Current cigarette smoking and Infant mortality
Across 1,102 counties, Current cigarette smoking and Infant mortality have a link of +0.67, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). But compare places with the same population density, income and education, and a weak link of +0.33 remains. Most of the first figure came from both measures following how urban, rich and educated a place is, not from a link with each other.
Mostly gone after adjusting
Every place, plotted
One dot for each place reporting both measures. Hover over or tap a dot to see its name and values. The thin line is the straight line that best fits the dots. The bold line, shown for counties, is the link after adjusting for density, income and education. A dot far from the lines is a place that does not follow the pattern.
Loading every place…
What each measure is
Current cigarette smoking
The estimated percentage of adults who smoke cigarettes every day or some days. It is adjusted so places with older or younger populations can be compared fairly. It is an estimate from a statistical model, not a direct count from a local survey.
CDC PLACES · PLACES CSMOKING, age-adjusted
Infant mortality
Deaths of babies before their first birthday per 1,000 babies born alive.
County Health Rankings · County Health Rankings v129
Highest and lowest
Where each measure is highest and lowest among the places reporting both (2023), with the other measure beside it. This is shown for every size of place where both are published. Metro-area values are added up from their counties. A measure that cannot be added up across counties, such as a middle value (median), has no metro figure. Counts are shown per 1,000 residents, since raw totals would only list the largest places. Cities and towns and ZIP codes are shown where the Census survey or the CDC publishes them; most other sources stop at the county. They are shown for places of 5,000 residents or more, and only where the survey’s margin of error is small enough for the figure to be usable. The CDC publishes its health estimates for cities in a version adjusted for age, so places with older or younger people can be compared fairly, but not for ZIP codes.
Counties
By current cigarette smoking
| Current cigarette smoking | Infant mortality | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Oglala Lakota County, SD | 40.3% | 16.9 |
| Todd County, SD | 37.9% | 15.4 |
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 36.9% | 20.2 |
| Bethel Census Area, AK | 31.2% | 8.62 |
| McKinley County, NM | 27.1% | 6.02 |
| Lowest | ||
| Arlington County, VA | 7% | 2.8 |
| Utah County, UT | 7% | 5.11 |
| King County, WA | 7.1% | 4.02 |
| Montgomery County, MD | 7.2% | 4.78 |
| Howard County, MD | 7.3% | 5.21 |
By infant mortality
| Current cigarette smoking | Infant mortality | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 36.9% | 20.2 |
| Oglala Lakota County, SD | 40.3% | 16.9 |
| Todd County, SD | 37.9% | 15.4 |
| Big Horn County, MT | 25.3% | 15.3 |
| Cheboygan County, MI | 17.5% | 14.6 |
| Lowest | ||
| Marin County, CA | 8.4% | 1.57 |
| San Francisco County, CA | 8.8% | 2.65 |
| Placer County, CA | 9.6% | 2.71 |
| Rockingham County, NH | 9.9% | 2.74 |
| Sherburne County, MN | 13.9% | 2.76 |
States — Current cigarette smoking is not published for states
By infant mortality
| Current cigarette smoking | Infant mortality | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Mississippi | — | 8.7 |
| Arkansas | — | 7.78 |
| Louisiana | — | 7.53 |
| Alabama | — | 7.49 |
| West Virginia | — | 7.09 |
| Lowest | ||
| Massachusetts | — | 3.72 |
| New Hampshire | — | 3.82 |
| New Jersey | — | 3.98 |
| Vermont | — | 4.08 |
| California | — | 4.12 |
Metro areas
By current cigarette smoking
| Current cigarette smoking | Infant mortality | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Gallup, NM | 27.1% | 6.02 |
| Newport, TN | 24.2% | 7.87 |
| Minden, LA | 23.4% | 12.9 |
| Lumberton, NC | 23.1% | 9.54 |
| Poplar Bluff, MO | 22.7% | 8.1 |
| Lowest | ||
| Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | 7.06% | 5.11 |
| Ogden, UT | 8.17% | 5.4 |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 8.29% | 3.01 |
| Salt Lake City-Murray, UT | 8.36% | 5.69 |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 8.66% | 4.13 |
By infant mortality
| Current cigarette smoking | Infant mortality | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Forrest City, AR | 21.9% | 13.3 |
| Greenville, MS | 21.2% | 13.1 |
| Minden, LA | 23.4% | 12.9 |
| Natchitoches, LA | 19.8% | 12.2 |
| Kinston, NC | 20% | 12 |
| Lowest | ||
| Santa Fe, NM | 10.4% | 2.8 |
| Rexburg, ID | 15% | 2.96 |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 8.29% | 3.01 |
| Bend, OR | 11.4% | 3.11 |
| Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA | 10.8% | 3.14 |
Cities and towns — Infant mortality is not published for cities and towns
By current cigarette smoking
| Current cigarette smoking | Infant mortality | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| New Square village, NY | 32.1% | — |
| Westville town, IN | 30.7% | — |
| Kiryas Joel village, NY | 29.9% | — |
| Zuni Pueblo CDP, NM | 29.4% | — |
| Glasgow Village CDP, MO | 29% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Bethesda CDP, MD | 4.7% | — |
| Travilah CDP, MD | 4.8% | — |
| Fulton CDP, MD | 4.8% | — |
| Sammamish city, WA | 4.9% | — |
| Potomac CDP, MD | 4.9% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 1,103 counties: the five with far more infant mortality than their current cigarette smoking would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Current cigarette smoking | Infant mortality | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Cheboygan County, MI | 17.5% | 14.6 |
| Banks County, GA | 17.4% | 14.5 |
| McKenzie County, ND | 15% | 13 |
| Attala County, MS | 18.8% | 13.7 |
| Danville city, VA | 20% | 13.9 |
| Below the line | ||
| McKinley County, NM | 27.1% | 6.02 |
| Holmes County, OH | 22.3% | 4.8 |
| Bethel Census Area, AK | 31.2% | 8.62 |
| Bradley County, TN | 18% | 3.67 |
| Madison County, ID | 15.4% | 2.96 |
Two series, one county
Both measures over time for a county you pick. The two charts are stacked, so they share only the years along the bottom. You can pick from the thirty largest counties reporting both. This panel covers 2010–2024, and a measure published only once shows as a single dot.
Loading…
Every version of the link
Each row measures the same link, from −1 to +1, in a different way. If the rows mostly agree, the link does not depend on one choice of method.
| Before adjusting for anything | +0.674 | 1,102 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.330 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.259 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.308 | each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states |
| Giving bigger counties more weight | +0.391 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 210 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.650 | the link worked out inside each of 22 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.217 | uses each county’s rank, not its value, so a few extreme counties cannot create the link |
How much to believe it
Could it be chance?
The p-value is the chance of seeing a link this strong if there were really none. A value of 0.05 or less means the link is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 3.1e-16 means 0.00000000000000031, and the bigger the number after “e-”, the smaller the value. Treating every county as a separate case gives p = 2.6e-29. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 1.1e-6. The site tested 20,910 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 1.0e-28.
Do nearby places look alike?
Moran’s I measures how much nearby places look alike: 0 means no map pattern, and higher means neighbours are more similar. For the part of each county that the adjustment leaves unexplained, it is +0.24 (p = 0.001). That unexplained part still clusters on the map. So some regional factor shared by both measures is not accounted for.
Did they change together?
The figures above compare counties at one moment. This asks a different question: where current cigarette smoking rose most, did infant mortalitymove too? Each county’s change is compared with the average change in its own state. That takes out ups and downs that hit a whole region at once. Each change is the gap between two estimates that both contain some error. That error pulls these links towards zero, so a weak one is weak partly for that reason. The q column shows whether a link could be a fluke, allowing for the many pairs tested: 0.05 or less means it is unlikely to be chance.
| Period | Counties | Change together | Within states | q |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014–2019 the main test: each Census survey figure averages five years, and these two do not overlap; before the pandemic | — | — | — | — |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 1,028 | +0.05 | +0.04 | 0.473 |
Measured over the nearest years published: Infant mortality: 2019–2022 for the 2019–2023 row.
Not measurable over the main period, so only the second period is shown. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Infant mortality — +0.54
- Infant mortality and Homicide rate, annual — +0.52
- Homicide rate and Infant mortality — +0.51
- Current cigarette smoking and Homicide rate, annual — +0.49
- Infant mortality and Years of potential life lost — +0.48
- High blood pressure and Infant mortality — +0.48
- Infant mortality and Life expectancy — -0.47
- Median household income and Infant mortality — -0.47
Association only. Nothing here shows that either measure changes the other. This describes counties, not the people in them. Two measures going together across places does not mean the same people have both. How the US county data works · Explore Current cigarette smoking and Infant mortality