6 Unknown Ethnicity 217 a 2 a 8 3.7 5 2.3 18 8.4 32 17.2 26 14.6 96 53.9 56 31.5 Ansonia All Races 224 1 a 4 a 10 4.5 4 a 14 6.3 14 6.3 22 9.9 75 33.6 126 56.5 White non-Hispanic 124 1 a 1 a 2 a 1 a 7 5.6 4 a 5 4.1 44 35.8 74 60.2 Black non-Hispanic 36 a 2 a 2 a a 2 a 5 13.9 7 19.4 11 30.6 18 50.0 Other non-Hispanic 7 a a a a 2 a a 2 a 2 a 3 a Hispanic 57 a 1 a 6 10.5 3 a 3 a 5 8.8 8 14.0 18 31.6 31 54.4 Beacon Falls All Races 59 a 2 a 2 a a 1 a 2 a 3 a 20 33.9 36 61.0 White non-Hispanic 55 a 2 a 2 a a a 2 a 3 a 19 34.5 33 60.0 Black non-Hispanic 1 a a a a a a a a 1 a Other non-Hispanic 2 a a a a a a a 1 a 1 a Hispanic 1 a a a a 1 a a a a 1 a Derby All Races 136 a 3 a 8 5.9 2 a 13 9.6 9 6.7 17 12.7 46 34.3 71 53.0 White non-Hispanic 99 a a 1 a 1 a 10 10.1 4 a 12 12.1 34 34.3 53 53.5 Black non-Hispanic 10 a 2 a 3 a a a 1 a 2 a 4 a 4 a Other non-Hispanic 5 a a a a a 1 a 1 a 2 a 2 a Hispanic 22 a 1 a 4 a 1 a 3 a 3 a 2 a 6 30.0 12 60.0 Oxford All Races 103 a a 1 a 2 a 6 5.8 7 6.8 12 11.8 35 34.3 55 53.9 White non-Hispanic 97 a a 1 a 2 a 6 6.2 5 5.2 9 9.4 33 34.4 54 56.3 Black non-Hispanic 1 a a a a a 1 a 1 a a a Other non-Hispanic 1 a a a a a a a a 1 a Hispanic 4 a a a a a 1 a 2 a 2 a a Seymour All Races 171 a 1 a 4 a 2 a 12 7.0 9 5.3 16 9.5 66 39.3 86 51.2 White non-Hispanic 138 a a 2 a 1 a 10 7.2 6 4.3 12 8.8 55 40.1 70 51.1 Black non-Hispanic 3 a a a a a a a 1 a 2 a Other non-Hispanic 7 a a a a a a 1 a a 5 83.3 Hispanic 22 a 1 a 2 a 1 a 2 a 2 a 2 a 10 47.6 9 42.9 Shelton All Races 358 1 a 3 a 8 2.2 4 a 36 10.1 18 5.0 51 14.3 138 38.7 168 47.1 White non-Hispanic 289 a a 3 a 2 a 31 10.7 12 4.2 40 13.9 114 39.6 134 46.5 Black non-Hispanic 14 a a a 2 a 2 a 2 a 3 a 2 a 9 64.3 Other non-Hispanic 26 a a a a 3 a 3 a 3 a 8 30.8 15 57.7 Hispanic 28 1 a 3 a 5 17.9 a a 1 a 5 17.9 14 50.0 9 32.1Valley

All Races 1,051 1 a 13 1.2 33 3.1 14 1.3 82 7.8 59 5.6 121 11.5 380 36.2 542 51.6 White non-Hispanic 802 - a 3 0.4 11 1.4 7 0.9 64 8.0 33 4.1 81 10.1 299 37.3 418 52.1 Black non-Hispanic 65 0 a 2 3.1 5 7.7 0 0.0 4 6.2 6 9.2 13 20.0 18 27.7 34 52.3 Other non-Hispanic 45 - a 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 11.1 3 6.7 4 8.9 12 26.7 25 55.6 Hispanic 129 - a 5 3.9 17 13.2 4 3.1 6 4.7 8 6.2 17 13.2 48 37.2 61 47.3 Naugatuck All Races 365 a 8 2.2 16 4.4 6 1.6 25 6.8 27 7.4 39 10.8 167 46.3 155 42.9 White non-Hispanic 278 a 6 2.2 11 4.0 5 1.8 16 5.8 17 6.1 24 8.7 125 45.5 126 45.8 Black non-Hispanic 21 a a 1 a a 4 a 5 23.8 5 23.8 6 28.6 10 47.6 Other non-Hispanic 23 a a a a 1 a a 1 a 16 69.6 6 26.1 Hispanic 43 a 2 a 4 a 1 a 4 a 5 11.6 9 21.4 20 47.6 13 31.0 Southbury All Races 96 a a a 2 a 9 9.4 6 6.3 6 6.3 36 37.5 54 56.3 White non-Hispanic 90 a a a 1 a 8 8.9 6 6.7 5 5.6 35 38.9 50 55.6 Black non-Hispanic 1 a a a 1 a 1 a a a a 1 a Other non-Hispanic 2 a a a a a a a a 2 a Hispanic 3 a a a a a a 1 a 1 a 1 a Woodbury All Races 59 a a a 2 a 4 a 2 a 4 a 21 35.6 34 57.6 White non-Hispanic 53 a a a 2 a 4 a 2 a 4 a 17 32.1 32 60.4 Black non-Hispanic 1 a a a a a a a a 1 a Other non-Hispanic - - - - - - - - - Hispanic 5 a a a a a a a 4 a 1 a Bridgeport All Races 2,334 1 a 94 4.0 287 12.3 45 1.9 230 9.9 341 14.7 737 31.8 1,122 48.4 460 19.8 White non-Hispanic 430 a 5 1.2 22 5.1 4 a 39 9.1 46 10.7 96 22.5 228 53.5 102 23.9 Black non-Hispanic 757 a 24 3.2 86 11.4 26 3.4 91 12.0 98 13.0 229 30.5 359 47.9 162 21.6 Other non-Hispanic 87 a a 3 a 1 a 4 a 19 21.8 25 28.7 43 49.4 19 21.8 Hispanic 1,058 1 a 65 6.1 175 16.5 14 1.3 96 9.1 177 16.8 387 36.7 491 46.6 176 16.7 Hartford All Races 2,196 a 116 5.3 376 17.1 44 2.0 231 10.5 428 19.6 507 23.2 858 39.3 820 37.5 White non-Hispanic 206 a a 17 8.3 2 a 17 8.3 35 17.2 55 27.0 82 40.2 67 32.8 Black non-Hispanic 779 a 21 2.7 105 13.5 20 2.6 90 11.6 171 22.0 212 27.4 307 39.6 256 33.0 Other non-Hispanic 73 a a 3 a 2 a 9 12.3 15 20.8 20 27.8 26 36.1 26 36.1 Hispanic 1,127 a 95 8.4 250 22.2 20 1.8 115 10.2 206 18.3 218 19.4 439 39.1 466 41.5 New Haven All Races 2,054 4 a 77 3.7 254 12.4 47 2.3 178 8.7 430 21.6 461 23.4 872 44.2 640 32.4 White non-Hispanic 476 1 a 2 a 12 2.5 9 1.9 39 8.2 54 11.5 64 13.9 244 52.8 154 33.3 Black non-Hispanic 702 2 a 41 5.8 117 16.7 27 3.8 81 11.5 170 25.4 182 27.4 251 37.8 231 34.8 Other non-Hispanic 123 a 1 a 8 6.5 a 10 8.1 11 8.9 17 13.8 71 57.7 35 28.5 Hispanic 751 1 a 33 4.4 117 15.6 11 1.5 48 6.4 195 26.7 197 27.3 305 42.2 220 30.5




Table 2-C. Births to Teenagers, Low Birthweight Births, and Prenatal Care by Mother's Race and Hispanic Ethnicity a,b


30

Communicable Disease Incidence

31

Communicable Diseases HIV/AIDS In the last CHP, changes in testing and the increased time from HIV diagnosis to the onset of AIDS in the population led to the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) recommending that HIV and AIDS annual statistics be combined into HIV/AIDS incidence (one statistic). Since the last CHP, DPH now recommends that incidence of HIV/AIDS be reported as: year of diagnosis. Therefore, to reflect this method of reporting, the data used for this report covers the span 2005 (earliest available) through 2009 (latest available). With respect to the changes mentioned above, crude incidence of HIV/AIDS in the six Valley towns has been significantly lower than the state and stable from 2005 to 2009. While there was an overall increase in incidence of HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the Valley since 2003, there did not appear to be a significant trend. With respect to area towns, since 2003 Naugatuck had had a slight, although non-significant, decrease in HIV/AIDS incidence. Southbury and Woodbury had several years with no reported incidences of HIV/AIDS, but both experienced a significant increase in reporting in 2007. Rates in these areas remained comparable with the Valley. Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven have significantly higher crude incidence rates of HIV/AIDS than the state, as well as all the other towns reported in the CHP. From 2006 to 2007, Bridgeport saw a significant decrease in HIV/AIDS incidence; Hartford saw a significant increase and New Haven remained stable. Incidence of HIV/AIDS in Connecticut has remained stable over the reporting period.

Hepatitis B Crude incidence rates of hepatitis B remained relatively unchanged in the Valley from 1999 through 2009. In eight of those years, there were one or no reported cases. Crude incidence rates in the Valley remained comparable to the state in terms of both stability and low crude incidence rates. With respect to area towns, the crude incidence rates of hepatitis B in the Valley were comparable to Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury. Rates in the area towns have all declined since last reported in 2008 CHP. Since 2000, Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven have had fluctuating incidences of hepatitis B; however the crude incidence rates of the disease did not significantly change from year to year. In 2009, there were no reported cases of hepatitis B in Bridgeport and Hartford. It would appear that incidence of hepatitis B in all reporting areas had either remained stable or declined across the reporting years 1999 to 2009. Influenza Influenza surveillance data at the town and state level are newly available in this latest version of the CHP (only for the years 2006 to 2009). As reported in prior publications of the CHP, these data were not available nor considered reliable at the local level prior to 2006. Laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza vary depending on the year for a host of reasons. In 2009, the number of confirmed cases at the Valley, towns/cities and state levels all rose exponentially. It should be noted that these data normally fluctuate from

32

year to year; the increased testing surrounding the H1NI virus in 2009 is reflected in the testing sensitivity due to increased public health concern. Lyme Disease Since the 2008 CHP, incidence of Lyme disease in the Valley continued to increase, although these changes were not found to be significant from year to year. Valley towns such as Shelton and Oxford both saw steep increases in Lyme disease incidence since the 2003 reporting change. Crude incidence rates at the state level also increased during this timeframe. The state’s 2009 increase was significantly higher than the six Valley towns. Since added to the CHP in 2008, Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury have all seen an increase in reported Lyme disease cases. Crude rates in Southbury and Woodbury have been higher than both the Valley and the state, but have not been found to significantly differ. Areas such as Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven continued to have lower crude incidence rates of Lyme disease when compared to the state, the Valley, Southbury and Woodbury. However, reported cases of Lyme disease in these three cities appeared to be steadily increasing since 2003. In the 2008 CHP, it was reported that the state also saw a sizeable significant increase in Lyme disease incidence in 2007, this trend continued with the addition of the 2008 and 2009 data. The state’s increase of crude incidence rate of Lyme disease from 2008 to 2009 was found to be statistically significant. Streptococcus Pneumoniae Overall crude incidence rates of streptococcus pneumoniae in the Valley have been comparable to the state in terms of incidence trends from 1999 to 2009. Within each of the six Valley towns, the rates have fluctuated, but remained relatively constant for the ten year period. Area towns: Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury continued to have low incidence rates of streptococcus pneumoniae since 2003. Incidence rates in these areas continue to remain comparable with the state, the Valley and Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven. Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven had stable incidence rates of streptococcus pneumoniae from 1999 to 2009; in the years 2008 and 2009, rates decreased consecutively since last reporting (CHP 2008). Connecticut had a trend of decreased crude incidence rates of streptococcus pneumoniae thru 2009 following a near significant decrease from 2002 to 2003. The crude incidence rate of Streptococcus Pneumonia in Connecticut significantly decreased comparing the year 1999 to 2009. Active Tuberculosis

33

From 1999 to 2009, incidences of active tuberculosis either declined in number or remained stable in the Valley towns. The crude incidence rate of the disease has remained comparable with the state. There were no reported incidences of active tuberculosis in the valley in 2006 and 2008. Since 2003, Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury had very few reported cases of active tuberculosis. In the years 2008 and 2009 there were no reported cases in these three towns. Incidence of active tuberculosis has been more pronounced in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven when compared to the six Valley towns and the three area towns. Over the ten year period covered, crude incidence rates have been higher in these cities when compared to the entire state. Bridgeport has consistently had a significantly higher rate of incidence compared to the state (1999, 2001-2005, 2007 and 2009) while the overall crude incidence rates of active tuberculosis have remained stable in the state for the last decade.

Chlamydia From 1999 to 2009, crude incidence rates of chlamydia in the six Valley towns was significantly lower than the state. There was a statistically significant overall increase in crude incidence from the year 1999 to the year 2009 in the six Valley towns. 2009 saw the highest crude incidence rate in the Valley since 1995. Ansonia, Derby and Oxford have all displayed a trend in increased crude incidence rates of chlamydia from 1999 to 2009. Naugatuck has had comparable crude incidence rates to the Valley (since 2003) and the rates in Naugatuck were significantly lower than the state. With the exception of Woodbury in the year 2009, both Southbury and Woodbury saw stable crude incidence rates of chlamydia and rates were significantly lower than Naugatuck, the six Valley towns and the state. Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven continued to have significantly higher incidence rates of chlamydia than the state, the six Valley towns and other reported towns in the CHP. Since 2000, rates in Bridgeport significantly increased, while Hartford saw a trend of fluctuating crude incidence. New Haven had a significant increase in crude incidence of chlamydia from 1999 to 2009. Since 1999, Connecticut saw an increased trend of crude incidence rates of chlamydia. There were annual statistically significant increases in the crude incidence rates from 2001 to 2005; as well as from 2006 to 2008. Gonorrhea From 1999 to 2009, the six Valley towns had significantly lower crude incidence rates of gonorrhea than the state. From 1999 to 2009 there was a significant reduction in the crude incidence rate of gonorrhea in the Valley.

34

Naugatuck saw a steady decline in incidence rates since 2003 (although not significant). Southbury and Woodbury continued to have few reported incidences of gonorrhea since the 2008 CHP. Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven have historically had significantly higher crude incidence rates of gonorrhea than the state and other towns in the CHP. In Bridgeport and Hartford, rates appeared be to trending towards a decline. Crude incidence rates of gonorrhea in New Haven remained high, but stayed constant from 1999 to 2009. The incidence rate of gonorrhea fluctuated in the state from 1999 to 2009; however there was a significant reduction in gonorrhea incidence rates from when comparing 1999 to 2009. Syphilis From 2005-2008, the six Valley towns reported no cases of syphilis. Since 1999, when there were years with reported incidences of syphilis, the rates in the Valley for those years were comparable to the state. Since the 2008 CHP, there were no reported incidences of syphilis in Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury. Reported incidence of syphilis in Bridgeport and Hartford sharply increased in 2009; however those rates were not significantly higher than the state for that year. In New Haven, reported incidences of syphilis appear to have significantly increased from 1999 to 2009. Since 1999, the state saw fluctuating rates of incidence for syphilis; the years: 2005, 2006 and 2009 were found to be significantly higher compared to other years during that ten year time span.

35

2007 Incidence Rate

Ansonia 2 (11) 0 - 13 (69) 7 (38) 0 - 7 (38)Beacon Falls 0 - 0 - 2 (36) 8 (139) 0 - 0 -Derby 0 - 0 - 14 (111) 5 (40) 1 (8) 4 (32)Oxford 2 (16) 0 - 6 (54) 12 (96) 0 - 3 (24)Seymour 1 (6) 0 - 9 (56) 13 (80) 0 - 2 (12)Shelton 1 (2) 0 - 15 (38) 40 (100) 0 - 6 (15)Valley 6 (6) 0 - 59 (57) 85 (81) 1 (1) 22 (21)Naugatuck 2 (6) 0 - 8 (25) 16 (50) 2 (6) 8 (25)Southbury 2 (10) 0 - 8 (41) 16 (81) 0 - 2 (10)Woodbury 3 (31) 0 - 4 (41) 15 (155) 0 - 1 (10)Bridgeport 51 (37) 2 (1) 141 (101) 16 (12) 14 (10) 22 (16)Hartford 75 (60) 4 (3) 57 (46) 6 (5) 5 (4) 27 (22)New Haven 45 (36) 3 (2) 213 (170) 15 (12) 10 (8) 30 (24)Connecticut 461 (13) 39 (1) 1,749 (50) 3058 (87) 108 (3) 453 (13)

2008 Incidence Rate

Ansonia 2 (11) 1 (5) 43 (229) 10 (54) 0 - 2 (11)Beacon Falls 0 - 0 - 7 (125) 1 (17) 0 - 1 (17)Derby 1 (8) 1 (8) 37 (295) 6 (48) 0 - 3 (24)Oxford 0 - 0 - 10 (85) 18 (141) 0 - 2 (16)Seymour 0 - 0 - 19 (118) 21 (129) 0 - 2 (12)Shelton 4 (10) 0 - 51 (129) 43 (108) 0 - 8 (5)Valley 7 (7) 2 (2) 167 (160) 99 (94) 0 - 18 (17)Naugatuck 2 (6) 1 (3) 40 (126) 14 (44) 0 - 3 (9)Southbury 2 (10) 1 (5) 18 (91) 15 (76) 0 - 4 (20)Woodbury 0 - 0 - 6 (62) 16 (166) 0 - 1 (10)Bridgeport 44 (32) 3 (2) 133 (96) 19 (14) 10 (7) 20 (15)Hartford 51 (41) 1 (1) 131 (105) 6 (5) 7 (6) 26 (21)New Haven 49 (40) 3 (2) 494 (396) 25 (20) 8 (6) 29 (23)Connecticut 359 (10) 31 (1) 4800 (137) 3896 (111) 98 (3) 471 (13)

2009 Incidence Rate

Ansonia 4 (22) 0 - 125 (670) 5 (27) 0 - 3 (16)Beacon Falls 0 - 0 - 25 (438) 3 (51) 0 - 0 -Derby 2 (16) 0 - 78 (625) 8 (65) 1 (5) 2 (16)Oxford 0 - 0 - 73 (592) 11 (85) 0 - 3 (23)Seymour 1 (6) 0 - 93 (572) 18 (110) 1 (6) 4 (24)Shelton 1 (2) 0 - 500 (1243) 49 (122) 1 (2) 2 (5)Valley 8 (8) 0 - 894 (846) 94 (88) 3 (3) 14 (13)Naugatuck 2 (6) 0 - 97 (304) 16 (50) 0 - 5 (16)Southbury 0 - 0 - 56 (284) 20 (101) 0 - 0 -Woodbury 0 - 0 - 15 (154) 12 (124) 0 - 1 (10)Bridgeport 43 (31) 0 - 809 (586) 28 (20) 15 (11) 17 (12)Hartford 47 (38) 0 - 664 (532) 11 (9) 6 (5) 23 (19)New Haven 26 (21) 1 (1) 1103 (888) 14 (11) 11 (9) 22 (18)Connecticut 354 (10) 17 (1) 16239 (463) 4156 (118) 95 (3) 449 (13)

a Streptococcus PneumoniaeData from Connecticut Department of Public HealthValues in parentheses indicate the rate of disease per 100,000 people (population statistics are from CERC, www.cerc.com)*Active Tuberculosis

Table 3-A. Communicable Disease Incidence & Incidence Rate

AIDS Hepatitis B Influenza Lyme Tuberculosis* Strep a

36

Incidence Rate

Ansonia 1 (5) 4 (21) 2 (11) 2 (11) 4 (22)Beacon Falls 0 - 1 (18) 0 - 0 - 0 -Derby 1 (8) 0 - 0 - 1 (8) 2 (16)Oxford 1 (9) 0 - 2 (16) 0 - 0 -Seymour 1 (6) 0 - 1 (6) 0 - 1 (6)Shelton 4 (10) 4 (10) 1 (2) 4 (10) 1 (2)Valley 8 (8) 9 (9) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8)Naugatuck 0 - 2 (6) 2 (6) 2 (6) 2 (6)Southbury 1 (5) 0 - 2 (10) 2 (10) 0 -Woodbury 0 - 0 - 3 (31) 0 - 0 -Bridgeport 64 (46) 70 (51) 51 (37) 44 (32) 43 (31)Hartford 67 (54) 71 (57) 75 (60) 51 (41) 47 (38)New Haven 60 (48) 63 (51) 45 (36) 49 (40) 26 (21)Connecticut 474 (14) 474 (14) 461 (13) 359 (10) 354 (10)

Data from Connecticut Department of Public HealthValues in parentheses indicate the rate of disease per 100,000 people

Lower CI Upper CI

Ansonia (-5) (16) (0) (42) (-4) (26) (-4) (26) (0) (43)Beacon Falls - - (-17) (52) - - - - - -Derby (-8) (24) - - - - (-8) (24) (-6) (39)Oxford (-8) (25) - - (-6) (38) - - - -Seymour (-6) (18) - - (-6) (18) - - (-6) (18)Shelton (0) (20) (0) (20) (-2) (7) (0) (20) (-2) (7)Valley (2) (13) (3) (14) (1) (10) (2) (12) (2) (13)Naugatuck - - (-2) (15) (-2) (15) (-2) (15) (-2) (15)Southbury (-5) (15) - - (-4) (24) (-4) (24) - -Woodbury - - - - (-4) (66) - - - -Bridgeport (35) (57) (39) (63) (27) (48) (23) (42) (22) (41)Hartford (41) (67) (44) (70) (47) (74) (30) (52) (27) (49)New Haven (36) (60) (38) (63) (26) (47) (29) (51) (13) (29)Connecticut (12) (15) (12) (15) (12) (14) (9) (11) (9) (11)

20092005 2006 2007 2008

Table 3-B. HIV/AIDS Incidence Rate per 100,000 People2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

37

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-A. AIDS Incidence Rate per 100,000 People All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut

Ansonia Beacon Falls Derby Oxford Seymour Shelton CT

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nc

e R

ate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-B. AIDS Incidence Rate per 100,000 People Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury

and the Valley vs. Connecticut

Naugatuck Southbury Woodbury Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Valley CT

39

Incidence RateAnsonia 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (6) 0 - 1 (5) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Beacon Falls 1 (20) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (5) 0 -Derby 0 - 1 (8) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Oxford 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (8) 0 -Seymour 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (7) 1 (6) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Shelton 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (3) 2 (6) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Valley 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 - 1 (1) 3 (3) 1 (1) 2 (2) 0 - 0 - 2 2 0 -Naugatuck 1 (4) 1 (4) 4 (13) 2 (6) 0 - 1 (3) 0 -Southbury 1 (6) 0 - 1 (5) 0 - 0 - 1 (5) 0 -Woodbury 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Bridgeport 2 (1) 4 (3) 5 (4) 7 (5) 2 (2) 2 (1) 4 (3) 2 (1) 3 (2) 0 -Hartford 4 (3) 8 (7) 5 (4) 8 (7) 3 (3) 2 (2) 7 (6) 4 (3) 1 (1) 0 -New Haven 4 (3) 3 (2) 5 (4) 4 (4) 6 (5) 5 (4) 2 (2) 3 (2) 3 (2) 1 (1)Connecticut 46 (1) 47 (1) 51 (1) 76 (2) 98 (3) 86 (3) 50 (1) 50 (1) 39 (1) 31 (1) 17 (1)


Lower CI Upper CIValley (-1) (3) (-1) (3) - - (-1) (3) - (6) (-1) (3) (-1) (5) - - - - (1) (5) - -Naugatuck (-4) (12) (-4) (12) (0) (26) (-3) (14) - - (5) (9) - -Southbury (-6) (18) - - (-5) (15) - - - - (5) (15) - -Woodbury - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Bridgeport (0) (2) - - (0) (7) (1) (9) (-1) (5) (-1) (2) (0) (6) (-1) (2) (0) (4) - -Hartford (0) (6) - - (1) (8) (2) (12) - (6) (-1) (5) (2) (10) (0) (6) (1) (3) - -New Haven (0) (6) - - (0) (8) (0) (8) (1) (9) (0) (8) (1) (5) (0) (4) (0) (4) (1) (3)Connecticut (1) (1) (1) (2) (1) (2) (2) (3) (2) (4) (2) (4) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

1999 2004

2004

2000

1999 2000 2001 2006

2003 2005

2002 2003

2001

Table 3-C. Hepatitis B Incidence per 100,000 People

2008 20092002

2008 20092005

2006

2007

2007

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nc

e R

ate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-C. Hepatitis B Incidence per 100,000 People All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


41

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-D. Hepatitis B Incidence per 100,000 People Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



42

Incidence Rate

Ansonia 6 (33) 10 (54) 4 (22) 19 (102) 1 (6) 0 - 5 (27) 3 (16) 7 (38) 10 (54) 5 (27)Beacon Falls 1 (20) 4 (76) 8 (152) 12 (229) 0 - 2 (36) 3 (54) 0 - 8 (139) 1 (17) 3 (51)Derby 5 (41) 6 (48) 8 (65) 11 (89) 3 (24) 4 (32) 6 (48) 5 (40) 5 (40) 6 (48) 8 (65)Oxford 14 (161) 13 (132) 15 (153) 22 (224) 4 (38) 3 (27) 6 (51) 4 (32) 12 (96) 18 (141) 11 (85)Seymour 15 (105) 13 (84) 12 (78) 23 (149) 3 (19) 6 (38) 10 (62) 13 (80) 13 (80) 21 (129) 18 (110)Shelton 26 (65) 41 (108) 38 (100) 45 (118) 15 (39) 22 (56) 27 (68) 27 (67) 40 (100) 43 (108) 49 (122)Valley 64 (68) 87 (87) 85 (85) 130 (131) 26 (26) 37 (36) 57 (55) 52 (49) 85 (81) 99 (94) 94 (88)Naugatuck 2 (7) 11 (35) 7 - 11 (34) 16 (50) 14 (44) 16 (50)Southbury 5 (26) 3 (16) 13 (66) 6 (30) 16 (81) 15 (76) 20 (101)Woodbury 7 (74) 7 (73) 10 (103) 11 (113) 15 (155) 16 (166) 12 (124)Bridgeport 24 (17) 36 (26) 41 (29) 3 (3) 7 (5) 11 (8) 5 (4) 16 (12) 19 (14) 28 (20)Hartford 14 (12) 12 (10) 7 (6) 1 (1) 0 - 0 - 2 (2) 6 (5) 6 (5) 11 (9)New Haven 15 (12) 13 (11) 20 (16) 1 (1) 2 (2) 5 (4) 1 (1) 15 (12) 25 (20) 14 (11)Connecticut 3213 (98) 3773 (111) 3597 (106) 4631 (136) 1403 (41) 1348 (39) 1810 (52) 1788 (51) 3058 (87) 3896 (111) 4156 (118)

Data from Connecticut Department of Public HealthValues in parentheses indicate the rate of disease per 100,000 people** Drop in case numbers and rates after 2002 is due to change in the reporting system. The data is not comparable to the 2001 and 2002 rates

Lower CI Upper CI

Valley (51) (85) (69) (106) (67) (104) (108) (153) (16) (36) (24) (48) (41) (69) (36) (62) (64) (98) (75) (113) (70) (106)Naugatuck (-3) (17) (14) (56) - - (14) (54) (26) (75) (21) (67) (26) (75)Southbury (3) (49) (-2) (34) (30) (102) (6) (54) (41) (121) (38) (114) (57) (145)Woodbury (19) (129) (19) (127) (39) (167) (46) (180) (77) (233) (85) (247) (54) (194)Bridgeport (10) (24) (17) (34) (20) (38) (0) (6) (1) (9) (3) (13) (0) (8) (6) (18) (8) (20) (13) (27)Hartford (5) (18) (4) (15) (1) (10) (-1) (3) - - - - (-1) (5) (1) (9) (1) (9) (4) (14)New Haven (6) (18) (5) (16) (9) (23) (-1) (3) (-1) (5) (0) (8) (-1) (3) (6) (18) (12) (28) (5) (17)Connecticut (95) (101) (107) (114) (102) (109) (132) (140) (39) (43) (37) (41) (50) (54) (49) (53) (84) (90) (108) (114) (114) (122)

Table 3-D. Lyme Disease Incidence and Incidence Rate per 100,000 Population

2001

2000 2001

1999 2000

2005

2004

1999 200820072003** 2004 2009

2006 2007 2008 2009

2002 2006

20052003**2002

43

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-E. Lyme Disease Incidence per 100,000 People All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


Drop in case numbers and rates after 2002 is due to a change in the reporting system. The data is not comparable to the 2001 and 2002 rates.

44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nc

e R

ate

s (

pe

r 1

00

,00

0)

Year

Figure 3-F. Lyme Disease Incidence per 100,000 People Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury


Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Naugatuck Southbury Woodbury Valley CT

Drop in case numbers and rates after 2002 is due to a change in the reporting system. The data is not comparable to the 2001 and 2002 rates.

45

Incidence Rate

Ansonia 6 (33) 5 (27) 4 (22) 5 (27) 3 (16) 3 (16) 2 (11) 7 (38) 7 (38) 2 (11) 3 (16)Beacon Falls 0 - 2 (38) 1 (19) 1 (19) 1 (19) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (17) 0 -Derby 3 (25) 3 (24) 5 (40) 1 (8) 3 (24) 1 (8) 2 (16) 3 (24) 4 (32) 3 (24) 2 (16)Oxford 1 (12) 2 (20) 0 - 0 - 1 (10) 3 (27) 0 - 1 (8) 3 (24) 2 (16) 3 (23)Seymour 4 (28) 1 (6) 5 (32) 2 (13) 2 (13) 6 (38) 3 (19) 3 (18) 2 (12) 2 (12) 4 (24)Shelton 4 (11) 6 (16) 4 (10) 8 (21) 6 (16) 3 (8) 8 (20) 7 (17) 6 (15) 8 (5) 2 (5)Valley 18 (18) 19 (19) 19 (19) 17 (17) 16 (16) 10 (10) 15 (14) 21 (20) 22 (21) 18 (17) 14 (13)Naugatuck 4 (13) 4 (13) 4 (13) 4 (13) 8 (25) 3 (9) 5 (16)Southbury 3 (16) 5 (26) 3 (15) 2 (10) 2 (10) 4 (20) 0 -Woodbury 2 (21) 1 (11) 2 (21) 0 - 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10)Bridgeport 36 (26) 48 (34) 32 (23) 27 (20) 25 (18) 24 (17) 30 (22) 22 (16) 20 (15) 17 (12)Hartford 49 (40) 32 (26) 38 (31) 28 (23) 14 (12) 24 (19) 27 (22) 27 (22) 26 (21) 23 (19)New Haven 30 (24) 29 (23) 34 (28) 26 (21) 22 (18) 18 (14) 34 (27) 30 (24) 29 (23) 22 (18)Connecticut 690 (21) 666 (20) 551 (16) 526 (15) 452 (13) 419 (12) 426 (12) 442 (13) 453 (13) 471 (13) 449 (13)

Data from Connecticut Department of Public Health

Lower CI Upper CI

Valley (10) (26) (10) (28) (10) (28) (9) (25) (8) (24) (4) (16) (7) (21) (11) (29) (12) (30) (9) (25) (6) (20)Naugatuck (0) (26) (0) (26) (0) (26) (0) (26) (8) (42) (-1) (19) (2) (30)Southbury (-2) (34) (3) (49) (-2) (32) (-4) (24) (-4) (24) (0) (40) (0) (0)Woodbury (-8) (50) (-11) (33) (-8) (50) - - (-11) (30) (-10) (30) (-10) (30)Bridgeport (18) (34) (25) (44) (15) (31) (12) (28) (11) (25) (10) (24) (14) (30) (9) (23) (8) (22) (6) (18)Hartford (29) (52) (17) (35) (21) (41) (14) (32) (6) (18) (11) (27) (14) (30) (14) (30) (13) (29) (11) (27)New Haven (16) (33) (15) (32) (18) (37) (13) (29) (10) (26) (8) (20) (18) (36) (15) (33) (15) (31) (10) (26)Connecticut (19) (23) (18) (21) (15) (18) (14) (17) (12) (14) (11) (13) (11) (13) (12) (14) (12) (14) (12) (14) (12) (14)

Table 3-E. Streptococcus Pneumoniae Incidence2008 2009

Values in parentheses indicate the rate of disease per 100,000 people

20021999 2000 2001 2003 2004

2008 20092002 2003

2006 2007

2004 2005 2006 2007

2005

1999 2000 2001

46

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-G. Streptopneumococcus Incidence All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


47

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

s (

pe

r 1

00

,00

0)

Year

Figure 3-H. Streptopneumococcus Incidence Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Nautatuck, Southbury, Woodbury


Valley Naugatuck Southbury Woodbury Bridgeport Hartford New Haven CT

48

Incidence Rate

Ansonia 1 (5) 0 - 0 - 1 (5) 1 (6) 2 (11) 1 (5) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Beacon Falls 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Derby 2 (16) 0 - 1 (8) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (8) 0 - 1 (5)Oxford 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Seymour 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (6) 0 - 0 - 1 (6) 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (6)Shelton 0 - 3 (8) 2 (5) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 2 (5) 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (2)Valley 3 (3) 3 (3) 3 (3) 3 (3) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 0 - 1 (1) 0 - 3 (3)Naugatuck 1 (4) 0 - 0 - 2 (6) 2 (6) 0 - 0 -Southbury 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (5) 0 - 0 - 0 -Woodbury 0 - 1 (11) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Bridgeport 16 (11) 13 (9) 20 (14) 15 (11) 16 (12) 15 (11) 14 (10) 9 (7) 14 (10) 10 (7) 15 (11)Hartford 19 (16) 16 (13) 14 (12) 15 (12) 10 (8) 11 (9) 9 (7) 7 (6) 5 (4) 7 (6) 6 (5)New Haven 11 (9) 11 (9) 7 (6) 11 (9) 8 (7) 5 (4) 6 (5) 6 (5) 10 (8) 8 (6) 11 (9)Connecticut 121 (4) 105 (3) 121 (4) 105 (3) 111 (4) 101 (3) 95 (3) 89 (3) 108 (3) 98 (3) 95 (3)


Lower CI Upper CI

Valley (0) (6) (0) (6) (0) (6) (0) (6) (-1) (5) (0) (6) (0) (8) - - (-1) (3) - - (0) (6)Naugatuck (-4) (12) - - - - (-3) (14) (-3) (14) - - - -Southbury - - - - - - (-5) (15) - - - - - -Woodbury - - (-11) (33) - - - - - - - - - -Bridgeport (6) (16) (4) (14) (8) (20) (5) (16) (6) (18) (5) (17) (5) (15) (2) (12) (5) (15) (3) (11) (5) (17)Hartford (9) (23) (7) (20) (5) (18) (6) (19) (3) (13) (4) (14) (2) (12) (2) (10) (0) (8) (2) (10) (1) (9)New Haven (4) (14) (4) (14) (1) (10) (4) (14) (2) (12) (0) (8) (1) (9) (1) (9) (3) (13) (2) (10) (4) (14)Connecticut (3) (5) (2) (4) (3) (4) (2) (4) (3) (5) (2) (4) (2) (4) (2) (4) (2) (4) (2) (4) (2) (4)

2008 2009

Table 3-F. Active Tuberculosis Incidence per 100,000 People2008 20091999 2000 2003 2004 2005 2007

2006 200720052001 2002 2003 2004

20062001 2002

1999 2000

49

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-I. Active TB Incidence per 100,000 People All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


50

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-J. Active TB Incidence per 100,000 People Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Nautaguck, Southbury, Woodbury


Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Naugatuck Southbury Woodbury Valley CT

51

Table 3-G. Influenza Incidence Rate per 100,000 People

Incidence Rate

Ansonia 15 (80) 13 (69) 43 (229) 125 (670)Beacon Falls 0 - 2 (36) 7 (125) 25 (438)Derby 7 (56) 14 (111) 37 (295) 78 (625)Oxford 6 (56) 6 (54) 10 (85) 73 (592)Seymour 4 (25) 9 (56) 19 (118) 93 (572)Shelton 22 (56) 15 (38) 51 (129) 500 (1243)Valley 54 (53) 59 (57) 167 (160) 894 (846)Naugatuck 25 (79) 8 (25) 40 (126) 97 (304)Southbury 28 (145) 8 (41) 18 (91) 56 (284)Woodbury 7 (73) 4 (41) 6 (62) 15 (154)Bridgeport 193 (138) 141 (101) 133 (96) 809 (586)Hartford 83 (67) 57 (46) 131 (105) 664 (532)New Haven 376 (302) 213 (170) 494 (396) 1103 (888)Connecticut 3119 (90) 1749 (50) 4800 (137) 16239 (463)


Lower CI Upper CI

Ansonia (39) (120) (31) (106) (161) (298) (553) (788)Beacon Falls - - - - - - - -Derby - - - - (200) (390) (486) (764)Oxford - - (11) (97) - - - -Seymour - - (19) (92) - - (456) (689)Shelton (33) (80) (19) (58) (94) (165) (1134) (1352)Valley (39) (67) (42) (72) (136) (185) (791) (902)Naugatuck (48) (110) (8) (43) (87) (164) (243) (364)Southbury - - (13) (69) (49) (134) - -Woodbury - - (1) (82) - - - -Bridgeport (119) (158) (84) (117) (79) (112) (545) (626)Hartford (52) (81) (34) (57) (87) (123) (492) (573)New Haven (271) (332) (148) (193) (361) (431) (836) (940)Connecticut (86) (93) (48) (52) (133) (141) (455) (470)

20092006 2007 2008

2008 20092006 2007

52

Table 3-H. Incidence of Sexually Transmitted Infections per 100,000 People

2008 Incidence Rate

Ansonia 71 (384) 13 (70) 0 -Beacon Falls 3 (52) 0 - 0 -Derby 34 (274) 5 (40) 0 -Oxford 10 (79) 0 - 0 -Seymour 14 (86) 3 (18) 0 -Shelton 38 (95) 3 (8) 0 -Valley 170 (161) 24 (23) 0 -Naugatuck 76 (238) 7 (22) 0 -Southbury 6 (30) 1 (5) 0 -Woodbury 4 (41) 1 (10) 0 -Bridgeport 1,232 (903) 357 (262) 2 (1)Hartford 2,079 (1,676) 536 (432) 2 (2)New Haven 1,569 (1,269) 579 (468) 9 (7)Connecticut 12,455 (356) 2,793 (80) 34 (1)

2009 Incidence Rate

Ansonia 79 (427) 14 (76) 0 -Beacon Falls 4 (68) 1 (17) 1 (17)Derby 47 (379) 3 (24) 1 (8)Oxford 15 (116) 1 (8) 0 -Seymour 15 (92) 3 (18) 0 -Shelton 44 109 6 (15) 1 (2)Valley 204 (192) 28 (26) 3 (3)Naugatuck 59 (184) 9 (28) 0 -Southbury 5 (25) 1 (5) 0 -Woodbury 13 (134) 2 (21) 0 -Bridgeport 1,185 (863) 330 (240) 11 (8)Hartford 1,873 (1,510) 505 (407) 11 (9)New Haven 1,505 (1,220) 448 (363) 9 (7)Connecticut 12,141 (345) 2,566 (73) 105 (4)

Data from Connecticut Department of Public HealthValues in parentheses indicate the rate of disease per 100,000 peopleEarlier data (1993-2007) available at http://www.yalegriffinprc.org

Chlamydia Gonorrhea Syphillis

53

Incidence Rate

Ansonia 52 (283) 38 (205) 34 (183) 72 (399) 47 (250) 64 (339) 82 (437) 81 (434) 58 (313) 71 (384) 79 (427)Beacon Falls 1 (20) 2 (38) 5 (95) 1 (19) 8 (145) 3 (54) 2 (36) 3 (53) 4 (69) 3 (52) 4 (68)Derby 12 (98) 10 (81) 13 (105) 23 (186) 34 (270) 23 (182) 25 (199) 36 (288) 33 (265) 34 (274) 47 (379)Oxford 4 (40) 0 (0) 2 (20) 11 (102) 7 (65) 3 (27) 10 (85) 8 (65) 4 (32) 10 (79) 15 (116)Seymour 17 (119) 13 (84) 13 (84) 6 (39) 15 (93) 7 (43) 16 (99) 17 (105) 10 (62) 14 (86) 15 (92)Shelton 20 (56) 29 (76) 18 (47) 38 (97) 37 (95) 27 (69) 56 (142) 31 (77) 40 (100) 38 (95) 44 (109)Valley 106 (113) 92 (92) 85 (85) 151 (152) 148 (144) 127 (123) 191 (183) 176 (167) 149 (141) 170 (161) 204 (192)Naugatuck 48 (151) 41 (129) 66 (207) 46 (144) 56 (175) 76 (238) 59 (184)Southbury 2 (10) 6 (31) 11 (56) 5 (25) 8 (41) 6 (30) 5 (25)Woodbury 4 (42) 3 (31) 7 (72) 9 (92) 7 (73) 4 (41) 13 (134)Bridgeport 930 (667) 900 (645) 1,284 (920) 1074 (769) 993 (709) 1296 (932) 1160 (840) 1166 (853) 1232 (903) 1185 (863)Hartford 1,679 (1,381) 1,617 (1,330) 1,666 (1,370) 1399 (1125) 1305 (1044) 1628 (1309) 1697 (1361) 1888 (1516) 2079 (1676) 1873 (1510)New Haven 860 (696) 871 (705) 1,090 (882) 1032 (828) 1181 (945) 1405 (1126) 1421 (1144) 1459 (1177) 1569 (1269) 1505 (1220)Connecticut 7,431 (226) 7,603 (223) 7,738 (227) 10,125 (297) 9057 (260) 9553 (273) 11039 (314) 10950 (312) 11513 (329) 12455 (356) 12141 (345)


Lower CI Upper CI

Valley (91) (135) (73) (111) (67) (103) (128) (176) (121) (167) (101) (144) (157) (209) (142) (191) (119) (164) (137) (185) (166) (218)Naugatuck (108) (194) (89) (168) (157) (257) (102) (186) (129) (221) (184) (292) (137) (231)Southbury (-4) (24) (6) (55) (23) (89) (3) (48) (12) (69) (6) (54) (3) (47)Woodbury (1) (83) (-4) (66) (19) (125) (32) (152) (19) (126) (1) (81) (61) (207)Bridgeport (624) (709) (603) (687) (870) (971) (723) (815) (665) (753) (881) (983) (791) (888) (804) (902) (853) (953) (814) (912)Hartford (1,315) (1,447) (1,265) (1,395) (1,305) (1,436) (1,066) (1,184) (987) (1,101) (1,245) (1,373) (1,296) (1,426) (1,447) (1,584) (1,604) (1,748) (1,442) (1,578)New Haven (649) (742) (658) (751) (829) (934) (777) (879) (891) (999) (1,067) (1,185) (1,084) (1,203) (1,117) (1,238) (1,206) (1,332) (1,158) (1,282)Connecticut (221) (231) (218) (228) (222) (232) (292) (303) (255) (265) (267) (278) (308) (320) (306) (318) (323) (335) (350) (362) (339) (351)

20072003

20062002 2003 2004

1999 2000

Table 3-I. Chlamydia Incidence per 100,000 People

2008 2009

2008 2009

1999 2000 2001

2001 2002

2007

20062004 2005

2005

54

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-K. Chlamydia Incidence per 100,000 People All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


55

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-L. Chlamydia Incidence per 100,000 People Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



56

Table 3-J. Gonorrhea Incidence per 100,000 People

Incidence Rate

Ansonia 38 (206) 25 (135) 3 (16) 14 (75) 22 (117) 21 (111) 17 (91) 20 (107) 17 (92) 13 (70) 14 (76)Beacon Falls 1 (20) 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (18) 2 (36) 0 - 0 - 1 (17) 0 - 1 (17)Derby 6 (49) 7 (56) 2 (16) 8 (65) 12 (95) 10 (79) 8 (64) 3 (24) 4 (32) 5 (40) 3 (24)Oxford 2 (23) 0 - 1 (10) 4 (41) 1 (9) 3 (27) 1 (9) 2 (16) 0 - 0 - 1 (8)Seymour 7 (49) 1 (6) 3 (19) 1 (6) 1 (6) 3 (19) 2 (12) 6 (37) 2 (12) 3 (18) 3 (18)Shelton 15 (42) 1 (3) 5 (13) 21 (3) 13 (33) 15 (38) 8 (20) 4 (10) 5 (12) 3 (8) 6 (15)Valley 69 (73) 34 (34) 14 (14) 48 (28) 50 (49) 54 (52) 36 (35) 35 (33) 29 (27) 24 (23) 28 (26)Naugatuck 17 (54) 16 (50) 16 (50) 19 (60) 10 (31) 7 (22) 7 (22) 9 (28)Southbury 3 (16) 1 (5) 1 (5) 3 (15) 1 (5) 0 - 1 (5) 1 (5)Woodbury 1 (11) 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10) 0 - 0 - 1 (10) 2 (21)Bridgeport 413 (296) 352 (252) 378 (271) 361 (258) 438 (313) 429 (309) 329 (238) 292 (214) 357 (262) 330 (240)Hartford 720 (592) 688 (566) 695 (573) 491 (395) 455 (364) 513 (412) 543 (435) 462 (371) 536 (432) 505 (407)New Haven 445 (360) 345 (279) 331 (266) 424 (340) 332 (266) 360 (288) 421 (339) 392 (316) 579 (468) 448 (363)Connecticut 3315 (101) 2912 (86) 2552 (75) 3372 (99) 2976 (85) 2862 (82) 2750 (78) 2611 (74) 2332 (67) 25793 (80) 2566 (73)


Lower CI Upper CI

Valley (56) (90) (23) (45) (7) (21) (20) (36) (35) (63) (38) (66) (24) (46) (22) (44) (17) (37) (14) (32) (16) (36)Naugatuck (28) (80) (26) (75) (26) (75) (33) (86) (12) (51) (6) (38) (6) (38) (10) (46)Southbury (-2) (34) (-6) (15) (-5) (15) (-2) (32) (-5) (15) - - (5) (15) (5) (15)Woodbury (-10) (31) (-11) (30) (-10) (31) (-10) (30) - - - - (10) (30) (8) (50)Bridgeport (267) (325) (226) (278) (244) (298) (231) (285) (284) (342) (280) (338) (212) (264) (189) (238) (235) (289) (214) (266)Hartford (549) (635) (524) (608) (530) (616) (360) (430) (331) (397) (376) (447) (399) (472) (337) (405) (395) (469) (372) (442)New Haven (327) (393) (250) (308) (237) (295) (308) (372) (237) (295) (258) (318) (307) (371) (285) (348) (430) (506) (329) (397)Connecticut (98) (104) (83) (89) (72) (78) (96) (102) (82) (88) (79) (85) (75) (81) (72) (77) (64) (69) (79) (81) (70) (76)

2006

2006

20052002 2003 2004

2003 2005

1999 2000 2001

20041999 2000 2001 2002

2008 2009

2008 2009

2007

2007

60

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nc

e R

ate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-O. Syphilis Incidence per 100,000 People All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


61

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-P. Syphilis Incidence per 100,000 People Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



Year

62

Incidence Rate

Ansonia 2 (11) 0 - 1 (5) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Beacon Falls 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Derby 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (8)Oxford 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Seymour 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 2 (12) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Shelton 1 (3) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 (2)Valley 3 (3) 0 - 1 (1) 0 - 0 - 2 (2) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 3 (3)Naugatuck 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Southbury 0 - 0 - 0 - 2 (10) 1 (5) 0 - 0 - 0 -Woodbury 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -Bridgeport 1 (1) 6 (4) 6 (4) 3 (2) 8 (4) 7 (2) 10 (7) 2 (1) 2 (1) 11 (8)Hartford 9 (7) 2 (2) 8 (7) 2 (2) 2 (2) 6 (3) 14 (11) 7 (6) 2 (2) 11 (9)New Haven 1 (1) 9 (7) 6 (5) 5 (1) 6 (4) 21 (12) 8 (6) 6 (5) 9 (7) 9 (7)Connecticut 28 (1) 24 (1) 32 (1) 41 (1) 43 (1) 61 (1) 77 (2) 91 (3) 39 (1) 34 (1) 105 (4)


Lower CI Upper CI

Valley (0) (6) - - (-1) (3) - - - - (-1) (5) - - - - - - - - (0) (6)Naugatuck - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Southbury - - - - 4 (24) 5 (15) - - - - - -Woodbury - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Bridgeport (-1) (3) (1) (7) (1) (7) (0) (4) (1) (7) (1) (3) (3) (11) (0) (2) (0) (2) (3) (13)Hartford (2) (12) (-1) (5) (2) (12) (-1) (5) (-1) (5) (1) (5) (5) (17) (2) (10) (-1) (5) (4) (14)New Haven (-1) (3) (2) (12) (1) (9) (0) (2) (1) (7) (7) (17) (2) (10) (1) (9) (2) (12) (2) (12)Connecticut (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2) (4) (1) (1) (1) (1) (3) (5)

Figure 3-K. Syphilis Incidence per 100,000 People2009

2008 20091999

20082006

2000 2001 2002

2007

2006 2007

2004 2005

2004

1999 20022000 2001 2003

20052003

57

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-M. Gonorrhea Incidence per 100,000 People All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


58

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 3-N. Gonorrhea Incidence per 100,000 People Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



59

Lead Poisoning

63

2007 Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %Ansonia 521 34.1 13 2.5 4 0.8 4 0.8 0 0.0Beacon Falls 121 29.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Derby 337 36.4 5 1.5 2 0.6 2 0.6 0 0.0Oxford 224 28.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0Seymour 333 30.2 3 0.9 0 0.0 1 0.3 0 0.0Shelton 641 22.8 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Naugatuck 649 25.0 3 0.5 1 0.2 4 0.6 0 0.0Southbury 240 19.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Woodbury 123 18.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Bridgeport 6,180 45.3 108 1.8 43 0.7 32 0.5 2 0.0Hartford 5,594 46.1 73 1.3 25 0.4 19 0.3 3 0.1New Haven 4,338 41.6 103 2.4 59 1.4 38 0.9 2 0.0Connecticut 72,088 26.7 575 0.8 237 0.3 190 0.3 18 0.0

2008 Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Ansonia 635 41.5 12 1.9 6 0.9 3 0.5 2 0.3 Beacon Falls 134 32.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Derby 346 37.3 5 1.4 1 0.3 1 0.3 0 0.0 Oxford 237 29.8 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 Seymour 358 32.4 2 0.6 0 0.0 1 0.3 0 0.0 Shelton 634 22.5 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Naugatuck 709 27.3 3 0.4 0 0.0 6 0.8 0 0.0 Southbury 221 18.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Woodbury 128 19.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Bridgeport 6370 46.7 87 1.4 35 0.6 27 0.4 2 0.0 Hartford 5,540 45.7 67 1.2 21 0.4 23 0.4 5 0.1 New Haven 4622 44.3 113 2.5 42 0.9 43 0.9 3 0.1Connecticut 70,607 98.6 575 0.8 237 0.3 190 0.3 18 0.0

2009 Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Ansonia 554 36.2 3 0.5 2 0.4 2 0.4 0 0.0 Beacon Falls 118 28.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Derby 348 37.5 4 1.1 2 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 Oxford 240 30.2 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Seymour 383 34.7 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.3 0 0.0 Shelton 673 23.9 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Naugatuck 763 29.4 5 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.1 0 0.0 Southbury 211 17.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Woodbury 154 23.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Bridgeport 7105 52.1 55 0.8 41 0.6 15 0.2 0 0.0 Hartford 5,738 47.3 37 0.6 19 0.3 14 0.2 2 0.0 New Haven 4744 45.5 82 1.7 13 0.3 20 0.4 4 0.1Connecticut 72,088 26.7 575 0.8 237 0.3 190 0.3 18 0.0


Table 3-K. Lead Screening - Children < 6 Years20-44ug/dLChildren Screened 10-14ug/dL 15-19ug/dL >45ug/dL

64

Mortality Statistics

65

Top Ten Causes of Mortality Mortality from All Causes Combined From 1999 to 2009, all causes age-adjusted mortality rates have increased. From 2007 to 2009, all cause mortality remained higher in the Valley when compared to the state. Of the six Valley towns, Beacon Falls and Oxford have seen sharp inclines in rates of all cause mortality in recent years, while the remaining towns have remained relatively constant. Naugatuck and Woodbury saw a decline in rates of all cause mortality from 1999 to 2009, while Southbury has seen an increase during that time period. All cause mortality rates in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven declined from 1999 to 2009. Rates in Hartford and New Haven continued to remain higher than the state, while all cause mortality rates in Bridgeport were significantly lower than the state in 2008 and 2009. Since 1999, a steady decline in Connecticut continued with respect to all cause mortality rates (similar to what was reported in the 2008 CHP). Heart Disease Mortality The annual age-adjusted mortality rates from heart disease in the Valley declined from 1999 to 2009. These rates of mortality were significantly higher in the Valley when compared to the state (especially amongst males) during this timeframe. With respect to the latest data, Southbury continued to have significantly lower age-adjusted rates of mortality from heart disease compared to the state; while Woodbury had significantly lower rates compared to the state in 2008 and 2009. Naugatuck had significantly higher rates of mortality from heart disease when compared to the state in the years 2007 to 2009. Rates in Bridgeport and Hartford have fallen in recent years, although both cities continued to have significantly higher rates when compared to the state. Since 2006, New Haven had significantly lower age adjusted rates of heart disease mortality when compared to the state. Age-adjusted rates of mortality from heart disease have dropped in the state steadily since 2002. Cerebrovascular Disease Mortality Age-adjusted cerebrovascular disease mortality rates in the Valley declined from 1999 to 2009. From 2005 to 2008, rates in the Valley were significantly higher when compared to the state. Mortality data from 2009 indicated that the Valley had a significantly lower age-adjusted rate of mortality from cerebrovascular disease when compared to the state for the first time since 2004. With respect to the individual Valley towns, Oxford has historically had higher rates than the other Valley towns and significantly higher rates compared to the state when considering the newly added data.

66

Rates in Naugatuck were significantly lower when compared to the state from 2007 to 2009. Woodbury and Southbury both have had fluctuating rates since 2001, with Woodbury trending downward and Southbury remaining fairly constant despite these fluctuations. Age-adjusted cerebrovascular disease mortality rates in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven continued a downward trend since 1999; Bridgeport and Hartford both had significantly higher rates when compared to the state. Age-adjusted cerebrovascular disease mortality rates in Connecticut have also seen a downward trend since 1999, reaching their lowest in 2007 and 2008. Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease (CLRD) Mortality In the 2008-2009 CHP, it was reported that there were no significant trends were observed in the age-adjusted CLRD mortality rates from 1996 to 2006. However, with respect to the recently added data for the years 2007 thru 2009, it would appear that the Valley had a significant increase in age-adjusted mortality rates since 2007. In the years 2006, 2008 and 2009, the Valley was found to have significantly higher rates when compared to the state. With the exception of Derby, 2009 was characterized by a substantial increase in age-adjusted CLRD mortality rates. The rates in Naugatuck across this same period were significantly higher when compared to the state, rates in Southbury were significantly lower than the state and Woodbury’s rates fluctuated but remained comparable to the state for the most part. In addition, newly added data (2007-2009) indicated that rates in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven remained stable and significantly lower compared to the state. Age-adjusted CLRD rates in Connecticut appeared to have slowly trended downward from 1999 to 2009.

67

Year

2007 Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate

Ansonia 204 (1,064) 51 (266) 59 (308) 8 (41) 11 (59) 7 (40) 8 (41) 5 (24) 2 (8) 0 0 5 (25)Beacon Falls 35 (1,339) 6 (206) 10 (391) 1 (78) 2 (114) 3 (52) 0 0 2 (97) 1 (36) 3 (74) 0 0Derby 126 (686) 27 (190) 32 (231) 8 (54) 9 (67) 6 (43) 5 (36) 3 (21) 2 (16) 3 (20) 0 0Oxford 75 (2,289) 16 (496) 23 (591) 5 (184) 2 (65) 2 (62) 1 (53) 1 (12) 1 (53) 2 (84) 2 (106)Seymour 142 (1,017) 31 (220) 35 (239) 6 (43) 5 (34) 9 (64) 3 (20) 4 (24) 3 (24) 3 (22) 3 (23)Shelton 321 (768) 85 (201) 80 (192) 18 (42) 12 (30) 15 (40) 13 (31) 6 (16) 6 (13) 6 (15) 6 (14)Valley 903 (907) 216 (217) 239 (235) 46 (47) 41 (42) 42 (43) 30 (28) 21 (21) 15 (15) 17 (17) 16 (16)Naugatuck 243 (890) 58 (214) 60 (221) 9 (33) 14 (52) 10 (35) 4 (15) 10 (38) 4 (15) 6 (22) 7 (27)Southbury 260 (674) 65 (146) 56 (161) 11 (22) 8 (22) 12 (48) 8 (19) 2 (4) 10 (20) 7 (16) 7 (12)Woodbury 66 (787) 18 (237) 15 (166) 6 (69) 3 (36) 0 0 1 (12) 1 (15) 2 (22) 0 0 2 (18)Bridgeport 1,021 (871) 286 (246) 211 (185) 55 (48) 40 (34) 39 (30) 31 (27) 27 (23) 19 (16) 25 (22) 38 (32)Hartford 881 (982) 208 (244) 159 (185) 39 (46) 25 (29) 50 (46) 13 (16) 33 (38) 16 (19) 16 (18) 21 (24)New Haven 849 (882) 189 (199) 194 (211) 28 (30) 30 (31) 40 (37) 17 (18) 27 (28) 18 (19) 21 (23) 25 (27)Connecticut 28,560 (734) 7,227 (182) 7,026 (185) 1,449 (34) 1,347 (34) 1,308 (36) 763 (18) 642 (17) 773 (19) 561 (14) 607 (13)


Ansonia 189 (941) 39 (203) 44 (225) 7 (35) 9 (47) 16 (86) 8 (42) 5 (27) 4 (21) 4 (18) 8 (42)Beacon Falls 48 (2,183) 12 (650) 12 (407) 4 (135) 1 (19) 3 (171) 0 0 1 (32) 0 0 1 (78) 0 0Derby 123 (847) 31 (223) 28 (193) 9 (58) 13 (92) 1 (7) 4 (26) 2 (13) 1 (7) 0 0 1 (6)Oxford 70 (1,918) 19 (625) 23 (504) 3 (116) 4 (49) 2 (84) 0 0 1 (8) 1 (10) 0 0 0 0Seymour 158 (1,066) 43 (291) 38 (248) 15 (98) 6 (36) 11 (66) 4 (31) 2 (12) 1 (5) 2 (15) 1 (8)Shelton 356 (854) 94 (224) 83 (201) 21 (49) 17 (41) 14 (39) 12 (28) 6 (14) 8 (19) 7 (17) 10 (24)Valley 944 (944) 238 (239) 228 (224) 59 (59) 50 (49) 47 (47) 28 (29) 17 (17) 15 (16) 14 (14) 20 (19)Naugatuck 250 (929) 76 (286) 55 (207) 10 (38) 12 (44) 13 (44) 5 (19) 5 (19) 5 (19) 6 (22) 5 (19)Southbury 240 (667) 59 (137) 47 (150) 19 (41) 8 (19) 8 (32) 9 (18) 1 (2) 8 (15) 8 (17) 4 (11)Woodbury 58 (715) 17 (229) 14 (156) 5 (71) 4 (43) 3 (44) 0 0 1 (9) 1 (15) 1 (15) 2 (18)Bridgeport 980 (832) 261 (224) 207 (180) 50 (43) 35 (30) 52 (41) 18 (15) 28 (25) 21 (18) 16 (14) 30 (26)Hartford 823 (924) 179 (211) 169 (193) 39 (46) 25 (29) 48 (48) 12 (15) 22 (26) 24 (28) 29 (34) 18 (21)New Haven 837 (868) 188 (199) 190 (203) 29 (31) 30 (32) 46 (43) 14 (15) 29 (31) 17 (18) 29 (31) 19 (20)Connecticut 28,748 (738) 7,300 (183) 7,010 (184) 1,407 (32) 1,494 (38) 1,362 (38) 831 (20) 618 (16) 688 (17) 584 (15) 570 (16)


Ansonia 183 (1,020) 38 (197) 38 (197) 8 (39) 16 (81) 10 (52) 2 (9) 3 (16) 3 (15) 3 (16) 11 (55)Beacon Falls 47 (2,139) 12 (599) 18 (615) 0 0 2 (97) 1 (78) 2 (97) 0 0 2 (114) 3 (74) 2 (37)Derby 140 (1,013) 30 (204) 28 (199) 8 (54) 8 (57) 5 (32) 4 (27) 1 (9) 6 (40) 2 (15) 4 (32)Oxford 82 (2,174) 19 (588) 24 (425) 3 (116) 5 (161) 6 (188) 3 (78) 1 (31) 1 (13) 0 0 0 0Seymour 132 (933) 26 (184) 36 (240) 6 (43) 7 (49) 5 (31) 3 (22) 3 (23) 2 (15) 2 (11) 5 (39)Shelton 366 (854) 97 (228) 91 (220) 18 (44) 22 (53) 14 (37) 7 (16) 6 (14) 5 (12) 2 (4) 11 (26)Valley 950 (954) 222 (224) 235 (231) 43 (43) 60 (60) 41 (42) 21 (21) 14 (14) 19 (19) 7 (9) 33 (33)Naugatuck 249 (915) 67 (249) 61 (226) 10 (38) 13 (49) 9 (29) 7 (26) 3 (11) 13 (47) 6 (21) 4 (15)Southbury 287 (791) 69 (161) 64 (185) 17 (39) 11 (26) 10 (61) 7 (16) 6 (17) 11 (23) 4 (10) 10 (34)Woodbury 55 (671) 10 (122) 22 (258) 1 (15) 3 (36) 3 (29) 1 (15) 1 (15) 1 (15) 0 0 2 (25)Bridgeport 905 (770) 254 (219) 181 (158) 46 (39) 39 (34) 47 (38) 22 (19) 32 (28) 23 (19) 18 (15) 32 (28)Hartford 840 (937) 203 (234) 147 (171) 36 (42) 32 (38) 43 (45) 9 (11) 24 (27) 25 (29) 29 (35) 23 (25)New Haven 821 (849) 153 (162) 200 (215) 39 (41) 33 (35) 48 (46) 12 (13) 22 (23) 20 (21) 28 (29) 16 (17)Connecticut 28,139 (723) 6,958 (175) 6,719 (177) 1,429 (36) 1,426 (36) 1,230 (34) 770 (19) 620 (16) 661 (16) 576 (15) 571 (16)

Data from Connecticut Department of Public HealthValues in parantheses indicate the age-adjusted rate of disease per 100,000 people

Alzheimer's Disease Diabetes

Table 4-A. Top 10 Causes of Death All Causes Heart Disease Malignant Neoplasm Cerebrovascular Pneumonia & Influenza Kidney Disease SepticemiaCLRD* Unintentional Injury

68

Table 4-B. All Cause Mortality- All PersonsTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Year cases years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years

2007

Ansonia 204 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 9 11 18 16 16 21 20 85Beacon Falls 35 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 9 7 9Derby 126 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 5 7 6 9 9 12 22 48Oxford 75 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 5 4 5 9 14 30Seymour 142 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 2 7 3 6 8 14 7 11 18 59Shelton 321 0 1 0 2 3 0 3 1 2 8 6 13 19 17 25 44 53 123Valley 903 3 3 0 5 8 2 5 5 9 24 25 40 57 60 62 106 134 354Naugatuck 243 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 4 3 11 11 11 17 15 20 23 43 73Southbury 260 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 5 6 10 12 14 22 42 141Woodbury 66 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 11 9 19Bridgeport 1,021 21 2 5 4 9 8 11 20 32 43 53 74 74 67 98 99 131 270Hartford 881 19 7 3 11 10 12 12 26 33 57 60 43 62 65 65 81 96 219New Haven 849 13 6 1 5 14 8 15 13 22 37 50 44 54 56 62 82 115 252Connecticut 28,562 313 11 23 107 163 158 178 264 453 812 989 1,252 1,569 1,682 2,165 3,310 4,548 10,562

2008

Ansonia 189 0 0 1 2 1 2 4 3 6 5 9 6 10 10 16 16 27 71Beacon Falls 48 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 1 2 2 5 6 6 19Derby 123 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 4 4 9 5 12 14 18 49Oxford 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 1 7 13 6 3 5 2 25Seymour 158 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 9 12 3 7 11 14 29 21 48Shelton 356 1 0 0 3 2 2 2 2 6 13 9 10 17 24 21 49 59 136Valley 944 1 2 1 6 4 5 8 8 18 35 38 31 58 58 71 119 133 348Naugatuck 250 1 1 1 0 1 0 7 3 3 10 8 13 15 23 23 19 31 91Southbury 240 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 8 9 13 9 14 21 37 122Woodbury 58 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 4 1 4 5 3 3 2 10 22Bridgeport 980 9 5 3 6 16 14 9 19 15 44 65 60 62 62 77 93 131 289Hartford 823 12 3 3 11 13 13 9 10 24 50 43 69 68 52 83 79 101 180New Haven 837 22 6 7 6 19 11 7 4 24 31 42 59 57 67 62 71 120 222Connecticut 28,752 273 16 24 97 195 168 163 258 432 799 1,031 1,337 1,498 1702 2,129 3,191 4,503 10,932

2009

Ansonia 183 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 3 4 8 11 12 7 18 22 23 65Beacon Falls 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 2 6 2 2 3 5 20Derby 140 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 4 8 5 11 10 8 28 62Oxford 82 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 9 5 6 6 8 15 26Seymour 132 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 4 4 5 6 7 8 13 9 18 53Shelton 366 0 3 0 2 3 4 0 4 1 6 8 14 21 21 23 31 70 155Valley 950 3 3 0 2 6 8 6 10 9 20 29 50 56 55 72 81 159 381Naugatuck 249 1 1 0 1 0 4 2 6 5 4 12 10 18 18 17 29 38 83Southbury 287 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 13 16 12 19 23 50 145Woodbury 55 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 4 6 3 8 4 21Bridgeport 905 15 5 1 8 11 8 5 8 17 43 46 56 71 72 79 95 126 239Hartford 840 17 1 1 6 16 16 13 16 35 42 54 56 68 55 66 76 90 212New Haven 821 18 7 1 5 10 17 6 13 14 36 37 58 62 57 65 81 73 261Connecticut 28,143 147 65 25 95 169 198 155 271 405 739 1,032 1,267 1,556 1,828 2,111 3,019 4,262 10,797

69

Table 4-B. All Cause Mortality- FemalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007 Ansonia 102 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 4 8 4 8 12 11 49Beacon Falls 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 5Derby 68 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 1 7 4 8 12 27Oxford 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 4 1 2 1 7 19Seymour 73 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 3 5 0 8 8 38Shelton 174 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 2 3 10 10 11 23 25 83Valley 469 2 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 3 11 8 16 27 27 25 54 67 221Naugatuck 133 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 5 7 5 12 8 8 10 18 54Southbury 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 7 6 9 20 84Woodbury 33 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 4 13Bridgeport 547 9 0 2 2 4 1 6 7 12 19 20 23 37 37 43 52 75 198Hartford 430 13 0 2 4 4 2 5 6 9 27 15 12 23 33 26 41 55 153New Haven 423 8 3 0 1 4 0 7 2 5 12 19 15 22 19 30 43 57 176Connecticut 15,060 146 3 9 28 43 45 67 87 163 312 367 480 700 751 991 1,578 2,377 6,912



70

Table 4-B. All Cause Mortality- MalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007

Ansonia 102 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 6 7 10 12 8 9 9 36Beacon Falls 21 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 7 3 4Derby 58 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 2 3 5 2 5 4 10 21Oxford 37 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 3 8 7 11Seymour 69 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 4 3 2 5 9 7 3 10 21Shelton 147 0 1 0 2 2 0 3 1 1 4 4 10 9 7 14 21 28 40Valley 434 1 1 0 5 5 2 4 4 6 13 17 24 30 33 37 52 67 133Naugatuck 110 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 2 2 6 4 6 5 7 12 13 25 19Southbury 127 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 4 4 8 5 8 13 22 57Woodbury 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 4 2 9 5 6Bridgeport 473 11 2 3 2 5 7 5 13 20 24 33 51 37 30 55 47 56 72Hartford 451 6 7 1 7 6 10 7 20 24 30 45 31 39 32 39 40 41 66New Haven 426 5 3 1 4 10 8 8 11 17 25 31 29 32 37 32 39 58 76Connecticut 13,502 167 8 14 79 120 113 111 177 290 500 622 772 869 931 1,174 1,732 2,171 3,650

2008

Ansonia 80 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 1 4 3 6 1 4 3 7 7 13 24Beacon Falls 25 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 1 2 2 4 2 0 7Derby 62 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 4 6 2 7 10 8 18Oxford 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 4 6 3 3 2 1 8Seymour 85 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 8 8 3 4 8 6 13 17 15Shelton 174 1 0 0 3 1 2 2 1 3 7 6 6 11 16 10 26 27 52Valley 461 1 1 0 6 3 4 6 5 12 23 27 19 33 34 37 60 66 124Naugatuck 108 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 5 6 8 10 11 13 8 12 26Southbury 101 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 4 5 7 6 9 12 12 39Woodbury 32 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 7 10Bridgeport 489 4 3 1 5 13 10 5 14 9 22 42 41 40 30 47 43 63 96Hartford 437 5 3 1 10 12 5 5 5 13 39 21 42 39 31 47 49 47 63New Haven 390 13 4 4 4 16 8 6 2 13 18 24 36 30 34 32 35 48 63Connecticut 13586 156 8 17 80 152 118 114 164 252 508 636 840 882 976 1,153 1,655 2,082 3,790

2009

Ansonia 86 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 7 7 1 10 9 13 27Beacon Falls 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 5 2 1 2 3 6Derby 59 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 5 5 7 5 11 19Oxford 29 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 3 4 1 0 8 6Seymour 60 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 4 5 6 8 2 9 15Shelton 167 0 3 0 1 1 3 0 2 1 3 4 8 16 17 15 17 30 46Valley 424 1 3 0 1 4 7 5 5 5 9 13 25 41 35 42 35 74 119Naugatuck 102 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 4 2 8 4 8 10 7 16 15 20Southbury 131 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 8 11 5 9 10 18 64Woodbury 24 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 6Bridgeport 439 6 3 0 6 5 6 5 3 11 22 31 29 39 48 46 41 56 82Hartford 458 7 1 1 3 12 13 9 12 22 26 33 37 38 37 31 42 47 87New Haven 390 10 3 0 5 5 13 5 4 9 22 23 37 35 28 30 41 40 80Connecticut 13,189 81 34 12 61 112 146 103 172 253 441 658 762 897 1,017 1,152 1,521 1,990 3,775

Data from Connecticut Department of Public HealthEarlier data available at http://www.yalegriffinprc.org/

71

Deaths Rate* SMR a Lower CI b Upper CI c Deaths Rate* SMR a Lower CI b Upper CI c Deaths Rate* SMR a Lower CI b Upper CI c

Ansonia 215 (1,076) 123 107 140 218 (1,110) 124 108 141 184 (935) 107 92 123Beacon Falls 38 (1,177) 125 89 172 35 (1,336) 116 81 161 40 (1,408) 135 96 184

Derby 143 (993) 111 94 131 141 (969) 109 91 128 132 (943) 104 87 123Oxford 56 (1,542) 107 81 139 47 (1,210) 90 66 120 56 (1,441) 110 83 142

Seymour 134 (908) 101 84 119 151 (1,011) 113 96 132 150 (1,000) 115 97 135Shelton 346 (834) 95 85 105 348 (835) 95 85 105 339 (810) 94 84 104

Valley- Male 426 (884) 104 94 114 452 (942) 107 97 117 406 (844) 99 89 109Valley- Female 506 (977) 107 98 116 188 (937) 104 95 114 495 (951) 107 98 117

Valley- Total 932 (930) 105 99 112 940 (936) 106 99 113 901 (896) 103 97 110Naugatuck 285 1,043 119 105 133 276 1,005 114 101 128 229 843 97 85 110Southbury 261 692 78 68 88 284 738 83 74 93 254 640 76 67 85Woodbury 83 1,008 112 89 139 73 906 98 77 123 58 706 79 60 102Bridgeport 1,260 (1,065) 122 115 128 1,237 (1,051) 118 112 125 1,202 (1,024) 117 111 124Hartford 1,063 (1,186) 140 132 149 987 (1,108) 129 121 137 943 (1,055) 126 118 134

New Haven 1,013 (1,059) 120 112 127 1,045 (1,091) 122 115 130 975 (1,018) 116 109 124Connecticut- Male 13,833 (750) 14,295 (774) 13,940 (755)

Connecticut- Female 15,983 (789) 15,766 (776) 15,585 (767)Connecticut- Total 29,816 (769) 30,061 (774) 29,525 (760)


Ansonia 192 (990) 113 97 130 204 (1,039) 120 104 137 199 (1,020) 117 102 135Beacon Falls 31 (906) 105 72 150 28 (934) 97 64 140 45 (1,789) 156 113 208

Derby 134 (930) 107 90 127 146 (1,017) 116 98 136 145 (993) 116 98 136Oxford 63 (1,531) 125 96 160 65 (1,595) 131 101 167 60 (1,597) 121 92 156

Seymour 140 (966) 108 91 128 140 (958) 109 92 128 125 (886) 98 81 116Shelton 298 (716) 83 74 94 382 (922) 106 96 117 364 (874) 102 91 113


Valley- Total 858 (853) 100 93 106 965 (961) 112 105 119 938 (940) 109 102 116Naugatuck 250 (911) 107 94 121 263 (966) 112 99 127 212 (779) 91 79 104Southbury 277 (705) 83 74 94 309 (809) 92 82 103 317 (818) 94 84 105Woodbury 61 (763) 85 65 109 78 (946) 108 86 135 73 (862) 102 80 128Bridgeport 1,124 (952) 111 105 118 1,115 (942) 110 103 116 1,067 (904) 105 99 112Hartford 908 (1,024) 123 115 131 919 (1,029) 124 116 132 842 (937) 114 106 121

New Haven 1,022 (1,056) 124 116 131 961 (998) 116 108 123 899 (936) 108 101 116Connecticut- Male 13,824 (748) 13,727 (743) 13,769 (745)



Ansonia 204 (1,064) 123 107 141 189 (941) 113 97 130 183 (1,020) 117 102 135Beacon Falls 35 (1,339) 124 86 172 48 (2,183) 170 125 225 47 (2,139) 170 125 227

Derby 126 (686) 82 67 100 123 (847) 100 83 119 140 (1,013) 121 102 142Oxford 75 (2,290) 155 122 194 70 (1,918) 145 113 183 82 (2,174) 174 138 216

Seymour 142 (1,017) 114 96 134 158 (1,066) 126 107 147 132 (933) 108 90 128Shelton 321 (768) 91 81 102 356 (854) 100 90 111 366 (854) 105 95 117

Valley- Male 434 (918) 110 100 121 461 (967) 116 106 127 424 (892) 79 72 87Valley- Female 469 (906) 105 96 115 483 (931) 108 98 118 526 (1,017) 119 109 130

Valley- Total 903 (907) 107 100 115 944 (944) 142 133 151 950 (954) 115 108 122Naugatuck 243 (890) 106 93 120 250 (929) 109 96 123 249 (915) 111 97 125Southbury 260 (674) 79 69 89 240 (667) 72 63 81 287 (791) 88 78 98Woodbury 66 (787) 94 72 119 58 (715) 82 62 106 55 (671) 79 60 103Bridgeport 1,021 (871) 103 97 109 980 (832) 98 92 104 905 (770) 93 87 99Hartford 881 (982) 121 113 130 823 (924) 113 105 121 840 (937) 117 110 126

New Haven 849 (882) 104 98 112 837 (868) 102 95 109 821 (849) 103 96 110Connecticut- Male 13,500 (730) 13,583 (735) 13,189 (712)


Data from Connecticut Department of Public Health*Values in parantheses indicate the age-adjusted rate of disease per 100,000 peoplea Standardized Mortality Ratiob Lower limit of 95% Confidence Intervalc Upper limit of 95% Confidence IntervalEarlier data (1995-2000) available at http://www.yalegriffinprc.org/community/valley_health_profile.asp

Table 4-C. All Cause Mortality, Valley vs. Connecticut2001 2002 2003

2007 2008 2009

2004 2005 2006

72

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Mo

rtali

ty R

ate

(p

er

10

00

00

)

Year

Figure 4-A. All Cause Mortality All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut

Ansonia Beacon Derby Oxford Seymour Shelton CT

73

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Mo

rtali

ty R

ate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 4-B. All-Cause Mortality Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



74

Table 4-D. Heart Disease Mortality- All PersonsTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007

Ansonia 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 27Beacon Falls 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1Derby 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 8 9Oxford 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 3 6Seymour 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 4 14Shelton 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 6 3 2 4 11 16 39Valley 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 6 10 10 12 12 25 36 96Naugatuck 58 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 3 3 5 10 10 21Southbury 65 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 9 45Woodbury 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 3 10Bridgeport 286 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 8 6 11 16 16 17 26 37 47 96Hartford 208 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 6 7 11 10 16 18 14 24 33 64New Haven 189 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 4 3 9 11 10 12 14 13 14 24 70Connecticut 7227 7 2 0 5 9 5 22 37 77 140 193 253 317 337 455 833 1150 3385

2008


2009


75

Table 4-D. Heart Disease Mortality- FemalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007

Ansonia 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 17Beacon Falls 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Derby 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 4Oxford 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Seymour 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 4 3 9Shelton 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 5 5 23Valley 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 3 12 17 57Naugatuck 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 2 2 3 16Southbury 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 27Woodbury 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6Bridgeport 160 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 3 1 9 9 8 21 25 76Hartford 100 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 3 2 4 6 8 3 10 20 39New Haven 189 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 2 5 3 5 5 8 11 48Connecticut 3773 3 1 0 1 4 3 10 7 20 42 46 66 107 122 176 368 568 2229

2008

Ansonia 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 18Beacon Falls 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4Derby 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 9Oxford 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6Seymour 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 11Shelton 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 6 5 21Valley 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 1 2 2 5 9 11 69Naugatuck 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 3 2 5 25Southbury 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 5 27Woodbury 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5Bridgeport 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 3 4 7 2 6 19 10 71Hartford 93 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 5 6 7 9 17 36New Haven 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 7 5 7 8 16 47Connecticut 3822 2 0 0 1 2 3 9 15 24 42 48 63 101 116 172 330 600 2294

2009

Ansonia 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 3 0 5Beacon Falls 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Derby 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 9Oxford 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 5Seymour 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 6Shelton 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 5 6 33Valley 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 5 3 4 6 11 13 63Naugatuck 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 8 19Southbury 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 4 2 27Woodbury 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3Bridgeport 123 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 5 7 4 5 15 21 59Hartford 86 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 11 3 6 8 8 36New Haven 78 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 5 4 6 6 7 7 37Connecticut 3,636 0 1 2 2 4 6 11 9 20 36 51 73 109 134 170 321 518 2,169

76

Table 4-D. Heart Disease Mortality- MalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007

Ansonia 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 10Beacon Falls 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0Derby 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 3 5Oxford 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 3Seymour 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 5Shelton 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 3 1 3 6 11 16Valley 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 5 8 7 8 9 13 19 39Naugatuck 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 3 8 7 5Southbury 32 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 5 18Woodbury 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 4Bridgeport 126 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 6 2 8 15 7 8 18 16 22 20Hartford 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 4 9 6 10 10 11 14 13 25New Haven 96 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 3 6 9 5 9 9 8 6 13 22Connecticut 3,444 4 1 0 4 5 2 12 30 57 98 147 187 210 215 279 455 582 1,156

2008


2009



77


Ansonia 61 (308) 121 93 156 58 (293) 113 86 146 54 (274) 111 84 145Beacon Falls 13 (403) 164 87 281 12 (436) 151 78 263 6 (188) 80 29 173

Derby 39 (254) 104 74 142 33 (225) 86 59 121 35 (248) 96 67 134Oxford 15 (418) 112 63 185 15 (442) 111 62 184 19 (569) 149 90 233

Seymour 37 (249) 99 69 136 34 (215) 89 62 125 42 (295) 117 84 158Shelton 97 (231) 92 74 112 118 (280) 109 90 130 99 (234) 96 78 117


Valley- Total 262 (263) 104 92 117 270 (269) 105 93 118 255 (256) 104 92 118Naugatuck 93 (343) 137 110 167 86 (319) 123 99 152 66 (246) 100 77 127Southbury 88 (207) 84 67 104 82 (199) 75 60 94 69 (155) 66 52 84Woodbury 25 (307) 121 78 179 28 (366) 133 88 192 15 (190) 75 42 124Bridgeport 438 (378) 149 135 164 385 (330) 128 115 141 367 (315) 128 115 142Hartford 287 (339) 137 121 153 281 (332) 131 116 147 237 (279) 116 102 132





Derby 38 (261) 112 79 153 44 (290) 133 96 178 27 (184) 83 55 121Oxford 18 (449) 151 90 239 21 (525) 186 115 284 15 (444) 135 76 223

Seymour 33 (232) 98 67 137 37 (257) 114 80 157 21 (150) 66 41 100Shelton 83 (196) 86 68 106 98 (234) 104 84 127 77 (181) 83 66 104







Derby 27 (190) 86 56 124 31 (290) 97 66 138 30 (204) 99 67 142Oxford 16 (496) 150 86 244 19 (525) 176 106 275 19 (588) 185 112 289

Seymour 31 (220) 100 68 142 43 (257) 135 97 182 26 (184) 88 58 129Shelton 85 (201) 94 75 117 94 (234) 103 83 126 97 (228) 112 91 136





Data from Connecticut Department of Public Health*Values in parantheses indicate the age-adjusted rate of disease per 100,000 peoplea Standardized Mortality Ratiob Lower limit of 95% Confidence Intervalc Upper limit of 95% Confidence Interval

2007 2008 2009

Table 4-E. Heart Disease Mortality

2004 2005 2006

2002 20032001

78

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Mo

rta

lity

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 4-C. Heart Disease Mortality Rate All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


79

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Mo

rtali

ty R

ate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 4-D. Heart Disease Mortality Rate Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury


Naugatuck Southbury Woodbury Valley Bridgeport Hartford New Haven CT

80

Table 4-F. Cerebrovascular Mortality- All PersonsTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007

Ansonia 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 5Beacon Falls 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Derby 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 5Oxford 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3Seymour 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3Shelton 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 11Valley 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 7 28Naugatuck 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3Southbury 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10Woodbury 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0Bridgeport 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 6 1 0 6 7 5 25Hartford 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 5 2 3 8 7 11New Haven 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 2 1 6 11Connecticut 1,449 2 0 0 0 2 3 3 7 9 15 23 40 44 67 87 175 242 730

2008


2009


81

Table 4-F. Cerebrovascular Mortality- FemalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007


2008


2009


82

Table 4-F. Cerebrovascular Mortality- MalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007


2008


2009



83



Derby 7 (50) 78 31 161 12 (81) 145 75 253 8 (52) 99 43 195Oxford 1 (53) 36 1 198 2 (21) 72 8 261 1 (53) 40 1 220

Seymour 7 (48) 80 32 165 7 (45) 85 34 176 12 (76) 153 79 267Shelton 28 (67) 113 75 163 24 (57) 104 67 155 26 (60) 115 75 169


Valley- Total 65 (66) 110 85 141 62 (62) 113 86 145 60 (60) 113 86 145Naugatuck 15 (56) 94 53 155 12 (41) 80 42 141 9 (33) 62 28 118Southbury 14 (36) 53 29 90 17 (40) 71 42 114 16 (40) 67 38 109Woodbury 3 (39) 65 13 189 5 (64) 114 37 267 3 (40) 71 14 208Bridgeport 74 (63) 107 84 134 78 (67) 121 96 151 47 (41) 75 55 100New Haven 68 (72) 121 94 153 73 (77) 139 109 175 58 (62) 113 86 146

Hartford 62 (75) 129 99 165 65 (78) 143 111 183 63 (75) 143 110 183Connecticut- Male 703 (37) 684 (36) 685 (36)




Derby 5 (33) 69 22 161 10 (69) 149 72 275 6 (39) 89 32 193Oxford 2 (65) 86 10 310 5 (203) 226 73 528 2 (106) 94 11 340

Seymour 7 (48) 99 40 204 6 (39) 92 33 199 8 (57) 122 53 241Shelton 11 (27) 55 27 98 22 (51) 118 74 178 27 (64) 142 93 206


Valley- Total 37 (37) 77 55 107 56 (57) 126 95 164 58 (59) 130 99 168Naugatuck 7 (26) 54 22 111 9 (34) 75 34 142 11 (42) 91 45 162Southbury 19 (43) 90 54 141 26 (62) 134 88 196 18 (43) 90 53 142Woodbury 4 (55) 106 29 271 9 (124) 254 116 483 1 (15) 28 0 156Bridgeport 53 (45) 95 71 124 54 (46) 104 78 135 47 (41) 89 66 119New Haven 47 (50) 103 76 137 58 (61) 137 104 177 44 (46) 102 74 137

Hartford 54 (64) 138 103 179 48 (57) 130 96 173 40 (46) 108 77 147Connecticut- Male 628 (33) 604 (32) 581 (31)

Connecticut- Female 997 (48) 908 (44) 948 (45)Connecticut- Total 1,625 (40) 1,512 (38) 1,529 (38)


Ansonia 8 (41) 94 41 186 7 (35) 85 34 176 8 (39) 96 41 189Beacon Falls 1 (78) 83 1 461 4 (135) 348 94 891 0 - - - -

Derby 8 (54) 125 54 246 9 (58) 145 66 275 8 (54) 127 55 250Oxford 5 (184) 253 82 591 3 (116) 159 32 464 3 (116) 153 31 447

Seymour 6 (43) 97 35 212 15 (98) 252 141 415 6 (43) 99 36 215Shelton 18 (42) 100 59 157 21 (49) 120 74 183 18 (44) 101 60 160



New Haven 39 (30) 68 45 99 39 (31) 73 49 105 36 (41) 97 69 132Connecticut- Male 554 (35) 511 (32) 532 (32)



Table 4-G. Cerebrovascular Mortality, Valley vs. Connecticut2001 2002 2003

2007 2008 2009

2004 2005 2006

84

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Mo

rtali

ty R

ate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 4-E. Cerebrovascular Disease Mortality Rate All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


85

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Mo

rtali

ty R

ate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 4-F. Cerebrovascular Disease Mortality Rate Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



86

Table 4-H. CLRD Mortality- All PersonsTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007


2008


2009


87

Table 4-H. CLRD Mortality- FemalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007


2008


2009


88

Table 4-H. CLRD Mortality- MalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007


2008


2009

Ansonia 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4Beacon Falls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Derby 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1Oxford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Seymour 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0Shelton 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0Valley 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 5Naugatuck 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1Southbury 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Woodbury 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Bridgeport 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 2 3 1Hartford 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 4 1New Haven 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 1 3 3Connecticut 586 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 4 7 12 18 18 54 67 95 106 198


89



Derby 6 (39) 90 33 196 3 (20) 46 9 136 6 (37) 93 34 202Oxford 2 (25) 86 10 309 4 (171) 163 44 418 0 - - - -

Seymour 2 (13) 30 3 107 8 (49) 120 52 236 3 (23) 46 9 133Shelton 16 (38) 89 51 144 11 (26) 62 31 111 16 (39) 91 52 147


Valley- Total 38 (39) 86 61 118 39 (38) 90 64 123 33 (32) 77 53 108Naugatuck 13 (49) 110 59 189 11 (43) 95 47 170 6 (22) 52 19 114Southbury 13 (29) 74 39 126 11 (37) 65 33 117 13 (32) 76 40 130Woodbury 6 (74) 167 61 364 3 (34) 84 17 246 5 (69) 143 46 333Bridgeport 48 (42) 94 69 125 44 (37) 88 64 119 55 (47) 111 83 144

New Haven 35 (37) 85 59 118 43 (47) 107 77 144 27 (29) 67 44 98Hartford 33 (39) 91 63 128 36 (42) 101 71 140 42 (49) 119 86 161

Connecticut- Male 642 (34) 636 (33) 591 (31)Connecticut- Female 842 (42) 816 (40) 854 (42)

Connecticut- Total 1,484 (38) 1,452 (37) 1,445 (37)



Derby 6 (39) 95 35 206 5 (34) 77 25 180 6 (39) 94 34 204Oxford 1 (13) 43 1 238 2 (24) 85 10 307 0 - - - -

Seymour 8 (53) 123 53 243 4 (24) 60 16 155 6 (42) 93 34 202Shelton 12 (29) 69 36 120 18 (43) 101 60 160 20 (48) 113 69 174


Valley- Total 35 (34) 82 57 114 39 (38) 90 64 123 45 (45) 105 76 140Naugatuck 15 (56) 132 74 218 17 (62) 146 85 235 9 (33) 78 36 149Southbury 12 (29) 72 37 125 20 (51) 116 71 179 16 (37) 92 52 149Woodbury 5 (65) 144 46 336 4 (46) 113 30 289 3 (42) 86 17 250Bridgeport 44 (37) 90 65 120 43 (37) 86 62 115 51 (44) 103 76 135

New Haven 27 (28) 68 45 99 43 (47) 106 77 143 29 (31) 72 48 104Hartford 35 (41) 100 70 139 30 (34) 84 57 120 42 (51) 119 86 161

Connecticut- Male 594 (31) 637 (34) 647 34Connecticut- Female 832 (41) 823 (40) 799 39

Connecticut- Total 1,426 (36) 1,460 (37) 1,446 37



Derby 9 (67) 150 69 286 13 (92) 196 104 335 8 (57) 127 55 251Oxford 2 (65) 94 11 340 4 (49) 172 46 440 5 (161) 227 73 529

Seymour 5 (34) 82 27 192 6 (36) 90 33 195 7 (49) 111 44 228Shelton 12 (30) 73 37 127 17 (41) 93 54 148 22 (53) 125 78 190



New Haven 30 (29) 80 54 114 30 (29) 72 49 103 33 (38) 83 57 116Connecticut- Male 577 (30) 635 (34) 586 (31)



2007 2008 2009

Table 4-I. CLRD Mortality, Valley vs. Connecticut

2004 2005 2006

2002 20032001

90

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Mo

rtali

ty R

ate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 4-G. CLRD Mortality Rate All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


91

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Mo

rtali

ty R

ate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 4-H. CLRD Mortality Rate Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



92

Cancer Statistics

93

Cancer All Invasive Cancers The 2008 CHP reported on trends in incidence of invasive cancers in the Valley, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven and Connecticut through 2006. Crude incidence rates for all invasive cancers in the Valley were significantly higher in 2007 and 2008 compared to Connecticut; however they did not significantly increase from when last reported in 2006. Rates in the Valley remained significantly higher than the rates of Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven in 2007 and 2008. Naugatuck and Woodbury continue to have crude incidence rates comparable to those of Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven and the state. Southbury’s crude incidence rate of all invasive cancers has remained significantly higher than those of: the Valley towns, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven and the state. Crude incidence rates for all invasive cancers in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven remain significantly lower than that of the state and stable with regard to prior years. Crude incidence of all invasive cancers has remained stable for the last five report years, including newly added data for the years 2007 and 2008. Rates of mortality due to malignant neoplasm in the Valley decreased slightly from 1999 to 2009. Since 2004, overall rates in the Valley were significantly higher than the state. However, during this same time period these same rates in the Valley were relatively stable. Since 2004, rates in Southbury and Naugatuck increased, while Woodbury saw annual increases since 2007. With regards to the recently data added, rates of mortality due to all invasive cancers in Bridgeport and Hartford were lower than the state (2007 to 2009). New Haven had significantly higher rates of mortality than Connecticut in the years 2007 and 2009. The overall rates of mortality due to malignant neoplasm steadily declined in the state from 1999 to 2009. Breast Cancer Among Females From 1998 to 2008, the incidence rates of breast cancer among females in the Valley and the state remained comparable and stable. When compared to Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven, incidence rates of breast cancer in the Valley towns were significantly higher than New Haven in 2007 and 2008. Rates continued to grow more comparable between the Valley and Bridgeport and New Haven in newly added years’ data. Naugatuck’s rates continued to remain parallel to rates in the Valley. Southbury had a significant decrease in breast cancer incidence from 2007 to 2008. Southbury’s breast cancer incidence rate was significantly lower than the state in 2008. In prior years

94

Southbury’s rate was either comparable to the state or significantly higher (2005). Added data for Naugatuck and Woodbury continued to display a fluctuating pattern in crude incidence rates without significant changes from year to year. The incidence rates of breast cancer in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven remained stable and did not significantly differed from one another in 2007 and 2008. Rates in these three cities remained significantly lower than the state (with the exception of Hartford: 2008). Breast cancer incidence in the state also continued to remain stable. Since 1998, it appears that the age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates among females of in the Valley have declined (with the exception of an upward spike in rates in 2005). Rates in 2007 were the lowest in the Valley since CHP data collection began in 1995. From 2004 to 2008, rates in the Valley were significantly lower than the state. Age-adjusted mortality rates in Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury fluctuated from 2001 to 2008. Woodbury saw a downward trend following 2006 (with no reported cases in 2008). Bridgeport had a significantly higher rate of breast cancer mortality when compared to the state in 2007 and did not differ with the state in 2008. Hartford continued its trend of lower rates compared to state rates in 2007 and 2008. Recently added data suggested that New Haven continued to have a significantly higher rate of breast cancer mortality in women when compared to the state. Rates in Connecticut were relatively stable from 1998 to 2008. Cervical Cancer Crude incidence rates of cervical cancer in the state have continued to decline, however this reduction in rates has not been found to be statistically significant. Rates in all of the reporting areas of the CHP (the Valley, area towns: Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury and major cities: Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven) continued to remain low and stable. Colorectal Cancer The crude incidence rates of colorectal cancer in the six Valley towns declined from 2006 to 2009 and remained comparable to the state (despite being higher historically). Crude incidence rates of colorectal cancer in the Valley remained comparable with those of the Bridgeport, Hartford, Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury. Crude incidence rates of colorectal cancer in the Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury also have remained stable (despite fluctuation). In Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven, colorectal cancer incidence rates remained steady. In the state, from 1998, the crude incidence rates were relatively unchanged until 2007 when there was a significant decrease in reported colorectal cancer incidence.

95

Mortality rates of colorectal cancer in the Valley were significantly higher than the state from 2005 to 2008. It should be noted that mortality rates in the Valley fluctuated but have remained constant since 2005. Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury had lower rates of mortality from colorectal cancer when compared to the state in 2007 and 2008 (Woodbury reporting no cases for this time period). Rates in Bridgeport and Hartford were lower than the state in 2007 and 2008. Mortality rates from colorectal cancer in New Haven were significantly higher than the state from 2003 to 2008. In Connecticut, rates of mortality due to colorectal cancer continued to decrease in 2007 and 2008 and have done so since 1998. Leukemia In the six Valley towns, the crude incidence rate of Leukemia continued to fluctuate while remaining steady. In 2007, there was a sharp decline in crude incidence that was not significant. From 1998 to 2008, crude incidence rates of Leukemia appeared to fluctuate greatly in the individual Valley towns and nearby towns. This is largely in part due to the overall low number of reported cases and relative to nature of how crude incidence rates can fluctuate when there are low numbers of reported cases relative to the population. The overall rates in the Valley, major cities and the state appeared to be stable during this timeframe. Lung Cancer Recent annual data added (through 2008), suggests that crude incidence rates in the Valley have increased since the last CHP. From 2004 to 2008 (a five year period), crude incidence rates increased in the Valley, however this change was not statistically significant. Further, this newly added showed that crude incidence rates of lung cancer in the Valley are significantly higher than the major cities and the state overall. The Valley towns continued to remain comparable with regards to the crude incidence rate of lung cancer to nearby towns: Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury. Noteworthy is the downward trend can be observed in rates of lung cancer incidence in the major cities Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven (1998 to 2008), From 1998 to 2008, crude incidence of lung cancer has remained stable in the state. Since 2001, rates of mortality from lung cancer in the Valley were significantly higher than the state. It would appear that rates in the Valley declined since their highest point in 2003 (from 1998 to 2008). Age-adjusted mortality rates in Naugatuck increased 2001 to 2008 and were significantly higher than the state from 2003 onward. Rates in Woodbury fluctuated but appeared to have declined since 2001; Southbury has had similar fluctuation in rates but its data suggests an increase from 2001 to 2008.

96

Rates in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven steadily declined from 1998 to 2008, as have age-adjusted rates of mortality from lung cancer in the state. Melanoma Newly added Melanoma incidence data suggests that rates in the Valley steadily increased from 1998 to 2008- although not significantly. Crude incidence of Melanoma in nearby towns Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury has fluctuated, but appeared to be stable and comparable with the state. Crude melanoma incidence rates in Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven continued to be lower than the rates in the Valley and Connecticut (significant for all years). As indicated in the 2008 CHP, crude Melanoma incidence rates in Connecticut continued to gradually rise with increases from 2004 to 2006 found to not have been significant. Melanoma incidence rates in 2007 and 2008 decreased for the state but not significantly. Prostate Cancer Annual data collected since the last report indicates that crude incidence rates of prostate cancer in the Valley have increased but remained lower than the state. The lower rates in the Valley were not found to significantly differ from the state. Crude incidence rates of prostate cancer in the Valley continue to be higher than Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven, but do not significantly differ statistically. With respect to the nearby towns, rates in the Valley were comparable in 2007 and 2008 with Naugatuck and Woodbury. Southbury had a significantly higher crude incidence rate than the Valley and the state in 2008 (both comparable in 2007). Naugatuck had a significantly lower rate in 2007 than the state. Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven had lower rates than the state for the years 2007 and 2008. Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven had significantly lower crude incidence rates of prostate cancer than the state in 2007, while only Bridgeport and Hartford had significantly lower rates than the state in 2008. Age-adjusted mortality rates for prostate cancer in the Valley increased in 2007 and 2008 and these rates were also significantly higher compared to the state. Cases in Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury were low in magnitude in 2007 and 2008; however Naugatuck’s’ age-adjusted mortality rate was significantly higher than the state in 2007. From 2006 to 2008, rates in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven increased. Compared to the state, Bridgeport was significantly higher in 2007, Hartford in 2008 and New Haven in 2007 and 2008. From 1998 to 2008, the age-adjusted mortality rate due to prostate cancer in the state has remained fairly constant.

97

Thyroid Cancer With the inclusion of 2007 and 2008, the Valley continued to have comparable crude incidence rates of thyroid cancer to the state; however, from 1998 to 2008 there has been a sharp climb in crude incidence rates of thyroid cancer in the Valley. Rates in the Valley were significantly higher than those of Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven in both 2007 and 2008. In the 2008 CHP, it was reported Naugatuck had a significantly higher rate than the Valley in 2006, newly added data for 2007 and 2008 suggest that these rates have since dropped to levels comparable to other cities and towns covered in the CHP. From 1998 to 2008, the crude incidence of thyroid cancer in the state steadily increased.

98

Page 94

Year

2007 Incidence Rate

Ansonia 138 (744) 23 (233) 0 - 14 (75) 0 - 21 (113) 5 (27) 10 (111) 10 (54)Beacon Falls 27 (468) 2 (75) 0 - 1 (17) 1 (17) 5 (87) 1 (17) 5 (184) 1 (17)Derby 71 (571) 8 (121) 1 (15) 7 (56) 0 - 14 (113) 2 (16) 13 (210) 3 (24)Oxford 76 (607) 8 (150) 1 (19) 6 (48) 1 (8) 15 (120) 4 (32) 6 (110) 2 (16)Seymour 91 (560) 11 (135) 0 - 11 (68) 1 (6) 16 (99) 0 - 15 (195) 6 (37)Shelton 257 (642) 29 (145) 1 (5) 24 (60) 5 (12) 31 (78) 13 (33) 37 (194) 15 (38)Valley 660 (625) 81 (154) 3 (6) 63 (60) 8 (8) 102 (97) 25 (24) 86 (172) 37 (35)Naugatuck 159 (498) 25 (156) 2 (12) 23 (72) 3 (9) 19 (60) 5 (16) 14 (92) 2 (6)Southbury 175 (889) 25 (244) 0 - 17 (86) 7 (36) 25 (127) 6 (31) 23 (257) 9 (46)Woodbury 71 (735) 9 (183) 1 (20) 4 (41) 4 (41) 7 (73) 5 (52) 9 (191) 2 (21)Bridgeport 606 (443) 80 (107) 11 (15) 59 (43) 12 (9) 88 (64) 5 (4) 90 (129) 21 (15)Hartford 418 (336) 54 (83) 2 (3) 42 (34) 9 (7) 56 (45) 4 (3) 72 (121) 11 (9)New Haven 552 (445) 80 (118) 5 (7) 47 (38) 14 (11) 69 (56) 11 (9) 73 (116) 19 (15)Connecticut 19,669 (562) 2,854 (159) 125 (7) 1,795 (51) 402 (12) 2,602 (74) 887 (25) 3,015 (177) 659 (19)

2008 Incidence Rate

Ansonia 105 (567) 9 (97) 1 (11) 16 (86) 3 (16) 19 (103) 3 (16) 8 (86) 5 (27)Beacon Falls 40 (689) 6 (225) 0 - 0 - 1 (17) 7 (121) 3 (52) 6 (196) 2 (34)Derby 82 (662) 9 (151) 0 - 7 (56) 3 (24) 18 (145) 0 - 12 (186) 3 (24)Oxford 69 (542) 15 (229) 0 - 6 (47) 0 - 7 (55) 2 (16) 7 (120) 11 (86)Seymour 102 (628) 17 (202) 0 - 5 (31) 2 (12) 14 (86) 5 (31) 13 (168) 3 (19)Shelton 280 (700) 36 (179) 1 (5) 30 (75) 7 (18) 41 (103) 10 (25) 36 (184) 5 (13)Valley 678 (642) 92 (174) 2 (4) 64 (61) 16 (15) 106 (100) 23 (22) 82 (158) 29 (27)Naugatuck 167 (523) 16 (100) 0 - 20 (63) 0 - 26 (81) 6 (19) 20 (127) 6 (19)Southbury 148 (751) 13 (121) 0 - 17 (86) 2 (10) 19 (96) 9 (46) 29 (327) 5 (25)Woodbury 59 (611) 8 (163) 0 - 8 (83) 0 - 6 (62) 2 (21) 10 (211) 2 (21)Bridgeport 565 (414) 84 (119) 4 (6) 65 (48) 11 (8) 77 (56) 9 (7) 80 (121) 2 (2)Hartford 472 (380) 64 (100) 5 (8) 47 (38) 11 (9) 66 (53) 4 (3) 67 (112) 14 (11)New Haven 527 (426) 78 (121) 7 (11) 46 (37) 16 (13) 64 (52) 6 (5) 92 (156) 13 (11)Connecticut 19,916 (569) 2,930 (164) 95 (5) 1,776 (51) 490 (14) 2,642 (76) 893 (26) 2,813 (165) 644 (18)

Data from Connecticut Department of Public Health* Values in parentheses indicate the age-adjusted rate of disease per 100,000 peopleEarlier data available at http://www.yalegriffinprc.org

Table 5-A. Incidence of Most Commonly Occurring Cancers All Cancers Breast Cervix Colorectal ThyroidLeukemia Lung Melanoma Prostate

99

Total Under 30 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Year Incidence years years years years years years years years years years years years years

All persons

Valley 671 3 7 9 24 39 52 68 91 82 61 84 72 73

Connecticut 20,113 176 212 386 704 1,131 1,636 2,026 2,470 2,330 2,372 2,494 2,087 1,907

All persons

Valley 682 6 3 20 15 47 63 75 87 80 81 78 65 58

Connecticut 20,017 188 187 350 610 1,169 1,643 2,068 2,501 2,566 2,309 2,280 2,030 1,925


Table 5-B. Malignant Neoplasm (All Cancer) Incidence - Valley vs. Connecticut

2007

2008

100

Count Rate Lower CI Upper CI Count Rate Lower CI Upper CI Count Rate Lower CI Upper CI

Ansonia 114 (614) (502) (727) 125 (674) (556) (792) 108 (582) (472) (692)Beacon Falls 24 (457) (274) (641) 31 (591) (383) (799) 26 (496) (305) (686)Derby 83 (670) (526) (814) 72 (581) (447) (715) 90 (726) (576) (876)Oxford 36 (367) (247) (486) 46 (468) (333) (604) 49 (499) (359) (639)Seymour 101 (654) (526) (781) 100 (647) (520) (774) 83 (537) (422) (653)Shelton 219 (575) (499) (651) 248 (651) (570) (732) 238 (625) (545) (704)Valley 577 (580) (532) (627) 622 (625) (576) (674) 594 (597) (549) (645)Naugatuck 153 (494) (415) (572) 134 (432) (359) (506) 160 (516) (436) (596)Southbury 134 (722) (600) (844) 163 (878) (743) (1013) 152 (819) (689) (949)Woodbury 45 (489) (346) (632) 60 (652) (487) (817) 70 (761) (583) (939)Bridgeport 646 (463) (427) (499) 679 (487) (450) (523) 631 (452) (417) (488)Hartford 456 (375) (341) (409) 481 (396) (360) (431) 467 (384) (349) (419)New Haven 537 (434) (398) (471) 542 (438) (402) (475) 507 (410) (374) (446)Connecticut 19,424 (570) (562) (578) 19,332 (568) (560) (576) 19,312 (567) (559) (575)


Ansonia 115 (620) (507) (733) 123 (663) (546) (780) 121 (652) (536) (768)Beacon Falls 32 (610) (399) (821) 20 (381) (214) (548) 24 (457) (274) (641)Derby 90 (726) (576) (876) 75 (605) (468) (742) 86 (694) (547) (841)Oxford 55 (560) (412) (708) 52 (529) (386) (673) 62 (631) (474) (788)Seymour 77 (498) (387) (610) 76 (492) (381) (602) 83 (537) (422) (653)Shelton 256 (672) (590) (754) 233 (612) (533) (690) 227 (596) (518) (673)Valley 625 (628) (579) (677) 579 (582) (534) (629) 603 (606) (557) (654)Naugatuck 162 (523) (442) (603) 161 (520) (439) (600) 145 (468) (392) (544)Southbury 163 (878) (743) (1013) 185 (996) (853) (1140) 179 (964) (823) (1105)Woodbury 56 (609) (449) (768) 59 (641) (478) (805) 66 (718) (544) (891)Bridgeport 659 (472) (436) (508) 602 (431) (397) (466) 579 (415) (381) (449)Hartford 462 (380) (345) (415) 410 (337) (305) (370) 457 (376) (341) (410)New Haven 567 (459) (421) (496) 477 (386) (351) (420) 549 (444) (407) (481)Connecticut 19,119 (561) (553) (569) 19,278 (566) (558) (574) 19,731 (579) (571) (587)

Count Rate Lower CI Upper CI Count Rate Lower CI Upper CI

Ansonia 138 (744) (620) (868) 105 (567) (459) (675)Beacon Falls 27 (468) (291) (645) 40 (689) (475) (903)Derby 71 (571) (438) (704) 82 (662) (519) (805)Oxford 76 (607) (471) (743) 69 (542) (414) (670)Seymour 91 (560) (445) (675) 102 (628) (506) (750)Shelton 257 (642) (564) (720) 280 (700) (618) (782)Valley 660 (625) (577) (673) 678 (642) (594) (690)Naugatuck 159 (498) (421) (575) 167 (523) (444) (602)Southbury 175 (889) (757) (1021) 148 (751) (630) (872)Woodbury 71 (735) (564) (906) 59 (611) (455) (767)Bridgeport 606 (443) (408) (478) 565 (414) (380) (448)Hartford 418 (336) (304) (368) 472 (381) (347) (415)New Haven 552 (445) (408) (482) 527 (426) (390) (462)Connecticut 19,669 (562) (554) (570) 19,916 (569) (561) (577)


2005 2006

2007 2008

Table 5-C. Malignant Neoplasm (All Cancer) Incidence2001 2002 2003

2004

101

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-A. Incidence of All Cancers All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut

Ansonia Beacon Falls Derby Oxford Seymour Shelton Connecticut

102

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-B. All Cancer IncidenceBridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury


Valley Naugatuck Southbury Woodbury Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Connecticut

103

Year2007 Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate

Ansonia 59 (308) 4 (19) 0 0 3 (29) 2 (21) 7 (37) 1 (8) 0 0 15 (78) 1 (8) 3 (16) 3 (36)Beacon Falls 10 (391) 0 0 1 (15) 1 (39) 0 0 0 0 1 (143) 1 (19) 4 (125) 1 (143) 0 0 0 0Derby 32 (231) 1 (7) 2 (18) 1 (11) 0 0 5 (37) 1 (12) 1 (9) 6 (43) 1 (12) 3 (21) 3 (42)Oxford 23 (591) 1 (31) 2 (65) 2 (100) 1 (20) 0 0 2 (75) 1 (53) 9 (208) 2 (75) 2 (65) 0 0Seymour 35 (239) 0 0 1 (6) 3 (42) 0 0 1 (8) 0 0 3 (24) 8 (52) 0 0 4 (27) 2 (21)Shelton 80 (192) 2 (5) 4 (10) 1 (5) 0 0 13 (31) 3 (13) 2 (5) 22 (53) 3 (13) 9 (22) 3 (16)Valley 239 (235) 8 (8) 9 (9) 11 (21) 3 (6) 26 (26) 8 (13) 8 (8) 64 (63) 8 (13) 21 (21) 11 (23)Naugatuck 60 (221) 2 (8) 3 (12) 7 (49) 0 0 3 (10) 2 (10) 2 (7) 19 (70) 0 0 3 (12) 4 (15)Southbury 56 (161) 0 0 0 0 5 (26) 0 0 5 (14) 0 0 4 (9) 8 (24) 1 (7) 8 (23) 6 (17)Woodbury 15 (166) 0 0 0 0 3 (65) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 (40) 0 0 2 (22) 1 (13)Bridgeport 211 (185) 2 (2) 4 (4) 23 (34) 1 (2) 17 (15) 5 (7) 10 (9) 46 (40) 5 (7) 20 (18) 13 (25)Hartford 159 (185) 4 (5) 0 0 12 (38) 0 0 17 (20) 3 (6) 2 (2) 38 (45) 3 (6) 9 (10) 8 (20)New Haven 194 (211) 6 (6) 4 (4) 19 (24) 0 0 20 (21) 1 (2) 5 (6) 42 (45) 1 (2) 13 (14) 13 (34)Connecticut 7,026 (185) 204 (4) 152 (4) 519 (27) 28 (1) 608 (16) 110 (5) 241 (6) 1,842 (49) 110 (8) 464 (12) 376 (20)

2008 Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate

Ansonia 44 (225) 0 0 2 (10) 2 (20) 0 0 5 (30) 0 0 1 (5) 15 (75) 2 (20) 3 (14) 3 (31)Beacon Falls 12 (407) 1 (20) 1 (15) 0 0 0 0 1 (20) 0 0 1 (36) 4 (182) 0 0 1 (19) 1 (46)Derby 28 (193) 3 (19) 0 0 2 (24) 0 0 3 (21) 0 0 0 0 6 (41) 1 (14) 2 (15) 2 (28)Oxford 23 (504) 2 (43) 1 (12) 1 (20) 0 0 2 (65) 1 (25) 1 (12) 5 (96) 1 (25) 3 (77) 0 0Seymour 38 (248) 1 (6) 2 (12) 3 (38) 0 0 3 (20) 0 0 1 (6) 10 (63) 1 (11) 3 (21) 2 (37)Shelton 83 (201) 4 (10) 1 (2) 10 (42) 0 0 7 (17) 0 0 3 (7) 16 (39) 3 (12) 6 (14) 6 (32)Valley 228 (224) 11 (11) 7 (7) 17 32 0 0 21 (21) 1 (2) 7 (7) 56 (54) 8 (14) 18 (18) 14 (30)Naugatuck 55 (207) 3 (11) 4 (15) 5 (36) 1 (6) 3 (11) 0 0 0 0 18 (70) 1 (7) 4 (15) 1 (4)Southbury 47 (150) 0 0 0 0 4 (30) 0 0 3 (6) 1 (5) 4 (9) 13 (42) 0 0 4 (9) 2 (4)Woodbury 14 (156) 2 (28) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (13) 2 (19) 1 (19) 1 (9) 1 (13)Bridgeport 207 (180) 5 (4) 2 (2) 17 (28) 1 (2) 15 (13) 5 (7) 10 (8) 60 (53) 6 (9) 15 (13) 10 (19)Hartford 169 (193) 5 (6) 2 (2) 8 (32) 3 (6) 15 (18) 4 (7) 6 (7) 44 (51) 2 (4) 8 (9) 10 (26)New Haven 190 (203) 3 (3) 3 (3) 17 (18) 3 (6) 19 (21) 3 (6) 9 (8) 42 (45) 4 (7) 13 (14) 12 (29)Connecticut 7,010 (184) 191 (5) 151 (4) 505 (26) 34 (2) 611 (16) 80 (4) 268 (7) 1,783 (47) 183 (8) 472 (12) 370 (19)

Data from Connecticut Department of Public HealthValues in parantheses indicate the age-adjusted rate of disease per 100,000 people

CervicalBreast Ovarian

Table 5-D. Cancer Age-Adjusted Mortality

Pancreatic ProstateColorectal Endometrial Leukemia Lung

Malignant

Neoplasm Bladder Brain

104

Table 5-E. Malignant Neoplasm (All Cancer) Mortality- All PersonsTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Year Deaths years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years

2007

Ansonia 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 12 6 4 9 4 14Beacon Falls 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 1 2Derby 32 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 4 2 5 4 4 6Oxford 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 4 4 3 6Seymour 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 6 5 2 2 6 8Shelton 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 5 12 8 10 11 13 17Valley 240 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 8 19 37 21 25 35 31 53Naugatuck 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 8 5 4 9 4 12 9Southbury 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 5 5 5 9 23Woodbury 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 4 2 2Bridgeport 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 9 17 19 31 18 31 22 24 30Hartford 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 13 12 10 16 12 21 18 19 36New Haven 194 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 7 11 20 18 24 22 24 30 32Connecticut 7,026 1 2 5 4 7 19 19 36 89 207 328 503 671 680 855 1,063 1,112 1,425

2008

Ansonia 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 7 3 4 7 7 8Beacon Falls 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 1 2Derby 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 1 6 5 1 6Oxford 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 7 2 0 2 2 5Seymour 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 2 3 4 4 7 3 6Shelton 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 2 6 13 10 11 15 18Valley 232 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 10 12 12 30 25 25 35 29 45Naugatuck 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 6 8 7 6 9 13Southbury 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 6 5 5 7 9 12Woodbury 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 3 2Bridgeport 210 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 14 12 19 15 28 25 25 29 34Hartford 170 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 14 11 18 20 25 19 23 21New Haven 190 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 4 9 7 17 20 23 22 26 21 35Connecticut 7,010 3 4 1 2 13 11 17 38 103 215 320 511 610 723 848 1,029 1,091 1,471

2009

Ansonia 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 3 8 4 6 5Beacon Falls 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 4Derby 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 2 3 8 7Oxford 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 3 3 3 6 2Seymour 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 7Shelton 91 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 3 7 7 11 9 11 15 22Valley 235 0 2 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 6 7 21 20 26 28 26 43 47Naugatuck 61 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 4 9 7 3 10 10 11Southbury 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 3 7 9 17 19Woodbury 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 2 5 1 7Bridgeport 181 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 12 10 12 19 22 22 25 31 25Hartford 147 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 6 5 12 15 13 21 17 25 29New Haven 200 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 6 9 17 26 23 29 28 18 38Connecticut 6,719 2 10 1 3 4 21 17 44 86 177 314 449 654 739 826 954 1,043 1,375

105

Table 5-E. Malignant Neoplasm (All Cancer) Mortality- FemalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007


2008


2009


106

Table 5-E. Malignant Neoplasm (All Cancer) Mortality- MalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007


2008


2009



107


Ansonia 50 (249) 120 89 158 55 (283) 131 98 170 42 (218) 101 73 136Beacon Falls 12 (352) 149 77 260 9 (295) 112 51 212 18 (566) 224 133 354Derby 42 (305) 140 101 189 37 (260) 122 86 168 43 (303) 143 103 192Oxford 21 (537) 148 91 226 10 (239) 71 34 130 10 (190) 71 34 130Seymour 46 (306) 141 103 188 46 (303) 140 102 187 35 (215) 107 75 149Shelton 90 (218) 105 84 129 77 (186) 89 70 111 107 (260) 124 102 150Valley- Male 137 (280) 133 112 157 112 (232) 104 85 125 127 (259) 118 99 141Valley- Female 124 (236) 113 94 135 122 (232) 115 96 138 128 (242) 122 102 145Valley- Total 261 (256) 123 108 139 234 (231) 109 96 124 255 (249) 120 106 135Naugatuck 58 (211) 103 78 133 53 (195) 93 70 122 52 (192) 92 69 121Southbury 60 (176) 85 65 110 71 (202) 99 77 125 63 (181) 89 69 114Woodbury 25 (269) 133 86 196 15 (176) 79 44 131 13 (140) 69 37 118Bridgeport 243 (210) 101 89 114 267 (232) 110 97 124 260 (226) 108 95 122Hartford 185 (212) 103 88 119 184 (211) 101 87 117 177 (200) 98 84 114New Haven 209 (224) 108 94 123 227 (244) 116 101 132 208 (225) 107 93 123Connecticut- Male 3,425 (187) 3,596 (196) 3,475 (195)Connecticut- Female 3,645 (186) 3,534 (180) 3,504 (179)Connecticut- Total 7,070 (186) 7,130 (188) 7,079 (187)






Table 5-E1. Malignant Neoplasm Mortality2001 2002 2003

2007 2008 2009

2004 2005 2006

108

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-C. Malignant Neoplasm (All Cancer) Age-Adjusted Mortality Rate All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


109

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-D. Malignant Neoplasm (All Cancer) Age-Adjusted Mortality Rate Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury,

Woodbury and the Valley vs. Connecticut


110


Ansonia 21 (218) (125) (312) 13 (135) (62) (209) 14 (146) (69) (222)Beacon Falls 4 (156) (3) (309) 5 (195) (24) (366) 6 (234) (47) (422)Derby 16 (248) (127) (370) 11 (171) (70) (272) 14 (217) (103) (331)Oxford 3 (61) (-8) (131) 8 (163) (50) (277) 10 (204) (78) (331)Seymour 20 (253) (142) (363) 15 (190) (94) (285) 17 (215) (113) (317)Shelton 32 (163) (106) (219) 32 (163) (106) (219) 33 (168) (111) (225)Valley 96 (188) (150) (226) 84 (164) (129) (200) 94 (184) (147) (221)Naugatuck 25 (157) (95) (219) 18 (113) (61) (165) 11 (69) (28) (110)Southbury 27 (272) (169) (374) 22 (221) (129) (314) 16 (161) (82) (240)Woodbury 12 (255) (111) (399) 12 (255) (111) (399) 10 (212) (81) (344)Bridgeport 77 (105) (82) (129) 89 (122) (96) (147) 87 (119) (94) (144)Hartford 54 (84) (62) (107) 64 (100) (76) (125) 62 (97) (73) (121)New Haven 90 (139) (111) (168) 80 (124) (97) (151) 63 (98) (74) (122)Connecticut 3,025 (172) (166) (178) 2,825 (161) (155) (167) 2,703 (154) (148) (160)


Ansonia 20 (208) (117) (299) 17 (177) (93) (261) 18 (187) (101) (274)Beacon Falls 4 (156) (3) (309) 4 (156) (3) (309) 3 (117) (-15) (250)Derby 14 (217) (103) (331) 13 (202) (92) (311) 5 (78) (10) (146)Oxford 4 (82) (2) (162) 6 (123) (24) (221) 10 (204) (78) (331)Seymour 16 (202) (103) (301) 15 (190) (94) (285) 14 (177) (84) (270)Shelton 36 (183) (123) (243) 24 (122) (73) (171) 27 (137) (86) (189)Valley 94 (184) (147) (221) 79 (155) (121) (189) 77 (151) (117) (184)Naugatuck 18 (113) (61) (165) 21 (132) (75) (188) 15 (94) (47) (142)Southbury 19 (191) (105) (277) 31 (312) (202) (422) 32 (322) (211) (434)Woodbury 15 (319) (157) (480) 5 (106) (13) (199) 12 (255) (111) (399)Bridgeport 77 (105) (82) (129) 94 (128) (102) (154) 84 (115) (90) (139)Hartford 59 (92) (69) (116) 59 (92) (69) (116) 56 (88) (65) (110)New Haven 76 (118) (91) (144) 70 (108) (83) (134) 83 (129) (101) (156)Connecticut 2,791 (159) (153) (165) 2,829 (161) (155) (167) 2,820 (160) (155) (166)


Ansonia 23 (233) (138) (328) 9 (97) (34) (160)Beacon Falls 2 (75) (15) (179) 6 (225) (15) (405)Derby 8 (121) (37) (205) 9 (151) (52) (250)Oxford 8 (150) (46) (254) 15 (299) (148) (450)Seymour 11 (136) (56) (216) 17 (202) (106) (298)Shelton 29 (145) (92) (198) 36 (90) (61) (119)Valley 81 (154) (120) (188) 92 (174) (138) (210)Naugatuck 25 (156) (95) (217) 16 (100) (51) (149)Southbury 25 (244) (148) (340) 13 (66) (30) (102)Woodbury 9 (183) (63) (303) 8 (72) (22) (122)Bridgeport 80 (107) (84) (130) 84 (119) (94) (144)Hartford 54 (118) (87) (149) 64 (100) (76) (125)New Haven 80 (83) (65) (101) 78 (121) (94) (148)Connecticut 2854 (159) (153) (165) 2930 (164) (158) (170)


2007 2008

Table 5-G. Breast Cancer Incidence, Females2001 2002 2003

2004 2005 2006

111

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inc

ide

nce

Rate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

Year

Figure 5-E. Breast Cancer Incidence All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


112

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-F. Breast Cancer Incidence Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



113

Table 5-H. Breast Cancer Mortality- FemalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Year Deaths years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years2007


2008



114


Ansonia 4 (42) 117 31 299 2 (19) 64 7 231 2 (19) 67 8 243Beacon Falls 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 3 (272) 514 103 1,501Derby 2 (28) 81 9 292 5 (64) 222 72 518 2 (35) 93 10 337Oxford 1 (74) 81 1 451 0 - - - - 2 (94) 184 21 663Seymour 2 (27) 75 8 271 3 (39) 124 25 361 3 (35) 130 26 379Shelton 7 (34) 96 38 198 6 (28) 89 33 193 10 (45) 156 75 288Valley- Female 16 (30) 90 51 146 16 (32) 98 56 154 22 (42) 142 89 214Naugatuck 3 (20) 62 12 181 5 (34) 113 36 263 5 (35) 118 38 276Southbury 7 (44) 121 48 248 3 (18) 57 12 168 4 (21) 80 22 205Woodbury 1 (25) 63 1 352 3 (77) 204 41 596 2 (33) 144 16 518Bridgeport 23 (38) 11 70 166 25 (40) 131 84 193 22 (36) 121 76 183Hartford 13 (29) 83 44 142 9 (20) 62 28 118 13 (29) 94 50 161New Haven 22 (44) 130 81 196 17 (34) 109 63 174 15 (30) 101 57 167Connecticut- Female 592 (30) 544 (28) 518 (27)


Ansonia 3 (33) 95 19 277 6 (59) 198 72 431 4 (42) 129 35 330Beacon Falls 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 (48) 162 2 904Derby 1 (11) 44 1 245 2 (31) 92 10 331 1 (19) 45 1 248Oxford 1 (20) 84 1 467 3 (68) 275 55 804 2 90 178 20 643Seymour 4 (51) 162 44 415 7 (94) 299 120 617 1 (11) 41 1 231Shelton 4 (19) 59 16 150 9 (44) 138 63 261 6 (28) 90 33 197Valley- Female 13 (24) 78 41 133 27 (50) 170 112 248 15 (27) 92 52 152Naugatuck 1 (8) 22 0 123 3 (20) 70 14 204 6 (42) 137 50 297Southbury 3 (13) 59 12 171 5 (28) 97 31 227 6 (32) 115 42 249Woodbury 0 - 0 0 0 2 (49) 142 16 513 4 (79) 278 75 711Bridgeport 24 (38) 123 79 184 18 (29) 97 58 154 20 (34) 106 65 163Hartford 10 (22) 67 32 124 15 (32) 107 60 176 8 (16) 56 24 111New Haven 19 (37) 120 72 187 19 (37) 126 76 196 18 (36) 117 69 185Connecticut- Female 551 (29) 527 (27) 537 28

Deaths Rate* SMR a Lower CI b Upper CI c Deaths Rate* SMR a Lower CI b Upper CI c

Ansonia 3 (29) 101 20 294 2 (20) 70 8 252Beacon Falls 1 (39) 172 2 959 0 - - - -Derby 1 (11) 47 1 259 2 (24) 97 11 350Oxford 2 (100) 188 21 678 1 (20) 92 1 511Seymour 3 (42) 132 27 386 3 (38) 134 27 392Shelton 1 (5) 15 0 86 9 (42) 143 65 272Valley- Female 11 (21) 71 35 127 17 (32) 112 65 180Naugatuck 7 (49) 166 67 342 5 (36) 122 39 284Southbury 5 (26) 98 31 228 4 (30) 83 22 213Woodbury 3 (65) 216 43 631 0 - - - -Bridgeport 23 (34) 115 71 176 17 (28) 96 56 154Hartford 12 (38) 79 39 141 8 (32) 59 25 116New Haven 19 (24) 127 76 198 17 (18) 118 68 188Connecticut- Female 519 (27) 505 (26)


Table 5-I. Breast Cancer Mortality, Females

2007 2008

2001 2002 2003

2004 2005 2006

115

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-G. Breast Cancer Mortality All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


116

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-H. Breast Cancer Mortality Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



117


Ansonia 1 (10) (-10) (31) 1 (10) (-10) (31) 2 (21) (-8) (50)Beacon Falls 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -Derby 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -Oxford 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -Seymour 1 (13) (-12) (37) 0 - - - 1 (13) - -Shelton 2 (10) (-4) (24) 2 (10) (-4) (24) 1 (5) (-5) (15)Valley 4 (8) (0) (16) 3 (6) (-1) (13) 4 (8) (0) (16)Naugatuck 4 (25) (1) (50) 1 (6) (-6) (19) 0 - - -Southbury 1 (10) (-10) (30) 0 - - - 0 - - -Woodbury 1 (21) (-20) (63) 0 - - - 1 (21) (-20) (63)Bridgeport 9 (12) (4) (20) 10 (14) (5) (22) 10 (14) (5) (22)Hartford 7 (11) (3) (19) 3 (5) (-1) (10) 6 (9) (2) (17)New Haven 8 (12) (4) (21) 7 (11) (3) (19) 5 (8) (1) (15)Connecticut 134 (8) (6) (9) 121 (7) (6) (8) 130 (7) (6) (9)


Ansonia 1 (10) (-10) (31) 3 (31) (-4) (67) 1 (10) (-10) (31)Beacon Falls 1 (39) (-37) (116) 0 - - - 0 - - -Derby 1 (16) (-15) (46) 0 - - - 0 - - -Oxford 1 (20) (-20) (60) 0 - - - 0 - - -Seymour 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -Shelton 1 (5) (-5) (15) 3 (15) (-2) (33) 2 (10) (-4) (24)Valley 5 (10) (1) (18) 6 (12) (2) (21) 3 (6) (-1) (13)Naugatuck 0 - - - 1 (6) (-6) (19) 1 (6) (-6) (19)Southbury 1 (10) 10 (30) 1 (10) (-10) (30) 1 (10) (-10) (30)Woodbury 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -Bridgeport 15 (20) (10) (31) 6 (8) (2) (15) 4 (5) (0) (11)Hartford 6 (9) (2) (17) 5 (8) (1) (15) 8 (13) (4) (21)New Haven 3 (5) (-1) (10) 6 (9) (2) (17) 5 (8) (1) (15)Connecticut 139 (8) (7) (9) 117 (7) (5) (8) 123 (7) (6) (8)


Ansonia 0 - - - 1 (11) (4) (18)Beacon Falls 0 - - - 0 - - -Derby 1 (15) (-14) (44) 0 - - -Oxford 1 (19) (-18) (56) 0 - - -Seymour 0 - - - 0 - - -Shelton 1 (5) (-5) (15) 1 (5) (1) (9)Valley 3 (6) (3) (9) 2 (4) (0) (8)Naugatuck 2 (12) (5) (29) 0 - - -Southbury 0 - - - 0 - - -Woodbury 1 (20) (19) (59) 0 - - -Bridgeport 11 (15) (6) (24) 4 (6) (1) (11)Hartford 2 (3) (-1) (7) 5 (8) (2) (14)New Haven 5 (7) (1) (13) 7 (11) (4) (18)Connecticut 125 (7) (6) (8) 95 (5) (1) (9)


Table 5-J. Cervical Cancer Incidence, Females2001 2002 2003

2007 2008

2004 2005 2006

118

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-I. Cervical Cancer Incidence All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


119

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-J. Cervical Cancer Incidence Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



120


Ansonia 12 (65) (28) (101) 20 (108) (61) (155) 11 (59) (24) (94)Beacon Falls 2 (38) 15 (91) 5 (95) (12) (179) 0 - - -Derby 7 (56) (15) (98) 9 (73) (25) (120) 9 (73) (25) (120)Oxford 4 (41) (1) (81) 2 (20) (-7) (49) 3 (31) (-4) (65)Seymour 14 (91) (43) (138) 16 (104) (53) (154) 13 (84) (38) (130)Shelton 27 (71) (44) (98) 33 (87) (57) (116) 21 (55) (32) (79)Valley 66 (66) (50) (82) 85 (85) (67) (104) 57 (57) (42) (72)Naugatuck 28 (90) (57) (124) 18 (58) (31) (85) 17 (55) (29) (81)Southbury 8 (43) (13) (73) 18 (97) (52) (142) 28 (151) (95) (207)Woodbury 3 (33) (-4) (70) 9 (98) (34) (162) 8 (87) (27) (147)Bridgeport 98 (70) (56) (84) 80 (57) (45) (70) 74 (53) (41) (65)Hartford 67 (55) (42) (68) 63 (52) (39) (65) 64 (53) (40) (66)New Haven 54 (44) (32) (55) 59 (48) (36) (60) 61 (49) (37) (62)Connecticut 2,254 (66) (63) (69) 2,303 (68) (65) (70) 2,132 (63) (60) (65)


Ansonia 16 (86) (44) (128) 9 (49) (17) (80) 18 (97) (52) (142)Beacon Falls 3 (57) (-7) (122) 1 (19) (-17) (56) 0 - - -Derby 11 (89) (36) (141) 8 (65) (20) (109) 13 (105) (48) (162)Oxford 6 (61) (12) (110) 7 (71) (18) (124) 3 (31) (-4) (65)Seymour 4 (26) (1) (51) 6 (39) (8) (70) 10 (65) (25) (105)Shelton 25 (66) (40) (91) 29 (76) (48) (104) 29 (76) (48) (104)Valley 65 (65) (49) (81) 60 (60) (45) (76) 73 (73) (56) (90)Naugatuck 24 (77) (46) (108) 25 (81) (49) (112) 12 (39) (17) (61)Southbury 15 (81) (40) (122) 25 (135) (82) (187) 13 (70) (32) (108)Woodbury 5 (54) (7) (102) 10 (109) (41) (176) 7 (76) (20) (132)Bridgeport 76 (54) (42) (67) 78 (56) (43) (68) 73 (52) (40) (64)Hartford 56 (46) (34) (58) 53 (44) (32) (55) 63 (52) (39) (65)New Haven 70 (57) (43) (70) 50 (40) (29) (52) 50 (40) (29) (52)Connecticut 2,184 (64) (61) (67) 2,013 (59) (57) (62) 1,964 (58) (55) (60)


Ansonia 14 (75) (36) (114) 16 (86) (44) (128)Beacon Falls 1 (17) (-16) (50) 0 - - -Derby 7 (56) (15) (97) 7 (56) (15) (97)Oxford 6 (48) (10) (86) 6 (47) (9) (85)Seymour 11 (68) (28) (108) 5 (31) (4) (58)Shelton 24 (60) (36) (84) 30 (75) (48) (102)Valley 63 (60) (45) (75) 64 (61) (46) (76)Naugatuck 23 (72) (43) (101) 20 (63) (35) (91)Southbury 17 (86) (45) (127) 17 (86) (45) (127)Woodbury 4 (41) (1) (81) 8 (83) (25) (141)Bridgeport 59 (43) (32) (54) 65 (48) (36) (60)Hartford 42 (34) (24) (44) 47 (38) (27) (49)New Haven 47 (38) (27) (49) 46 (37) (26) (48)Connecticut 1795 (51) (49) (53) 1776 (51) (49) (53)


2007 2008

2003

Table 5-K. Colorectal Cancer Incidence2001 2002

2004 2005 2006

121

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-K. Colorectal Cancer Incidence All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


122

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-L. Colorectal Cancer Incidence Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



123

Table 5-M. Colorectal Cancer Mortality- All PersonsTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+



2008


124

Table 5-M. Colorectal Cancer Mortality- FemalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+



2008


125

Table 5-M. Colorectal Cancer Mortality- MalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+



2008



126

Table 5-N. Colorectal Cancer Mortality


Ansonia 6 (29) 141 51 307 5 (26) 113 37 264 2 (10) 49 5 177Beacon Falls 2 (36) 259 29 935 0 - 0 0 0 1 (19) 134 2 745Derby 7 (52) 225 90 464 4 (26) 125 34 320 4 (26) 135 36 345Oxford 2 (66) 147 16 531 2 (63) 283 76 725 1 (53) 78 1 432Seymour 14 (28) 122 33 312 5 (33) 146 47 341 6 (40) 191 70 414Shelton 35 (34) 157 86 264 6 (14) 66 24 143 12 (29) 143 74 250Valley- Male 19 (39) 198 119 309 8 (16) 92 44 169 10 (21) 100 48 184Valley- Female 16 (31) 133 76 216 14 (27) 122 67 204 16 (30) 151 86 245Valley- Total 35 (34) 161 112 225 22 (22) 107 69 160 26 (26) 126 82 185Naugatuck 10 (37) 174 83 319 6 (22) 101 37 220 1 (4) 18 0 102Southbury 9 (24) 116 53 221 6 (16) 77 28 168 5 (14) 68 22 160Woodbury 4 (45) 212 57 542 1 (12) 51 1 286 1 (11) 57 1 315Bridgeport 30 (26) 122 82 174 33 (28) 130 89 182 26 (22) 111 72 162Hartford 20 (23) 109 67 169 23 (26) 122 77 183 20 (22) 116 71 179New Haven 20 (22) 100 61 155 18 (19) 87 52 138 19 (20) 100 60 157Connecticut- Male 324 (18) 361 (20) 333 (18)Connecticut- Female 402 (20) 385 (20) 354 (18)Connecticut- Total 726 (19) 746 (19) 687 (18)


Ansonia 2 (8) 50 6 180 10 (50) 273 131 503 5 (26) 132 43 309Beacon Falls 1 (20) 135 2 750 1 (17) 155 2 861 2 (98) 287 32 1035Derby 5 (38) 172 55 400 3 (23) 111 22 326 2 (13) 73 8 262Oxford 2 (65) 156 17 562 0 - - - - 1 (53) 83 1 462Seymour 4 (30) 129 35 331 2 (12) 72 8 259 3 (23) 102 21 299Shelton 4 (10) 49 13 124 9 (21) 118 54 224 11 (27) 140 70 251Valley- Male 13 (28) 130 69 222 11 (23) 110 55 197 12 (26) 120 62 210Valley- Female 5 (10) 47 15 110 14 (26) 132 72 221 12 (23) 113 58 198Valley- Total 18 (18) 89 53 140 25 (24) 135 87 199 24 (24) 125 80 186Naugatuck 13 (49) 241 128 412 7 (26) 141 57 291 6 (22) 117 43 254Southbury 7 (20) 99 40 204 7 (17) 101 41 209 9 (32) 130 59 247Woodbury 3 (36) 171 34 500 2 (25) 127 14 458 1 (12) 61 1 338Bridgeport 23 (19) 100 63 150 24 (21) 113 72 168 15 (13) 68 38 113Hartford 23 (27) 136 86 204 16 (19) 103 59 167 20 (24) 125 76 193New Haven 20 (22) 108 66 166 25 (27) 145 94 214 21 (22) 119 74 182Connecticut- Male 324 (18) 274 (15) 298 (18)Connecticut- Female 351 (18) 348 (17) 344 (14)Connecticut- Total 675 (18) 622 (16) 642 (16)


Ansonia 7 (37) 198 79 408 5 (30) 140 45 327Beacon Falls 0 - - - - 1 (20) 156 2 870Derby 5 (37) 193 62 451 3 (21) 115 23 336Oxford 0 - - - - 2 (65) 178 20 642Seymour 1 (8) 36 0 203 3 (20) 109 22 319Shelton 13 (31) 174 92 297 7 (17) 93 37 193Valley- Male 14 (30) 166 91 278 13 (28) 153 81 261Valley- Female 26 (50) 268 175 393 20 (38) 209 127 322Valley- Total 26 (26) 143 94 210 21 (21) 116 71 177Naugatuck 3 (10) 62 12 180 3 (11) 62 12 180Southbury 5 (14) 76 25 178 3 (6) 45 9 132Woodbury 0 - - - - 0 - - - -Bridgeport 17 (15) 82 48 131 15 (13) 72 40 119Hartford 17 (20) 82 48 131 15 (18) 72 40 119New Haven 20 (21) 119 73 184 19 (21) 113 68 176Connecticut- Male 283 (15) 289 (16)Connecticut- Female 308 (15) 325 (16)Connecticut- Total 598 (18) 622 (16)

Data from Connecticut Department of Public Health*Values in parentheses indicate the age-adjusted rate of disease per 100,000 people a Standard Mortality Ratiob Lower Limit of 95% Confidence Intervalc Upper Limit of 95% Confidence Interval

2007 2008

2004 2005 2006

2001 2002 2003

127

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-M. Colorectal Cancer Mortality All Valley Towns. Vs. Connecticut


128

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-N. Colorectal Cancer Mortality Bridegeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



129


Ansonia 2 (11) (-4) (26) 2 (11) (-4) (26) 5 (27) (3) (51)Beacon Falls 0 - - - 1 (19) (-18) (56) 0 - - -Derby 0 - - - 5 (40) (5) (76) 4 (32) (1) (64)Oxford 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -Seymour 1 (6) (-6) (19) 4 (26) (1) (51) 2 (13) (-5) (31)Shelton 7 (18) (5) (32) 4 (10) (0) (21) 9 (24) (8) (39)Valley 10 (10) (4) (16) 16 (16) (8) (24) 20 (20) (11) (29)Naugatuck 3 (10) (-1) (21) 4 (13) (0) (26) 2 (6) (-2) (15)Southbury 6 (32) (6) (58) 4 (22) (0) (43) 4 (22) (0) (43)Woodbury 2 (22) (-8) (52) 3 (33) (-4) (70) 2 (22) (-8) (52)Bridgeport 10 (7) (3) (12) 12 (9) (4) (13) 15 (11) (5) (16)Hartford 12 (10) (4) (15) 10 (8) (3) (13) 5 (4) (1) (8)New Haven 18 (15) (8) (21) 14 (11) (5) (17) 12 (10) (4) (15)Connecticut 483 (14) (13) (15) 458 (13) (12) (15) 489 (14) (13) (16)


Ansonia 2 (11) (-4) (26) 3 (16) (-2) (34) 3 (16) (-2) (34)Beacon Falls 2 (38) (-15) (91) 1 (19) (-18) (56) 1 (19) (-18) (56)Derby 1 (8) (-8) (24) 2 (16) (-6) (39) 6 (48) (10) (87)Oxford 1 (10) (-10) (30) 3 (31) (-4) (65) 2 (20) (-8) (49)Seymour 3 (19) (-3) (41) 1 (6) (-6) (19) 4 (26) (1) (51)Shelton 2 (5) (-3) (13) 4 (10) (0) (21) 7 (18) (5) (32)Valley 11 (11) (5) (18) 14 (14) (7) (21) 23 (23) (14) (33)Naugatuck 2 (6) (-2) (15) 6 (19) (4) (35) 0 - - -Southbury 1 (5) (-5) (16) 3 (16) (-2) (34) 5 (27) (3) (51)Woodbury 1 (11) (-10) (32) 2 (22) (-8) (52) 2 (22) (-8) (52)Bridgeport 18 (13) (7) (19) 10 (7) (3) (12) 15 (11) (5) (16)Hartford 12 (10) (4) (15) 11 (9) (4) (14) 12 (10) (4) (15)New Haven 11 (9) (4) (14) 9 (7) (3) (12) 14 (11) (5) (17)Connecticut 408 (12) (11) (13) 387 (11) (10) (12) 434 (13) (12) (14)


Ansonia 0 - - - 3 (16) (-2) (34)Beacon Falls 1 (17) (-16) (50) 1 (17) (-16) (50)Derby 0 - - - 3 (24) (-3) (51)Oxford 1 (8) (-8) (24) 0 - - -Seymour 1 (6) (-6) (18) 2 (12) (-5) (29)Shelton 5 (13) (2) (24) 7 (18) (5) (31)Valley 8 (8) (2) (14) 16 (15) (8) (22)Naugatuck 3 (9) (-1) (19) 0 - - -Southbury 7 (36) (9) (63) 2 (10) (-4) (24)Woodbury 4 (41) (1) (81) 0 - - -Bridgeport 12 (9) (4) (14) 11 (8) (3) (13)Hartford 9 (7) (2) (12) 11 (9) (4) (14)New Haven 14 (11) (5) (17) 16 (13) (7) (19)Connecticut 402 (11) (10) (12) 490 (14) (13) (15)


2006

2007 2008

2004 2005

Table 5-O. Leukemia Incidence2001 2002 2003

130

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-O. Leukemia Incidence All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


131

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-P. Leukemia Incidence Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



132


Ansonia 18 (97) (52) (142) 18 (97) (52) (142) 15 (81) (40) (122)Beacon Falls 5 (95) (12) (179) 4 (76) (2) (151) 5 (95) (12) (179)Derby 15 (121) (60) (182) 7 (56) (15) (98) 18 (145) (78) (212)Oxford 3 (31) (-4) (65) 5 (51) (6) (96) 6 (61) (12) (110)Seymour 13 (84) (38) (130) 16 (104) (53) (154) 9 (58) (20) (96)Shelton 27 (71) (44) (98) 34 (89) (59) (119) 27 (71) (44) (98)Valley 81 (81) (64) (99) 84 (84) (66) (102) 80 (80) (63) (98)Naugatuck 26 (84) (52) (116) 19 (61) (34) (89) 40 (129) (89) (169)Southbury 8 (43) (13) (73) 27 (145) (91) (200) 18 (97) (52) (142)Woodbury 6 (65) (13) (117) 5 (54) (7) (102) 9 (98) (34) (162)Bridgeport 95 (68) (54) (82) 93 (67) (53) (80) 88 (63) (50) (76)Hartford 63 (52) (39) (65) 65 (53) (40) (66) 66 (54) (41) (67)New Haven 79 (64) (50) (78) 95 (77) (61) (92) 79 (64) (50) (78)Connecticut 2,541 (75) (72) (78) 2,633 (77) (74) (80) 2,665 (78) (75) (81)


Ansonia 14 (75) (36) (115) 12 (65) (28) (101) 20 (108) (61) (155)Beacon Falls 5 (95) (12) (179) 2 (38) 15 (91) 5 (95) (12) (179)Derby 19 (153) (84) (222) 10 (81) (31) (131) 11 (89) (36) (141)Oxford 6 (61) (12) (110) 6 (61) (12) (110) 10 (102) (39) (165)Seymour 12 (78) (34) (122) 11 (71) (29) (113) 10 (65) (25) (105)Shelton 37 (97) (66) (128) 33 (87) (57) (116) 29 (76) (48) (104)Valley 93 (93) (74) (112) 74 (74) (57) (91) 85 (85) (67) (104)Naugatuck 28 (90) (57) (124) 27 (87) (54) (120) 27 (87) (54) (120)Southbury 31 (167) (108) (226) 18 (97) (52) (142) 22 (118) (69) (168)Woodbury 5 (54) (7) (102) 6 (65) (13) (117) 8 (87) (27) (147)Bridgeport 81 (58) (45) (71) 78 (56) (43) (68) 60 (43) (32) (54)Hartford 70 (58) (44) (71) 52 (43) (31) (54) 58 (48) (35) (60)New Haven 77 (62) (48) (76) 61 (49) (37) (62) 73 (59) (46) (73)Connecticut 2,564 (75) (72) (78) 2,593 (76) (73) (79) 2,638 (77) (75) (80)


Ansonia 21 (113) (65) (161) 19 (103) (57) (149)Beacon Falls 5 (87) (11) (163) 7 (121) (31) (211)Derby 14 (113) (54) (172) 18 (145) (78) (212)Oxford 15 (120) (59) (181) 7 (55) (14) (96)Seymour 16 (99) (50) (148) 14 (86) (41) (131)Shelton 31 (77) (50) (104) 41 (103) (71) (135)Valley 102 (97) (78) (116) 106 (100) (81) (119)Naugatuck 19 (60) (33) (87) 26 (81) (50) (112)Southbury 25 (127) (77) (177) 19 (96) (53) (139)Woodbury 7 (73) (19) (127) 6 (62) (12) (112)Bridgeport 88 (64) (51) (77) 77 (56) (43) (69)Hartford 56 (45) (33) (57) 66 (53) (40) (66)New Haven 69 (56) (43) (69) 64 (52) (39) (65)Connecticut 2,602 (74) (71) (77) 2,642 (75) (72) (78)


Table 5-P. Lung Cancer Incidence2001 2002 2003

2007 2008

2004 2005 2006

133

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-Q. Lung Cancer Incidence All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


134

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-R. Lung Cancer Incidence Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



135

Table 5-Q. Lung Cancer Mortality- All PersonsTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007


2008


136

Table 5-Q. Lung Cancer Mortality- FemalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007


2008


137

Table 5-Q. Lung Cancer Mortality- MalesTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+


2007


2008



138


Ansonia 12 (57) 110 57 192 18 (91) 164 97 259 11 (55) 99 49 177Beacon Falls 4 (88) 182 49 467 1 (17) 47 1 263 4 (167) 183 49 468Derby 13 (91) 166 88 284 6 (42) 76 28 165 17 (123) 214 124 342Oxford 6 (69) 154 56 336 0 - - - - 1 (12) 26 0 144Seymour 11 (70) 128 64 228 12 (74) 139 72 243 8 (46) 92 40 181Shelton 19 (46) 85 51 133 25 (60) 112 72 165 31 (75) 136 92 193Valley- Male 38 (75) 130 92 179 29 (58) 99 66 142 35 (71) 118 82 165Valley- Female 27 (51) 102 67 149 33 (62) 125 86 176 37 (70) 137 96 187Valley- Total 65 (63) 117 90 149 62 (60) 111 85 143 72 (70) 127 99 160Naugatuck 13 (48) 89 47 152 12 (46) 82 42 143 18 (67) 121 72 192Southbury 8 (23) 47 20 92 17 (47) 95 55 152 10 (30) 56 27 103Woodbury 5 (47) 99 32 232 4 (41) 81 22 206 2 (25) 39 4 141Bridgeport 66 (58) 106 82 135 66 (57) 106 82 134 56 (49) 88 67 115Hartford 50 (56) 106 78 139 47 (55) 100 74 133 54 (61) 112 84 147New Haven 58 (63) 116 88 150 60 (65) 119 91 154 52 (58) 102 76 134Connecticut- Male 966 (53) 968 (53) 978 (54)Connecticut- Female 876 (45) 876 (45) 899 (47)Connecticut- Total 1,844 (49) 1,842 (49) 1,877 (50)


Ansonia 13 (70) 115 61 197 9 (47) 83 38 158 8 (41) 74 32 146Beacon Falls 3 (60) 135 27 393 1 (32) 48 1 265 3 (73) 142 29 416Derby 9 (61) 111 51 211 6 (47) 77 28 169 11 (77) 142 71 254Oxford 5 (58) 127 41 296 6 (87) 163 59 354 3 (30) 81 16 236Seymour 7 (46) 79 32 162 4 (26) 48 13 122 7 (44) 83 33 170Shelton 21 (52) 90 56 138 31 (75) 141 96 200 32 (78) 145 99 204Valley- Male 35 (70) 111 77 154 28 (58) 98 65 141 27 (54) 97 64 141Valley- Female 23 (44) 88 56 133 29 (55) 111 75 160 37 (70) 137 96 189Valley- Total 58 (57) 101 76 130 57 (56) 104 79 135 64 (62) 116 90 149Naugatuck 22 (81) 145 91 220 22 (84) 153 96 232 19 (70) 131 79 205Southbury 22 (61) 120 75 182 20 (60) 115 70 178 23 (72) 130 82 195Woodbury 2 (23) 39 4 140 5 (53) 102 33 238 4 (43) 82 22 209Bridgeport 59 (51) 91 69 118 63 (55) 102 79 131 55 (48) 89 67 116Hartford 42 (49) 86 62 116 37 (42) 80 56 110 36 (41) 77 54 107New Haven 62 (67) 120 92 153 46 (50) 93 68 125 47 (51) 95 70 126Connecticut- Male 1,048 (58) 948 (52) 948 (52)Connecticut- Female 864 (44) 865 (45) 865 (45)Connecticut- Total 1,912 (51) 1,813 (48) 1,813 (48)


Ansonia 15 (78) 138 77 227 15 (75) 143 80 236Beacon Falls 4 (125) 186 50 477 4 (182) 193 52 493Derby 6 (43) 76 28 166 6 (41) 79 29 173Oxford 9 (208) 241 110 457 5 (96) 139 45 324Seymour 8 (52) 93 40 184 10 (63) 121 58 223Shelton 22 (53) 98 62 149 16 (39) 73 42 119Valley- Male 28 (59) 103 69 149 29 (58) 54 36 78Valley- Female 35 (66) 123 86 171 27 (51) 105 69 153Valley- Total 64 (63) 115 89 147 56 (54) 102 77 132Naugatuck 19 (70) 130 78 203 18 (70) 127 75 201Southbury 8 (24) 45 19 88 13 (42) 74 40 127Woodbury 4 (40) 81 22 207 2 (19) 42 5 151Bridgeport 46 (40) 74 54 98 60 (53) 99 76 128Hartford 38 (45) 81 58 112 44 (51) 97 70 130New Haven 42 (45) 84 61 114 42 (45) 87 62 117Connecticut- Male 899 (49) 929 (51)Connecticut- Female 943 (48) 854 (44)Connecticut- Total 1,842 (49) 1,783 (47)


2007 2008

Table 5-R. Lung Cancer Mortality

2004 2005 2006

2002 20032001

139

0

50

100

150

200

250

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-S. Lung Cancer Mortality All Valley Towns vs. Conecticut

Ansonia Beacon Derby Oxford Seymour Shelton

140

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-T. Lung Cancer Mortality Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugautck, Southbury, Woodbury



141


Ansonia 4 (22) (0) (43) 3 (16) (-2) (34) 5 (27) (3) (51)Beacon Falls 0 0 - - 2 (38) (-14) (91) 1 (19) (-17) (56)Derby 0 0 - - 1 (8) (-8) (24) 5 (40) (5) (76)Oxford 0 0 - - 2 (20) (-7) (49) 3 (31) (-4) (65)Seymour 2 (13) (-5) (31) 2 (13) (-5) (31) 3 (19) (-3) (41)Shelton 11 (29) (12) (46) 10 (26) (10) (43) 15 (39) (19) (59)Valley 17 (17) (9) (25) 20 (20) (11) (29) 32 (32) (21) (43)Naugatuck 5 (16) (2) (30) 2 (6) (-2) (15) 5 (16) (2) (30)Southbury 7 (38) (10) (66) 4 (22) (0) (43) 4 (22) (0) (43)Woodbury 3 (33) (-4) (70) 4 (43) (1) (86) 3 (33) (-4) (70)Bridgeport 17 (12) (6) (18) 12 (9) (4) (13) 13 (9) (4) (14)Hartford 8 (7) (2) (11) 8 (7) (2) (11) 3 (2) - (5)New Haven 12 (10) (4) (15) 6 (5) (1) (9) 4 (3) (0) (6)Connecticut 859 (25) (24) (27) 769 (23) (21) (24) 834 (24) (23) (26)


Ansonia 2 (11) (-4) (26) 2 (11) (-4) (26) 4 (22) (0) (43)Beacon Falls 1 (19) (-17) (56) 1 (19) (-17) (56) 0 0 - -Derby 2 (16) (-6) (39) 3 (24) (-3) (52) 4 (32) (1) (64)Oxford 4 (41) (1) (81) 7 (71) (18) (124) 0 0 - -Seymour 1 (6) (-6) (19) 1 (6) (-6) (19) 2 (13) (-5) (31)Shelton 17 (45) (23) (66) 14 (37) (17) (56) 10 (26) (10) (43)Valley 27 (27) (17) (37) 28 (28) (18) (39) 20 (20) (11) (29)Naugatuck 8 (26) (8) (44) 2 (6) (-2) (15) 8 (26) (8) (44)Southbury 13 (70) (32) (108) 10 (54) (20) (87) 10 (54) (20) (87)Woodbury 2 (22) (-8) (52) 1 (11) (-10) (32) 3 (33) (-4) (70)Bridgeport 11 (8) (3) (13) 16 (11) (6) (17) 10 (7) (3) (12)Hartford 4 (3) (0) (7) 8 (7) (2) (11) 7 (6) (1) (10)New Haven 17 (14) (7) (20) 14 (11) (5) (17) 12 (10) (4) (15)Connecticut 836 (25) (23) (26) 1001 (29) (28) (31) 946 (28) (26) (30)


Ansonia 5 (27) (3) (51) 3 (16) (-2) (34)Beacon Falls 1 (17) (-16) (50) 3 (52) (-7) (111)Derby 2 (16) (-6) (38) 0 - - -Oxford 4 (32) (1) (63) 2 (16) (-6) (38)Seymour 0 - - - 5 (31) (4) (58)Shelton 13 (33) (15) (51) 10 (25) (10) (40)Valley 25 (24) (15) (33) 23 (22) (13) (31)Naugatuck 5 (16) (2) (30) 6 (19) (4) (34)Southbury 6 (31) (6) (56) 9 (46) (16) (76)Woodbury 5 (52) (6) (98) 2 (21) (-8) (50)Bridgeport 5 (4) (0) (8) 9 (7) (2) (12)Hartford 4 (3) (0) (6) 4 (3) (0) (6)New Haven 11 (9) (4) (14) 6 (5) (1) (9)Connecticut 887 (25) (23) (27) 893 (26) (24) (28)


Table 5-S. Melanoma Incidence2001 2002 2003

2007 2008

2004 2005 2006

142

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Figure 5-U. Melanoma Incidence All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


Year

Inc

ide

nc

e R

ate

(p

er

10

0,0

00

)

143

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-V. Melanoma Incidence Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



144


Ansonia 9 (101) (35) (166) 22 (246) (143) (349) 8 (89) (27) (151)Beacon Falls 5 (186) (23) (350) 1 (37) 36 (110) 3 (112) 15 (238)Derby 13 (219) (100) (337) 10 (168) (64) (272) 8 (135) (41) (228)Oxford 8 (162) (50) (275) 7 (142) (37) (247) 5 (101) (13) (190)Seymour 13 (172) (79) (266) 10 (133) (50) (215) 6 (80) (16) (143)Shelton 34 (184) (122) (246) 40 (217) (150) (284) 43 (233) (163) (303)Valley 82 (169) (133) (206) 90 (186) (147) (224) 73 (151) (116) (185)Naugatuck 15 (100) (49) (150) 13 (86) (39) (133) 21 (139) (80) (199)Southbury 19 (220) (121) (319) 19 (220) (121) (319) 19 (220) (121) (319)Woodbury 5 (111) (14) (209) 9 (200) (70) (331) 8 (178) (55) (302)Bridgeport 99 (149) (120) (179) 116 (175) (143) (207) 77 (116) (90) (142)Hartford 72 (125) (96) (154) 82 (142) (112) (173) 88 (153) (121) (185)New Haven 83 (140) (110) (171) 81 (137) (107) (167) 64 (108) (82) (135)Connecticut 3,057 (185) (179) (192) 2,989 (181) (175) (188) 2,741 (166) (160) (172)


Ansonia 12 (134) (58) (210) 21 (235) (134) (335) 15 (168) (83) (253)Beacon Falls 3 (112) 15 (238) 1 (37) 36 (110) 2 (75) 29 (178)Derby 13 (219) (100) (337) 7 (118) (31) (205) 9 (151) (52) (250)Oxford 11 (223) (91) (355) 7 (142) (37) (247) 9 (183) (63) (302)Seymour 6 (80) (16) (143) 6 (80) (16) (143) 8 (106) (33) (180)Shelton 37 (201) (136) (265) 36 (195) (131) (259) 31 (168) (109) (227)Valley 82 (169) (133) (206) 78 (161) (125) (197) 74 (153) (118) (187)Naugatuck 12 (80) (35) (125) 19 (126) (69) (183) 19 (126) (69) (183)Southbury 15 (174) (86) (262) 27 (313) (195) (431) 16 (185) (95) (276)Woodbury 3 (67) 9 (142) 7 (156) (40) (271) 9 (200) (70) (331)Bridgeport 81 (122) (95) (149) 91 (137) (109) (165) 83 (125) (98) (152)Hartford 66 (115) (87) (142) 56 (97) (72) (123) 74 (128) (99) (158)New Haven 63 (107) (80) (133) 58 (98) (73) (123) 78 (132) (103) (161)Connecticut 2,478 (150) (144) (156) 2,562 (155) (149) (161) 2,944 (179) (172) (185)


Ansonia 10 (111) (42) (180) 8 (86) (26) (146)Beacon Falls 5 (184) (23) (345) 6 (196) (39) (353)Derby 13 (210) (96) (324) 12 (186) (81) (291)Oxford 6 (110) (22) (198) 7 (120) (31) (209)Seymour 15 (195) (96) (294) 13 (168) (77) (259)Shelton 37 (194) (131) (257) 36 (184) (124) (244)Valley 86 (172) (136) (208) 82 (158) (124) (192)Naugatuck 14 (92) (44) (140) 20 (127) (71) (183)Southbury 23 (257) (152) (362) 29 (327) (208) (446)Woodbury 9 (191) (66) (316) 10 (211) (80) (342)Bridgeport 90 (129) (102) (156) 80 (121) (94) (148)Hartford 72 (121) (93) (149) 67 (112) (85) (139)New Haven 73 (116) (89) (143) 92 (156) (124) (188)Connecticut 3015 (177) (171) (183) 2813 (165) (159) (171)


2007 2008

Table 5-T. Prostate Cancer Incidence2001 2002 2003

2004 2005 2006

145

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-W. Prostate Cancer Incidence All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


146

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-X. Prostate Cancer Incidence Bridgeport, Hartford,New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



147

Table 5-U. Prostate Cancer MortalityTotal <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+



2008



148


Ansonia 3 33 127 26 371 4 (48) 150 40 383 5 (49) 218 70 509Beacon Falls 1 (98) 220 3 1,223 0 - - - - 0 - - - -Derby 1 (17) 57 1 317 2 (40) 100 11 362 4 (51) 232 63 595Oxford 2 (113) 280 31 1,012 0 - - - - 1 (26) 146 2 810Seymour 4 (59) 218 59 557 4 (61) 195 53 500 1 (14) 56 1 314Shelton 4 (22) 91 24 232 3 (17) 60 12 176 4 (22) 94 25 240Valley- Male 15 (32) 131 73 216 13 (28) 101 54 173 15 (32) 135 76 223Naugatuck 1 (4) 81 1 453 3 (11) 252 51 736 0 - - - -Southbury 3 (8) 229 46 669 7 (19) 618 248 1,273 9 (17) 749 342 1,422Woodbury 1 (15) 242 3 1,348 2 (26) 482 54 1,739 1 (11) 233 3 1,297Bridgeport 11 (21) 88 44 158 14 (27) 99 54 166 14 (26) 115 63 194Hartford 10 (26) 110 53 202 12 (30) 118 61 206 7 (18) 79 32 163New Haven 8 (19) 83 36 164 20 (51) 183 112 283 10 (25) 107 51 197Connecticut- Male 389 (20) 439 (23) 378 (20)


Ansonia 0 - - - - 2 (18) 81 9 293 3 (32) 133 27 389Beacon Falls 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 2 (151) 487 55 1,758Derby 4 (57) 223 60 571 2 (24) 109 12 393 2 (27) 119 13 428Oxford 0 - 0 0 0 3 (114) 422 85 1,233 3 (114) 462 93 1,350Seymour 3 (39) 157 32 460 1 (11) 53 1 295 1 (10) 58 1 325Shelton 5 (26) 110 35 257 3 (17) 65 13 191 2 (11) 48 5 172Valley- Male 12 (24) 101 52 177 11 (23) 93 46 166 13 (28) 117 62 200Naugatuck 3 (10) 239 48 699 1 (4) 76 1 421 4 (14) 315 85 806Southbury 4 (7) 325 87 831 2 (5) 157 18 567 4 (11) 330 89 845Woodbury 0 - - - - 1 (13) 211 3 1,173 0 - - - -Bridgeport 12 (23) 93 48 163 9 (17) 69 31 131 7 (13) 58 23 120Hartford 8 (21) 86 37 169 8 (20) 85 37 168 4 (10) 46 12 119New Haven 16 (41) 160 91 260 14 (35) 139 76 234 9 (22) 98 45 185Connecticut- Male 399 (21) 405 (21) 371 (19)


Ansonia 3 (36) 133 27 390 3 (31) 135 27 395Beacon Falls 0 - - - - 1 (46) 251 3 1,397Derby 3 (42) 176 35 513 2 (28) 119 13 431Oxford 0 - - - - 0 - - - -Seymour 2 (21) 119 13 428 2 (37) 121 14 436Shelton 3 (16) 71 14 207 6 (32) 144 53 314Valley- Male 11 (23) 120 64 205 14 (30) 122 65 209Naugatuck 4 (40) 389 105 996 1 (15) 98 1 548Southbury 6 (17) 389 142 847 2 (4) 132 15 477Woodbury 1 (13) 282 4 1,569 1 (13) 284 4 1,579Bridgeport 13 (25) 107 57 183 10 (19) 83 40 153Hartford 8 (20) 92 40 182 10 (26) 117 56 214New Haven 13 (34) 140 74 239 12 (29) 131 67 228Connecticut- Male 376 (20) 370 (19)


2007 2008

Table 5-V. Prostate Cancer Mortality2001 2002 2003

2004 2005 2006

149

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-Y. Prostate Cancer Mortality All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut

Ansonia Beacon Derby Oxford Seymour Shelton Connecticut

150

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-Z. Prostate Cancer Mortality Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury



151


Ansonia 3 (16) (-2) (34) 3 (16) (-2) (34) 1 (5) (-5) (16)Beacon Falls 1 (19) (-18) (56) 0 - - - 1 (19) (-18) (56)Derby 1 (8) (-8) (24) 2 (16) (-6) (39) 1 (8) (-8) (24)Oxford 0 - - - 2 (20) (-8) (49) 3 (31) (-4) (65)Seymour 4 (26) (1) (51) 0 - - - 2 (13) (-5) (31)Shelton 4 (10) (0) (21) 11 (29) (12) (46) 7 (18) (5) (32)Valley 13 (13) (6) (20) 18 (18) (10) (26) 15 (15) (7) (23)Naugatuck 0 - - - 4 (13) (0) (26) 4 (13) (0) (26)Southbury 4 (22) (0) (43) 2 (11) (-4) (26) 3 (16) (-2) (34)Woodbury 1 (11) 10 (32) 1 (11) (-10) (32) 3 (33) (-4) (70)Bridgeport 11 (8) (3) (13) 10 (7) (3) (12) 9 (6) (2) (11)Hartford 5 (4) (1) (8) 5 (4) (1) (8) 10 (8) (3) (13)New Haven 8 (6) (2) (11) 14 (11) (5) (17) 18 (15) (8) (21)Connecticut 347 (10) (9) (11) 341 (10) (9) (11) 447 (13) (12) (14)


Ansonia 3 (16) (-2) (34) 4 (22) (0) (43) 5 (27) (3) (51)Beacon Falls 0 - - - 1 (19) (-18) (56) 2 (38) (-15) (91)Derby 1 (8) (-8) (24) 3 (24) (-3) (52) 5 (40) (5) (76)Oxford 5 (51) (6) (96) 0 - - - 3 (31) (-4) (65)Seymour 2 (13) (-5) (31) 2 (13) (-5) (31) 5 (32) (4) (61)Shelton 9 (24) (8) (39) 6 (16) (3) (28) 12 (31) (14) (49)Valley 20 (20) (11) (29) 16 (16) (8) (24) 32 (32) (21) (43)Naugatuck 4 (13) (0) (26) 4 (13) (0) (26) 25 (81) (49) (112)Southbury 2 (11) (-4) (26) 4 (22) (0) (43) 6 (32) (6) (58)Woodbury 4 (43) (1) (86) 2 (22) (-8) (52) 1 (11) (-10) (32)Bridgeport 14 (10) (5) (15) 5 (4) (0) (7) 16 (11) (6) (17)Hartford 9 (7) (3) (12) 6 (5) (1) (9) 7 (6) (1) (10)New Haven 18 (15) (8) (21) 16 (13) (7) (19) 22 (18) (10) (25)Connecticut 469 (14) (13) (15) 517 (15) (14) (16) 554 (16) (15) (18)


Ansonia 10 (54) (21) (87) 5 (27) (3) (51)Beacon Falls 1 (17) (-16) (50) 2 (34) (-13) (81)Derby 3 (24) (-3) (51) 3 (24) (-3) (51)Oxford 2 (16) (-6) (38) 11 (86) (35) (137)Seymour 6 (37) (7) (67) 3 (18) (-2) (38)Shelton 15 (37) (18) (56) 5 (13) (2) (24)Valley 37 (36) (24) (48) 29 (28) (18) (38)Naugatuck 2 (6) (-2) (14) 6 (19) (4) (34)Southbury 9 (46) (16) (76) 5 (25) (3) (47)Woodbury 2 (21) (-8) (50) 2 (21) (-8) (50)Bridgeport 21 (15) (9) (21) 2 (1) (0) (2)Hartford 11 (9) (4) (14) 14 (11) (5) (17)New Haven 19 (15) (8) (22) 13 (11) (5) (17)Connecticut - Total 659 (19) (18) (20) 644 (18) (17) (19)


2007 2008

2004 2005 2006

Table 5-W. Thyroid Cancer Incidence2001 2002 2003

152

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-AA. Thyroid Cancer Incidence All Valley Towns vs. Connecticut


153

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inci

denc

e R

ate

(per

100

,000

)

Year

Figure 5-AB. Thyroid Cancer Incidence Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Naugatuck, Southbury, Woodbury


Valley Naugatuck Soutbury Woodbury Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Connecticut

154

Further Discussion

155

Discussion and Conclusions The 2009-2010 Community Health Profile is a continuation of the expanded 2007-2008 report that covered the six Valley towns: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxford, Seymour and Shelton; major cities: Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven; and nearby towns: Naugatuck, Southbury and Woodbury.. For the purposes of continuity with prior CHP reports, the conclusion and discussion summaries of morbidity and mortality data are broken down into the sections: Connecticut, the Valley, Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven and the Nearby Towns. As stated in prior reports, the interpretation of trends within each geographic entity and of differences between them, especially when no statistical significance was found, should be done in the context of a health risk and the size of population (see Statistical Analyses in Methods and Sources of Data). Furthermore, increasing trends in incidences of some diseases can be indicative of increased surveillance efforts, as well as improved tools for detecting certain disease, and not necessarily an increase in disease rates. Interpretation of trends in the incidence reporting of disease morbidity and cancers in areas with smaller populations should be performed conservatively. The number of cases used to calculate these annual incidence rates are usually small in number (less than 5) and when presented graphically may appear to fluctuate ‘significantly’. While the importance of reporting of these statistics should not be diminished, it is recommended that population size and the number of new annual cases be investigated before drawing any conclusions about what may appear to be spikes and drops in incidence rates. Morbidity and Mortality Data. Connecticut The trends in incidence and mortality (regardless of direction) in Connecticut (when compared to towns, cities and regions) appear more gradual due to its population size. Newly added HIV/AIDS (2005 to 2009) data suggests that incidence in Connecticut has remained stable. 2009 saw a large increase in reported influenza cases likely as a result of increased reporting due to increased awareness of H1N1. In addition, Connecticut’s crude incidence rates of hepatitis B have remained relatively stable since 2005. Since 1999, Connecticut also had a trend of stable (yet decreasing) crude incidence rates of streptococcus pneumoniae marked by a significant difference when comparing a higher crude incidence rate from 1999 to the lower crude incidence rate of 2009. Rates of Lyme disease have drastically risen since 2003, when a change in reporting in 2002 led to a large drop off in cases (these data are actually not comparable). However, there was a significant trend in increased crude incidence rates of Lyme disease from 2006 to 2009. Connecticut saw a large increase in chlamydia cases in 2008 and 2009. The increase in 2008 was significantly higher than the previous year and most recent rates are significantly higher than those of 1999. From 1999 to 2009, incidences of gonorrhea have declined in the state. The crude incidence rate of gonorrhea in 2009 was significantly

156

lower than the crude incidence rate in 1999. Following a period of stability from 1999 to 2004, crude incidence rates of syphilis in the state have fluctuated with significant increases from 2004 to 2005 and also from 2008 to 2009. 2009 had the highest number of reported cases of syphilis (in magnitude) in Connecticut since 1997. Connecticut has continued to have steady declines in all cause mortality rate and has also mostly seen either stable or declining overall rates of cancer incidence and mortality. The Valley Crude incidence of HIV/AIDS in the six Valley towns was lower than the state from 2005 to 2009. Rates in the Valley across this time period were stable. The crude incidence rates of hepatitis B remained low in the six Valley towns, with no reported cases in the years 2006, 2007 and 2009. Similar to the state, the crude incidence rates of Lyme disease have risen steeply since the change in reporting in 2003. At the town level, Lyme disease rates appear to have risen in all six towns..These rates have remained comparable with the state with the exception of 2009, where the Valley had a significantly lower crude incidence rate of Lyme disease compared to the state. Since 2007, when the crude incidence rate of streptococcus pneumoniae in the Valley was at its highest, rates began to drop in 2008 and again in 2009. Crude incidence rates of streptococcus pneumoniae in 2009 were the lowest since 1996 (the earliest data point for streptococcus pneumoniae in the CHP). From 1999 to 2009, crude incidence rates of chlamydia in the six Valley towns were significantly lower than the state. Since 1999, chlamydia rates in the six Valley towns have fluctuated. Following 2007, rates increased in the years 2008 and 2009. 2009 had the highest number of reported cases of chlamydia (as well as crude incidence rate) in the Valley since 1995. Crude incidence rates of gonorrhea declined from 1999 to 2009 and have historically been significantly lower than the state. The reported cases of syphilis were low from 1999 to 2009, with no reported cases in the years: 2000, 2002-2003 and 2005-2008. All cause age-adjusted mortality rates in the Valley remained higher than the major cities (Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven) but did not significantly differ. Annual age-adjusted mortality rates from heart disease in the Valley remained significantly higher in comparison to Connecticut for the newly added years 2007, 2008 and 2009. Age-adjusted cerebrovascular disease mortality rates fluctuated from 2007 to 2009, but were significantly higher than Connecticut. With respect to cancer morbidity and mortality, the crude incidence rates for all invasive cancers in the Valley were significantly higher than the rate of Connecticut in 2007 and 2008. During these same years, crude incidence of all invasive cancers were also significantly higher than Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven. From 2004 to 2008, the incidence rate of breast cancer among females in the Valley towns was lower than the state (but no significant differences were found). Crude incidence rates of colorectal cancer in the Valley remain higher than the state as well (but do not significantly differ). Crude incidence of prostate cancer in the Valley fluctuated and the latest data indicates that the Valley had lower (non-significant) rates than the state in 2007 and 2008.

157

Incidence rates of Thyroid cancer remain higher in the Valley than the state but are not found to significantly differ. In the previous CHP, it was reported that there was sharp increase in the number of deaths from breast cancer in the Valley in 2005. 2005’s increased rate was not significantly higher than the previous year and the data from the following years remained relatively stable.. The 2008 breast cancer age-adjusted rate of mortality in the Valley was significantly higher than state for the first time since 2005. Newly added data (2007 and 2008) suggests that the age-adjusted rates of mortality (for women) in the Valley were comparable with Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven. The Valley had significantly higher mortality rates due to colorectal cancer than the state in 2007 and 2008. In addition, the Valley continued to have significantly higher age-adjusted rates of mortality from lung cancer than the state. Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven While Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven have significantly higher crude incidence rates of HIV/AIDS than the state, as well as all the other towns reported in the CHP, the five year period between 2005 and 2009 saw significant reductions in crude incidence rates for these three cities. Crude incidence rates of active tuberculosis were higher in these cities when compared to the entire state, the Valley and other towns reported in the CHP. With regards to sexually transmitted diseases, Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven have continued to have significantly higher incidence rates of chlamydia than the state, the six Valley towns and other reported towns in the CHP. Hartford and New Haven saw upward trends in chlamydia incidence rates from 2003 to 2009. With respect to the newly added data (2007 – 2009), all three cities have seen an increase in gonorrhea incidence rates; New Haven’s increase from 2007 to 2008 was statistically significant. With regards to syphilis incidence rates, rates dropped in from 2007 to 2008 in Bridgeport and Hartford. Rates in these same cities sharply increased the following year (Bridgeport’s increase was statistically significant). In the last CHP, it was reported that the crude incidence of Lyme disease in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven had increased since 2003. This trend appears to have continued when considering the newly added data (2007 – 2009), however these annual gains in incidence were not statistically significant. All-cause mortality rates in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven were higher than rates in Connecticut from 2007 to 2009. Hartford and New Haven were significantly higher than the state across this timeframe; Bridgeport was significantly higher than Connecticut in 2007. Bridgeport and New Haven had significantly higher age adjusted mortality rates than the state from 2007 to 2009. With respect to age adjusted rates of mortality from cerebrovascular disease, Bridgeport was significantly higher than the state from 2007 to 2009; Hartford was significantly higher than the state in the years 2007 and 2008.

158

In Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven, crude incidence rates for all invasive cancers continued to remain stable in the newly added years’ data for 2007 and 2008. Crude incidence rates for the various types of cancer covered in the CHP remain lower in the major cities in comparison with the state. This difference is likely in part due to the lower distribution of the elderly population (relative to the total population) in these three cities when compared to the state. This is also noteworthy because all crude incidence rates (across morbidity and cancers) in the CHP are not age-adjusted. Nearby Towns With respect to nearby towns, rates of HIV/AIDS were stable across the 2005 to 2009 timeframe. Southbury and Woodbury each had years with no reported HIV/AIDS diagnoses. As reported in the last CHP, Woodbury and Southbury had a sizeable presence in terms of Lyme disease incidences with respect to their total population size. With respect to newly added data, these towns continued to see increases in the incidence of Lyme disease. These annual gains in incidence rates have not been found to be statistically significant from year to year, but there was a clear upward trend in incidence rates. Dating back to 2001, Naugatuck had significantly higher all cause mortality rates than the state with the exception of the years 2003 and 2006. Southbury and Woodbury continued to have lower all cause mortality rates than the state from 2007 to 2009. With respect to mortality from heart disease, Naugatuck had significantly higher rates than the state from 2007 to 2009; Woodbury had a significantly higher age adjusted mortality rate than the state in 2007. Naugatuck also had significantly higher age-adjusted rates of mortality from CLRD compared to the state from 2007 to 2009. As reported in the 2008-2009 CHP, Southbury’s crude incidence rate of all invasive cancers was significantly higher than those of: the Valley towns, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven and the state. For the years 2007 and 2008, Southbury continued to have significantly higher crude incidence rates for all invasive cancers than the state and the three major cities covered in the CHP. Naugatuck had a spike in breast cancer crude incidence rates in 2007, but the increase was not significant nor was it significantly higher than the state. In Woodbury, crude incidence rates of breast cancer decreased in 2007 and again in 2008. Southbury had a significantly higher crude incidence rate of lung cancer than the state in 2007; as well as a significantly higher crude incidence of prostate cancer than the state in 2008. Naugatuck’s sharp increase in crude incidence of thyroid cancer observed in 2006 was followed by a significant reduction in 2008. Rates of thyroid cancer in Naugatuck remained stable in 2009. Rates of mortality due to malignant neoplasm in Naugatuck were higher than the state for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009; significantly higher in 2007 and 2009. Southbury’s age-adjusted rate of mortality due to all cancers was significantly higher than the state in 2009.

159

Naugatuck also had significantly higher age-adjusted rates of breast cancer mortality in women than the state in the years 2007 and 2008. Limitations to the Current Report There are common limitations to most surveillance and indicator reports and the Community Health Profile is not immune to these factors. The most daunting limitation would the availability of data. The time that it takes to compile data for reports such as these, as well resources around staffing, is further confounded by the timeliness in which data becomes available to the public. Further, the sharing of data is limited by the internal guidelines of each agency or by the federal regulations on sharing person-identifying data, as well as by the infrastructure and level of support for data-processing and data-sharing. As stated in prior reports, HIPPA regulations prevent PRC staff from obtaining the necessary data needed for the calculations of age- and gender- adjusted cancer incidence rates, which is the preferred method of reporting compared to crude cancer incidence rates when investigating trends. The interpretation of rates should be done conservatively. PRC staff has calculated many of the rates presented from the primary data obtained from other agencies, which only reflects the data that was reported. In some cases, data related to morbidity and mortality (especially around cancer) may be processed in labs outside of Connecticut. The data used for this report is the best data available but the PRC acknowledges that estimates and rates may not always reflect the full scenario around morbidity and mortality. This is most often the case when dealing with small numbers of cases at the town and city level, especially in areas with smaller populations. Often times, changes in trends with respect to health risks could be caused by a host of other outside factors. For example, data obtained regarding laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza is a recent addition to the CHP. However, the Connecticut Department of Public Health estimates that in a normal year the number of laboratory-confirmed cases may only reflect 10 to 15 percent of the overall cases of influenza. With respect to the concerns over the H1N1 virus in 2009, the number of laboratory-confirmed cases rose exponentially. This increase in rates is more an indication of sensitivity due to increased testing. In addition, recommendations around surveillance for certain diseases may change over time. In the 2007-2008 CHP, the estimation of HIV/AIDS changed under the recommendations of the Center for Disease Control and caused an increase in the number of reported cases of HIV/AIDS. Since the last report, the recommended method of reporting has shifted to ‘year of diagnosis’ and therefore the numbers have once again changed. As in prior reports, this stipulation is presented in the current report, however it is possible that more subtle changes might have occurred unbeknownst to PRC staff with respect to other disease morbidity and mortality estimates.

160

As also was the case in earlier versions of this report, the majority of summarized data is not stratified by gender. Further, morbidity and mortality specific data are not available with detailed information on race or ethnicity. Obtaining data in this manner was mentioned as a recommendation for improving the CHP in the 2007-2008 edition; however this data remains unavailable and could not be included for reasons related to HIPPA regulations. Proper reporting of morbidity and mortality should include information pertaining to gender and race/ethnicity and for the purposes of this report we were unable to obtain and therefore provide that information. Finally, the size and scope of the Community Health Profile has grown to an impressive collection of data. Although economic data for the population has been removed from the CHP with its inclusion in the Valley CARES report, the process of obtaining the information for the CHP from multiple sources still remains a long and arduous task. With the combination of the limits on available data from various sources and the range of the data collected, PRC staff has taken considerable steps in presenting the data in a timely fashion that attempts to find present the results as timely as possible and not dated by the time of publication and dissemination.

161

Documents

THE COMMUNITY HEALTH PROFILE - Funded by the CDC · network of over 40 non-profit community health ... The collection of data to update the Community Health Profile was ... classification