U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

National Health Statistics Reports

Number 112  June 28, 2018

State Variation in Meeting the 2008 Federal Guidelines 

for Both Aerobic and Muscle-strengthening Activities 

Through Leisure-time Physical Activity Among

Adults Aged 18–64: United States, 2010–2015

Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D., and Tainya C. Clarke, Ph.D., M.P.H.

Abstract

Objective—This report presents national and state-level age-adjusted estimates 

of percentages of U.S. adults aged 18–64 who met the 2008 federal guidelines for 

both aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities during leisure-time physical activity 

(LTPA) in 2010–2015, by sex and work status (working compared with nonworking). 

State variation in work status, health status and difficulty in physical functioning, and 

occupational distributions for men and women were also considered. 

Methods—The 2008 physical activity guidelines recommend musclestrengthening activities at least twice weekly, with either moderate-intensity aerobic 

physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week, vigorous-intensity aerobic physical 

activity for at least 75 minutes per week, or an equivalent combination. Percentage 

estimates are based on pooled data from the 2010–2015 National Health Interview 

Survey for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. A series of maps show how 

state estimates for meeting the guidelines during LTPA differ by sex and current work 

status. 

Results—Nationally, 22.9% of U.S. adults aged 18–64 met the guidelines for both 

aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities during LTPA in 2010–2015. However, 

the extent to which adults met these guidelines varied by state, sex, and current 

work status. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia had significantly higher 

percentages of adults meeting the guidelines through LTPA than the national average, 

while 13 states had percentages that were significantly below the national average. The 

percentage of men who met the guidelines through participation in LTPA varied from 

17.7% in South Dakota to 40.3% in the District of Columbia, with the national average 

being 27.2%. Among women, percentages varied from 9.7% in Mississippi to 31.5% 

in Colorado, with the national average for women being 18.7%. Percentages meeting 

the guidelines among men were less regionally concentrated than among women, 

especially with respect to exceeding the guidelines.

 Keywords: National Health Interview Survey • work status 

Introduction

Regular participation in physical 

activity lowers the risk of many chronic 

conditions, disability, and mortality (1,2). 

The 2008 U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) federal physical 

activity guidelines recommend that, for 

substantial health benefits, adults perform 

at least 150 minutes per week of moderate 

physical activity, or 75 minutes per week 

of vigorous physical activity, in addition 

to muscle-strengthening activities 2 or 

more days per week (3). Healthy People 

2020 (HP) considers adequate physical 

activity a “leading health indicator,” 

with 20.1% of adults meeting physical 

activity guidelines being the 2020 target 

(4,5). The Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC) also has set a goal 

of increasing physical activity among all 

Americans and has measured progress, 

at least in part, by examining state-level 

information on physical activity (6). 

Physical activity can be recreational 

(taking place during leisure time); 

occupational (taking place during 

the performance of work, including 

household tasks); or it can include 

walking or cycling specifically for 

transportation or commuting. Historical 

and technological changes in the nature 

of work in the United States have reduced 

the contribution of occupational physical 
Page 2 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

activity to total physical activity. The 

United States now has a service economy 

that requires minimal physical activity 

from a majority of workers who perform 

work that is largely sedentary (7–10). 

Consequently, most adults who currently 

meet the 2008 federal physical activity 

guidelines do so by participating in 

leisure-time physical activity (LTPA). 

Both LTPA and occupational 

physical activity contribute to total 

physical activity, but they may not be 

equivalent activities, and even more 

importantly, may not have comparable 

health benefits. While previous research 

has consistently demonstrated that LTPA 

has positive benefits across a variety of 

health outcomes, findings regarding the 

health benefits of occupational physical 

activity have been mixed (11–15), 

with some studies concluding that 

occupational physical activity can have 

less-than-positive effects on various 

health outcomes as well as mortality 

(16–17). Thus, even among adults who 

are physically active on the job every 

workday, those who engage in LTPA are 

likely to report better health than those 

who do not engage in LTPA.

A recent National Center for Health 

Statistics (NCHS) report showed that 

among all working adults aged 18–64, 

those in professional and managerial 

occupations were most likely to meet 

the 2008 federal physical activity 

guidelines for both aerobic and musclestrengthening activities performed during 

their leisure time, while adults working 

in production and related occupations 

were least likely to meet the guidelines 

through LTPA (18). That report did not 

include nonworking adults or take state 

of residence into account. Understanding 

differences in LTPA by state is important 

because states have the ability to support 

physical activity goals and objectives (6). 

Previous research has also demonstrated 

that one’s state of residence is related to 

both morbidity and mortality (19–23). 

Furthermore, employment rates and 

occupational distributions can vary across 

states, which may in turn be related 

to the likelihood that adults engage in 

LTPA on any given day (24). Using the 

2010–2015 National Health Interview 

Survey (NHIS), this report examines, in a 

series of maps, the extent to which adults 

aged 18–64 in each of the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia met the 2008 

federal guidelines for both aerobic and 

muscle-strengthening activities through 

LTPA, by sex and work status (working 

compared with nonworking). State 

variation in health status, difficulty in 

physical functioning, and occupational 

distributions for men and women are 

also considered as possible explanatory 

factors for the variation presented in the 

maps.

Methods

Data source

Data in this report come from 

the combined 2010–2015 NHIS, 

a multipurpose, cross-sectional 

health survey of the U.S. civilian 

noninstitutionalized population based 

on a stratified multistage sample of U.S. 

households (25). NHIS is conducted 

continuously for the NCHS by trained 

interviewers from the U.S. Census 

Bureau. Data are collected in person at 

the respondent’s home using computerassisted personal interviewing, but 

follow-ups to complete interviews 

may be conducted over the telephone 

if necessary. The main objective of 

NHIS is to monitor the health of the 

U.S. population through the collection 

and analysis of data on a broad range of 

health topics. More information on NHIS 

is available from: http://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/nhis.htm.

The survey consists of both a core 

set of questions that remain relatively 

unchanged from year to year as well 

as supplemental questions that are not 

asked every year (26). The core consists 

of four main components: Household 

Composition Section, Family Core, 

Sample Child Core, and Sample Adult 

Core. The Household Composition 

Section collects basic demographic 

and relationship information about all 

household members of all families living 

in a household at the time of interview. 

The Family Core, which is administered 

separately for each family in the 

household, collects sociodemographic 

and basic health information about all 

family members. For the Sample Child 

Core, a knowledgeable adult (usually 

the parent) responds to detailed health 

questions for one randomly selected child 

per family (the sample child). 

The Sample Adult Core obtains 

additional information on the health 

of one randomly selected adult (the 

“sample adult”) in the family. The sample 

adult generally responds for himself or 

herself, but in rare instances when the 

sample adult is mentally or physically 

incapable of responding, proxy responses 

are accepted. The Sample Adult Core 

collects information on health conditions, 

functional limitations, health behaviors 

(including LTPA), access to and use of 

health care services, and whether the 

sample adult was working during the 

week before the interview (and if so, 

their occupation). The 2010–2015 NHIS 

Sample Adult data files include a total of 

199,622 respondents; of these, 155,134 

were aged 18–64.

Variables of interest

Information on LTPA was obtained 

from a series of questions in the Sample 

Adult Core that ask about frequency and 

duration of vigorous-intensity physical 

activities (that “cause heavy sweating 

or large increases in breathing or heart 

rate”), light or moderate-intensity 

physical activities (that “cause only light 

sweating or a slight to moderate increase 

in breathing or heart rate”), and musclestrengthening activities (“such as lifting 

weights or doing calisthenics”). These 

questions are all phrased in terms of 

current leisure-time behavior and lack 

a specific reference period (e.g., “How 

often do you do vigorous leisure-time 

physical activities for at least 10 minutes 

that cause heavy sweating or large 

increases in breathing or heart rate?”). 

Thus, no information was obtained 

regarding how long the respondent had 

been engaging in LTPA. Answers could 

be provided in any time unit (per day, per 

week, per month, or per year). Roughly 

1.9% of sample adults aged 18–64 

refused to answer or did not know how 

much time they spent performing LTPA, 

and thus could not be coded (n = 2,980). 

Responses to these questions were 

used to identify sample adults who, in 

their leisure time, performed musclestrengthening activities two or more 

times per week and participated in either 

moderate-intensity aerobic physical 
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018 Page 3

activity for at least 150 minutes per week 

or vigorous-intensity aerobic physical 

activity for at least 75 minutes per week 

(or an equivalent combination)—in other 

words, adults who met the 2008 physical 

activity guidelines for both musclestrengthening and aerobic activities 

(available from: http://www.health.gov/

PAGuidelines/). Only sample adults 

who met the guidelines for both musclestrengthening and aerobic activities are 

the focus of this report (n = 32,942). 

Sample adults meeting only one guideline 

(n = 48,810) or neither guideline 

(n = 70,402) are not shown separately, 

but are included in the denominators. 

The HHS federal guidelines 

for physical activity were released 

in 2008 and served as the basis for 

formulating the HP 2020 physical 

activity objectives (5). Note that these 

guidelines include all types of aerobic 

and muscle-strengthening activities 

and are not restricted to LTPA alone. 

Because NHIS questions ask only about 

LTPA, the estimates presented in this 

report may underestimate the proportion 

of U.S. adults who meet the 2008 

physical activity guidelines. Also, the 

terms “2008 federal guidelines,” “2008 

guidelines,” or simply “guidelines” are 

used interchangeably to refer to the 

2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for 

Americans (3). 

The Sample Adult Core also obtained 

information from respondents on their 

work status during the week before the 

interview. Working adults include those 

who were working for pay at a job or 

business, those with a job or business but 

not at work, or those working, but not for 

pay, at a family-owned job or business. 

Adults who were with a job or business 

but not at work during the week before 

the interview could be absent for various 

reasons such as a planned vacation (the 

most common response among both men 

and women), being temporarily unable 

to work for health reasons, or they had 

a job or contract but were interviewed 

during their off-season (e.g., teachers). 

Working adults’ occupations reflect their 

job or business during the week before 

the interview. A six-category indicator 

distinguishes between managerial 

occupations, professional occupations, 

teaching or social service occupations, 

services occupations, sales occupations, 

and production and related occupations, 

and is explained in detail elsewhere 

(18). This indicator is not available for 

respondents who were not working 

during the week before the interview. 

Respondents aged 18–64 who were 

not working included those looking for 

work as well as those not working at a 

job or business and not looking for work. 

This report also examined information 

on the health and disability status of 

adults (both working and nonworking) as 

possible explanatory factors, since these 

are related to the ability to engage in 

physical activity. 

Information on fair or poor health 

status is based on a question in the 

Family Core that asked whether each 

family member’s “health in general 

is excellent, very good, good, fair, 

or poor” For this report, “fair” and 

“poor” responses were combined into a 

single category. In addition, a separate 

indicator of disability is obtained from 

a series of questions in the Sample 

Adult Core that asked respondents 

about their ability to perform various 

physical activities without using any 

special equipment (e.g., a cane or 

wheelchair). These activities included 

walking three city blocks; walking up 

10 steps without resting; standing for 

2 hours; sitting for 2 hours; stooping; 

bending, or kneeling; reaching over 

one’s head; grasping or handling small 

objects; carrying something weighing 

10 pounds; and pushing or pulling large 

objects. Substantive response categories 

were “not at all difficult,” “only a little 

difficult,” “somewhat difficult,” “very 

difficult,” “can’t do at all,” and “do not 

do this activity.” For this report, “very 

difficult” or “can’t do at all” responses 

to any one of the nine activity questions 

were combined into a single category 

that identifies adults with difficulty in 

physical functioning. A small number of 

respondents said that they “do not do” 

one or more of the activities, and were 

treated as missing along with “refused,” 

“don’t know,” and “not ascertained” 

responses (n = 465, or 0.23% of the 

sample). Fair or poor health status and 

difficulty in physical functioning are 

treated as separate indicators even though 

it is likely that some respondents are 

simultaneously in fair or poor health and 

disabled. 

Statistical analysis

The estimates presented in this 

report are based on data from the 

Sample Adult files of the 2010–2015 

NHIS. Respondents with missing data 

or unknown information were excluded 

from the analysis. Across these 6 years 

of data, the conditional response rate for 

the Sample Adult interview was 80.1%, 

and the final response rate was 60.6% 

(26). Six years of data were combined to 

increase reliability of the estimates for 

the smaller states. In addition, reliability 

of estimates was evaluated using the 

relative standard error (RSE), which 

is the standard error divided by the 

estimate. Tabular estimates with an RSE 

greater than 30% and less than or equal to 

50% are preceded by an asterisk (*) and 

should be used with caution. Estimates 

with an RSE greater than 50% are not 

shown. 

Estimates in this report were 

calculated using the sample adult 

sampling weights (adjusted for the 

number of survey years combined in 

the analysis), and are representative 

of the noninstitutionalized population 

of U.S. adults aged 18–64. Percentage 

estimates are based on pooled data from 

the 2010–2015 NHIS for all 50 states 

and the District of Columbia, and are 

age-adjusted using three age groups 

(18–24, 25–44, and 45–64) and the 

projected 2000 U.S. population as the 

standard population. All estimates and 

their variances were calculated using 

SUDAAN software to account for the 

complex sample design of NHIS (27). 

The Taylor series linearization method 

was used for estimating the variance for 

the 10 states with the largest populations 

of adults aged 18–64 (California, 

Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, 

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, 

and North Carolina). For the 40 smaller 

states and the District of Columbia, 

the standard error was calculated by 

multiplying the square root of the 

average design effect based on the 10 

states with the largest populations by the 

standard error of the estimated percentage 

under a simple random sample (28). 

All differences were evaluated using 

two-tailed significance tests that were 

adjusted to account for dependent 

samples where necessary. Estimates were 
Page 4 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

compared using two-sided t tests at the 

0.05 level. Terms such as “higher than” 

and “lower than” indicate a statistically 

significant difference. Terms such as “not 

significantly different” or “no difference” 

indicate that no statistically detectable 

differences were seen between the 

estimates being compared. 

Lastly, in an effort to gain more 

understanding of the findings shown in 

the figures, an ordinary least squares 

(OLS) regression analysis was conducted 

to predict the percentage of adults at the 

state level who met the guidelines, using 

as explanatory variables, sex, work status 

(working compared with nonworking), 

health status (fair or poor compared with 

excellent, very good, or good), disability 

(relative to nondisabled), and the adult 

occupational distribution. In order to 

minimize multicollinearity issues, a 

stepwise approach was also used to 

identify the most parsimonious models 

given the explanatory variables.

Strengths and 

Limitations of Data

The estimates presented in this 

report are based on data collected from 

a nationally representative sample 

of civilian noninstitutionalized U.S. 

adults. Survey questions that were the 

sources for the variables used in the 

analysis did not change during these 

6 years. Additionally, there was no 

significant change in the prevalence of 

persons meeting the federal physical 

activity guidelines during 2010–2015—

approximately 22% of U.S. adults aged 

18 and over met the guidelines for 

both muscle-strengthening and aerobic 

activities in each survey year.

There are several limitations to 

this study. Using 6 years of combined 

data yielded larger sample sizes for 

smaller population subgroups and states. 

Nevertheless, it is likely that some 

relatively large differences remained 

nonsignificant for less-populated states 

with smaller samples, either when 

these estimates were compared with the 

national average or when the estimate of 

one subgroup was compared with that of 

another subgroup within the same state. 

To this end, the color-coding of all maps 

indicates which states have estimates 

that were greater or less than the 

national average, even if they were not 

statistically different than that average. 

In addition, NHIS obtains 

information from most respondents via 

an in-person interviewing process, with 

a typical interview averaging about 1 

hour. As a result, all NHIS data are based 

on subjective self-reports collected from 

Sample Adult respondents. Self-reporting 

enhances the accuracy of the data to the 

extent that respondents willingly provide 

information. However, respondents 

may provide incorrect information due 

to recall issues, because they did not 

understand the question, or because 

they have different cultural definitions 

of some of the concepts used in the 

survey questions. Also, respondents may 

inflate self-assessments of their LTPA 

to avoid embarrassment or to create a 

favorable impression on the interviewer. 

Additionally, while proxy answers 

are accepted when the sample adult is 

physically or mentally incapable of selfresponse, those respondents are few in 

number (0.9% among respondents aged 

18–64). 

Furthermore, NHIS is a crosssectional survey that does not obtain 

retrospective information from sample 

adults regarding their job or working 

histories, residential mobility (i.e., how 

long they have lived in their current 

state), or how long they have been 

engaging in LTPA. In particular, NHIS 

does not collect the information needed 

to calculate employment, unemployment, 

or “out of the labor force” in a manner 

consistent with the methods used by 

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Therefore, this report refers to adults as 

either “working” or “nonworking,” and 

these estimates should not be compared 

with the federal government’s official 

employment or unemployment rates. In 

addition, the estimates presented in this 

report can only be used to understand the 

extent to which work status, sex, state 

of residence, and LTPA vary together. 

Causality or directionality cannot be 

determined from NHIS data. Lastly, 

the estimates in this report are based 

on physical activity performed during 

respondents’ leisure time. No information 

was obtained regarding occupationrelated, transportation-related, or other 

types of physical activity performed 

during nonleisure time; thus, total 

physical activity is underestimated to an 

unknown extent. 

Results

Table A shows age-adjusted 

percentages of adults aged 18–64 

who met the federal government’s 

2008 guidelines for both aerobic and 

muscle-strengthening activities through 

participation in LTPA, adults who 

met either the aerobic or the musclestrengthening guideline through 

Table A. Age-adjusted percentages and standard errors of adults aged 18–64 who met both 

aerobic and muscle-strengthening guidelines through leisure-time physical activity, who 

met one guideline through leisure-time physical activity, or who met neither guideline, by 

sex and work status: United States, 2010–2015

Characteristic

Met both guidelines 

through LTPA

Met one guideline 

through LTPA

Met neither 

guideline

Percent (standard error)

All adults aged 18–64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.9 (0.20) 32.4 (0.20) 44.7 (0.28)

All men aged 18–64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2 (0.27) 32.0 (0.27) 40.8 (0.33)

All women aged 18–64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.7 (0.23) 32.8 (0.25) 48.4 (0.32)

All working1

 men aged 18–64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.8 (0.31) 32.6 (0.30) 38.6 (0.36)

All working1

 women aged 18–64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.9 (0.28) 33.6 (0.30) 45.5 (0.36)

All nonworking1

 men aged 18–64 . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 (0.45) 29.7 (0.54) 49.0 (0.61)

All nonworking1

 women aged 18–64 . . . . . . . . . . 14.6 (0.31) 31.4 (0.38) 54.0 (0.46)

1

Sample adults were asked whether they were working during the week before the interview. Response categories included, 

“working for pay at a job or business,” “with a job or business but not at work,” “looking for work,” “working, but not for pay, at a 

family-owned job or business,” and “not working at a job or business and not looking for work.” Respondents “working for pay at 

a job or business,” “with a job or business but not at work,” or “working, but not for pay, at a family-owned job or business” are 

considered to be working. Those “looking for work” or “not working at a job or business and not looking for work” are considered to 

be nonworking.

NOTES: Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. U.S. adults aged 

18–64 with unknown information for either leisure-time physical activity or working status were not included in the denominators 

when calculating percentages. Estimates are age-adjusted using the projected 2000 U.S. population as the standard population and 

using three age groups: 18–24, 25–44, and 45–64. LTPA is leisure-time physical activity.

SOURCE: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2015.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018 Page 5

participation in LTPA (in other words, 

only one guideline), and adults who 

met neither guideline. Percentages are 

shown separately for men and women, 

for working men and women, and for 

nonworking men and women. 

Nationally, 22.9% of adults aged 

18–64 met both guidelines through LTPA, 

32.4% met one guideline through LTPA, 

and 44.7% met neither guideline. More 

than 27.0% of men met both guidelines 

through LTPA compared with 18.7% of 

women. Among working adults, 28.8% 

of men met both guidelines compared 

with 20.9% of women; and among 

nonworking adults, 21.3% of men met 

both guidelines compared with 14.6% of 

women. 

Table B shows age-adjusted 

percentages of adults aged 18–64 who 

met both guidelines through LTPA, by 

state, for all adults, for men and women 

separately, for working men and women 

separately, and for nonworking men 

and women separately. Figures 1–7

display each of the columns in Table B as 

separate maps. The maps consequently 

show the same outcome of interest—

percentages of adults who met the 2008 

guidelines for both types of activities—

for different subgroups of adults. Four 

categories are shown in each map: states 

with a percentage estimate significantly 

lower than the U.S. average, those with 

an estimate less than but not significantly 

different from the U.S. average, those 

with an estimate greater than but not 

significantly different from the U.S. 

average, and states with an estimate 

significantly higher than the U.S. average. 

Figure 1 shows age-adjusted 

percentages of adults aged 18–64 who 

met the guidelines for both aerobic 

and muscle-strengthening activities 

through participation in LTPA, by 

state. Nationally, 22.9% of adults aged 

18–64 met these guidelines through 

LTPA in 2010–2015. Percentages of 

adults meeting the guidelines varied 

across states, from 13.5% of adults 

in Mississippi to 32.5% of adults in 

Colorado. Thirteen states (Alabama, 

Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, New York, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia) 

had significantly lower percentages of 

adults who met the guidelines through 

LTPA when compared with the national 

average. Regionally, most of these states 

are concentrated in the southeastern 

United States, with the exception of 

Indiana (in the Great Lakes region), 

New York (in the Northeast), Oklahoma 

(in the Southwest), and South Dakota 

(in the Plains). Fourteen states (Alaska, 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New 

Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, 

 

Figure 1. Age-adjusted percentages of adults aged 18–64 who met both aerobic and muscle-strengthening federal guidelines through 

leisure-time physical activity, by state: United States, 2010–2015
Page 6 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

Table B. Age-adjusted percentages and standard errors of adults aged 18–64 who met both aerobic and muscle-strengthening federal 

guidelines through leisure-time physical activity, by state, sex, and work status: United States, 2010–2015

Characteristic

All adults 

aged 18–64 

All men 

aged 18–64 

All women 

aged 18–64 

All working1

men aged 18–64 

All working1

 

women aged 

18–64 

All nonworking1

men aged 

18–64 

All nonworking1 

women aged 

18–64 

Percent (standard error)

All states (average) 22.9 (0.20) 27.2 (0.27) 18.7 (0.23) 28.8 (0.31) 20.9 (0.28) 21.3 (0.45) 14.6 (0.31)

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 (1.41) 24.6 (2.05) 14.9 (1.51) 25.6 (2.44) 15.2 (1.95) 23.0 (3.37) 13.3 (2.04)

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.9 (2.04) 33.2 (2.70) 23.3 (2.40) 31.6 (2.93) 24.4 (2.68) 33.4 (5.59) 17.8 (4.11)

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.3 (1.48) 29.2 (1.91) 23.0 (1.77) 31.3 (2.23) 26.7 (2.28) 22.4 (3.18) 16.9 (2.37)

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.7 (1.32) 19.7 (1.84) 11.9 (1.45) 21.4 (2.23) 13.1 (1.82) 14.7 (2.79) 9.6 (2.05)

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 (0.53) 28.5 (0.75) 19.3 (0.58) 29.9 (0.84) 21.5 (0.72) 24.5 (1.34) 15.5 (0.78)

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 (1.49) 33.4 (1.87) 31.5 (1.85) 34.8 (2.07) 33.6 (2.19) 26.9 (3.69) 27.1 (2.94)

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 (1.62) 28.0 (2.20) 21.2 (1.86) 29.0 (2.52) 24.8 (2.31) 22.6 (3.79) 13.6 (2.54)

Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.1 (1.81) 24.5 (2.44) 15.8 (2.04) 23.6 (2.65) 17.3 (2.39) 25.4 (5.20) 11.4 (3.21)

District of Columbia. . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 (1.74) 40.3 (2.45) 22.2 (1.88) 40.5 (2.72) 24.0 (2.20) 43.0 (4.95) 18.5 (3.08)

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 (0.93) 27.2 (1.14) 15.5 (1.04) 27.7 (1.31) 17.3 (1.24) 25.2 (2.07) 12.2 (1.25)

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2 (1.18) 27.1 (1.72) 14.2 (1.11) 29.9 (2.05) 15.2 (1.38) 21.1 (2.48) 12.8 (1.52)

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.4 (1.93) 31.2 (2.64) 18.3 (2.14) 32.8 (3.01) 19.7 (2.53) 25.6 (4.77) 14.6 (3.36)

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 (1.92) 35.2 (2.46) 27.4 (2.32) 36.5 (2.76) 27.0 (2.73) 34.8 (4.88) 28.5 (3.77)

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.8 (0.81) 28.5 (1.11) 20.9 (1.00) 29.9 (1.24) 24.0 (1.06) 21.7 (1.91) 15.0 (1.90)

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 (1.16) 20.0 (1.64) 10.1 (1.21) 21.8 (1.92) 12.5 (1.55) 11.7 (2.44) 5.1 (1.47)

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 (1.41) 24.2 (1.76) 19.9 (1.76) 23.6 (1.90) 20.9 (1.98) 23.7 (3.79) 16.4 (3.11)

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 (1.48) 24.7 (1.90) 21.7 (1.79) 26.2 (2.10) 23.8 (2.15) 16.1 (3.61) 16.3 (2.67)

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6 (1.18) 17.9 (1.66) 11.4 (1.29) 21.7 (2.21) 14.6 (1.80) 9.3 (1.89) 5.9 (1.40)

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 (1.41) 23.5 (1.95) 17.8 (1.61) 25.5 (2.38) 20.0 (2.06) 15.5 (2.75) 14.0 (2.22)

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 (1.72) 27.3 (2.32) 20.6 (1.99) 32.4 (2.71) 23.3 (2.36) *7.0 (2.63) 11.9 (2.81)

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.9 (1.43) 29.4 (1.99) 16.2 (1.54) 29.8 (2.20) 18.3 (1.84) 26.6 (3.94) 11.3 (2.30)

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5 (1.56) 32.9 (2.06) 26.1 (1.84) 34.1 (2.38) 28.8 (2.20) 25.1 (3.46) 18.6 (2.74)

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.6 (0.94) 28.2 (1.36) 18.7 (1.18) 30.5 (1.63) 21.9 (1.54) 21.7 (2.27) 13.0 (1.56)

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 (1.40) 31.1 (1.81) 24.3 (1.68) 30.5 (1.95) 26.8 (1.89) 32.8 (4.16) 15.0 (2.75)

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 (1.25) 17.9 (1.86) 9.7 (1.30) 19.8 (2.25) 10.5 (1.68) 13.0 (2.79) 8.9 (1.84)

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.6 (1.41) 29.9 (1.96) 17.9 (1.57) 31.9 (2.30) 18.2 (1.85) 20.2 (3.01) 17.5 (2.52)

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2 (1.98) 20.3 (2.47) 20.3 (2.48) 24.5 (3.16) 25.1 (3.18) 10.5 (3.07) *9.5 (2.86)

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.9 (1.67) 26.8 (2.22) 21.5 (1.97) 25.3 (2.43) 22.3 (2.19) 33.1 (4.70) 18.0 (3.60)

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.6 (1.55) 25.7 (2.02) 21.6 (1.85) 25.4 (2.32) 22.4 (2.26) 22.4 (3.40) 19.7 (2.77)

New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 (1.92) 30.3 (2.38) 31.0 (2.43) 30.7 (2.61) 32.1 (2.73) 29.6 (5.01) 28.7 (4.36)

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0 (1.19) 25.7 (1.62) 16.2 (1.33) 27.0 (1.86) 16.9 (1.59) 17.4 (2.60) 13.9 (2.02)

New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 (1.71) 27.4 (2.37) 18.6 (1.90) 29.4 (2.86) 21.6 (2.52) 19.4 (3.50) 14.4 (2.51)

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.9 (0.83) 22.8 (1.15) 15.3 (0.93) 25.3 (1.31) 17.6 (1.23) 15.9 (1.78) 11.3 (1.04)

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 (0.85) 26.1 (1.44) 19.0 (0.92) 27.8 (1.81) 19.8 (1.28) 19.5 (2.40) 17.4 (1.79)

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2 (1.87) 21.7 (2.28) 18.2 (2.36) 22.1 (2.44) 20.3 (2.61) *15.8 (5.05) *8.8 (3.81)

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.9 (1.02) 29.5 (1.34) 18.7 (1.06) 31.0 (1.55) 21.4 (1.29) 24.0 (2.44) 13.2 (1.64)

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.0 (1.41) 24.0 (1.96) 14.6 (1.55) 24.1 (2.26) 14.8 (1.89) 21.4 (3.34) 14.0 (2.36)

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 (1.58) 28.6 (2.02) 22.7 (1.92) 30.9 (2.42) 26.6 (2.41) 21.6 (3.13) 15.9 (2.66)

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 (1.25) 29.3 (1.81) 21.8 (1.17) 31.6 (2.13) 23.4 (1.37) 19.3 (2.40) 18.3 (2.09)

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4 (1.99) 30.1 (2.75) 21.6 (2.27) 32.0 (3.28) 26.4 (2.87) 22.9 (4.29) 12.9 (2.97)

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8 (1.26) 20.1 (1.83) 10.0 (1.29) 21.9 (2.18) 12.0 (1.76) 12.4 (2.65) 6.9 (1.60)

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 (1.69) 17.7 (2.09) 15.9 (2.09) 17.5 (2.26) 16.9 (2.37) 28.9 (5.52) *9.8 (3.21)

Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1 (1.30) 20.1 (1.79) 14.1 (1.45) 22.8 (2.14) 15.0 (1.80) 10.7 (2.53) 12.8 (2.16)

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 (0.70) 28.1 (0.74) 19.0 (1.02) 28.7 (0.83) 21.4 (1.38) 25.0 (1.63) 14.6 (1.13)

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 (1.60) 29.2 (2.01) 27.1 (2.00) 30.7 (2.23) 26.5 (2.30) 22.6 (3.97) 27.4 (3.37)

Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5 (2.49) 35.9 (3.30) 23.4 (2.87) 40.2 (3.69) 26.8 (3.35) 21.4 (5.95) 15.2 (4.48)

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 (1.28) 29.3 (1.75) 19.5 (1.44) 32.8 (2.02) 20.5 (1.67) 16.6 (2.76) 16.8 (2.37)

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9 (1.34) 31.2 (1.70) 26.2 (1.64) 33.0 (1.96) 29.7 (2.04) 25.9 (2.99) 20.2 (2.35)

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 (1.43) 19.8 (1.93) 14.0 (1.65) 21.5 (2.54) 18.7 (2.40) 14.4 (2.45) 8.4 (1.85)

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.6 (1.44) 26.3 (1.89) 21.0 (1.71) 27.6 (2.11) 23.3 (1.97) 21.6 (3.68) 14.4 (2.77)

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.5 (1.99) 29.6 (2.43) 24.8 (2.53) 31.2 (2.66) 29.9 (3.05) 17.1 (4.58) 13.8 (3.51)

*Estimates are considered unreliable. Data preceded by an asterisk have a relative standard error (RSE) greater than 30% and less than or equal to 50% and should be used with caution.

1

Sample adults were asked whether they were working during the week before the interview. Response categories included, "working for pay at a job or business," "with a job or business but not 

at work," "looking for work," "working, but not for pay, at a family-owned job or business," and "not working at a job or business and not looking for work." Respondents "working for pay at a job or 

business," "with a job or business but not at work," or "working, but not for pay, at a family-owned job or business" are considered to be working. Those "looking for work" or "not working at a job or 

business and not looking for work" are considered to be nonworking.

NOTES: Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. Unknown responses for the columns were not included in the denominators when 

calculating percentages. Estimates are age-adjusted using the projected 2000 U.S. population as the standard population and using three age groups: 18–24, 25–44, and 45–64.

SOURCE: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2015.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018 Page 7

Figure 2. Age-adjusted percentages of men aged 18–64 who met both aerobic and muscle-strengthening federal guidelines through leisuretime physical activity, by state: United States, 2010–2015

 

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) and 

the District of Columbia had significantly 

higher percentages of adults who met 

the guidelines through LTPA compared 

with the national average. Many of these 

states are located in the Far West and 

Rocky Mountain regions, but states in 

other regions—the Northeast, Central 

Plains, and Great Lakes—are also 

included. Estimates were not statistically 

different from the national average in the 

remaining states. 

State differences by sex

Figures 2 and 3 show age-adjusted 

percentages of men and women, 

respectively, who met guidelines for 

both aerobic and muscle-strengthening 

activities through participation in LTPA, 

by state, in 2010–2015. In Figure 2, 

percentages among men aged 18–64 

who met the guidelines through LTPA 

varied from 17.7% in South Dakota 

to 40.3% in the District of Columbia, 

with the national average being 27.2%. 

Percentages meeting the guidelines 

among men in 11 states (Arkansas, 

Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, 

New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, 

South Dakota, Tennessee, and West 

Virginia) were significantly lower than 

the national average for men, while 

percentages meeting the guidelines 

among men in 7 states (Alaska, Colorado, 

Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

Vermont, and Washington) and the 

District of Columbia were significantly 

higher than the national average for men. 

While there is less regional concentration 

in this map compared with the previous 

map (Figure 1), states with statistically 

lower percentages are generally located 

in the Southeast (although states in 

the Central Plains, Great Lakes, and 

Northeast are also included), while states 

with statistically higher percentages 

are located primarily in the Far West 

and Rocky Mountain regions (and, to 

a lesser extent, in the Central Plains 

and the Northeast). Estimates were not 

statistically different from the national 

average in the remaining states. 

Percentages among women aged 

18–64 who met the guidelines for both 

aerobic and muscle-strengthening 

activities through participation in 

LTPA in 2010–2015 varied from 9.7% 

of women in Mississippi to 31.5% of 

women in Colorado, with the national 

average for women being 18.7% 

(Figure 3). Percentages meeting the 

guidelines among women in 12 states 

located primarily in the Southeast 

(Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, 
Page 8 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

Figure 3. Age-adjusted percentages of women aged 18–64 who met both aerobic and muscle-strengthening federal guidelines through 

leisure-time physical activity, by state: United States, 2010–2015

 

Tennessee, and West Virginia), but also 

in the Great Lakes region (Indiana), the 

Northeast (New York), and the Southwest 

(Oklahoma), were significantly lower 

than the national average for women. 

Percentages meeting the guidelines 

among women in 12 states (Arizona, 

Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming) were significantly higher than 

the national average for women. Roughly 

one-half of these states are located in the 

West and Rocky Mountains, while the 

remainder are scattered across the Plains, 

Great Lakes, and Northeast regions of 

the United States Estimates were not 

statistically different from the national 

average in the remaining states. 

State differences by sex and 

work status

Figures 4 and 5 show age-adjusted 

percentages of working men and women, 

respectively, who met guidelines for 

both aerobic and muscle-strengthening 

activities through participation in LTPA, 

by state, in 2010–2015. In Figure 4, 

percentages of working men aged 18–64 

who met the guidelines varied from 

17.5% in South Dakota to 40.5% in the 

District of Columbia, with the average 

among all working men being 28.8%. 

Percentages meeting the guidelines 

among working men in 12 states 

(Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, New York, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia) 

were significantly lower than the average 

for all working men. While a number 

of these states are again located in the 

Southeast, states in other regions (the 

Plains, Great Lakes, and Northeast) are 

also represented. Percentages meeting 

the guidelines among working men in 

five states—Colorado and Idaho (in the 

Rocky Mountain region), Massachusetts 

and Vermont (in the Northeast), and 

Washington (in the Far West)—and the 

District of Columbia were significantly 

higher than the average for all working 

men. Given the small number of states in 

this category, less regional concentration 

is apparent in this map. Estimates 

were not statistically different from the 

national average in the remaining states. 

Percentages among working women 

aged 18–64 who met the guidelines for 

both aerobic and muscle-strengthening 

activities through participation in LTPA 

in 2010–2015 varied from 10.5% in 

Mississippi to 33.6% in Colorado, 
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018 Page 9

Figure 4. Age-adjusted percentages of working men aged 18–64 who met both aerobic and muscle-strengthening federal guidelines 

through leisure-time physical activity, by state: United States, 2010–2015

 

with the average among all working 

women being 20.9% (Figure 5). 

Percentages meeting the guidelines 

among working women in 12 states 

(Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 

Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, 

New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee) were 

significantly lower than the average for 

all working women. With the exception 

of Indiana (in the Great Lakes region), 

Delaware, New Jersey, New York (in 

the Northeast), and Oklahoma (in the 

Southwest), the remaining states are 

concentrated in the Southeast region of 

the United States. Percentages meeting 

the guidelines among working women 

in 12 states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, 

Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, 

Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming) 

were significantly higher than the 

average for all working women. Again, 

many of these states are in the West and 

Rocky Mountain regions, but states in 

the Plains, Great Lakes, and Northeast 

regions are also represented. Estimates 

were not statistically different from the 

national average in the remaining states. 

Figure 6 shows age-adjusted 

percentages of nonworking men aged 

18–64 who met the guidelines for both 

aerobic and muscle-strengthening 

activities through participation 

in LTPA, by state, in 2010–2015. 

Percentages meeting the guidelines 

among nonworking men varied from 

7.0% in Maine to 43.0% in the District 

of Columbia, with the average among 

all nonworking men being 21.3%. 

Percentages meeting the guidelines 

among nonworking men in 11 states 

(Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, 

Montana, New York, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, and West Virginia) were 

significantly lower than the average for 

all nonworking men. Again, many of 

these states are located in the Southeast, 

but states in the Rocky Mountains 

(Montana), the Great Lakes (Indiana), 

and the Northeast (Maine and New York) 

are also included. Percentages meeting 

the guidelines among nonworking 

men in six states (Alaska, California, 

Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Texas) 

and the District of Columbia were 

significantly higher than the average 

for all nonworking men. These states 

are scattered throughout regions in 

the Far West, Rocky Mountains, the 

Plains, and the Southwest. The District 

of Columbia is the only area east of the 

Mississippi River where the percentage 

of nonworking men meeting the 

guidelines through participation in LTPA 
Page 10 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

Figure 5. Age-adjusted percentages of working women aged 18–64 who met both aerobic and muscle-strengthening federal guidelines 

through leisure-time physical activity, by state: United States, 2010–2015

 

was statistically higher than the national 

average. Estimates were not statistically 

different from the national average in the 

remaining states. 

Figure 7 shows age-adjusted 

percentages among nonworking women 

aged 18–64 who met the guidelines for 

both aerobic and muscle-strengthening 

activities through participation in LTPA 

in 2010–2015. Percentages meeting 

the guidelines among nonworking 

women varied from 5.1% in Indiana 

to 28.7% in New Hampshire, with the 

average for all nonworking women 

being 14.6%. Percentages meeting the 

guidelines among nonworking women 

in seven states (Arkansas, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, New York, 

South Carolina, and West Virginia) were 

significantly lower than the average 

for all nonworking women. With the 

exception of Indiana (in the Great Lakes 

region) and New York (in the Northeast), 

these states are again concentrated in 

the Southeast. Percentages meeting the 

guidelines among nonworking women 

in five states (Colorado, Idaho, New 

Hampshire, Utah, and Washington) were 

significantly higher than the average 

for all nonworking women. These 

states are concentrated in the Far West 

and Rocky Mountain regions—New 

Hampshire, in the Northeast, is the lone 

exception. Estimates were not statistically 

different from the national average in the 

remaining states. 

Comparisons by sex and 

work status within states

Men were more likely than women 

to meet the 2008 guidelines for both 

aerobic and muscle-strengthening 

activities through LTPA in 40 states and 

the District of Columbia, regardless of 

whether the percentages for men and 

women in these states were statistically 

significantly higher than, not different 

than, or below the national averages for 

the sexes. 

This was also true when work status 

was taken into account; within states, 

working men were generally more 

likely than working women to meet the 

guidelines, as were nonworking men 

when compared with nonworking women 

(Table B). Lastly, working men and 

women were generally more likely than 

their nonworking counterparts to meet the 

2008 guidelines for aerobic and musclestrengthening activities through LTPA, 

although there was some variation across 

states.

In Colorado, however, both men 

and women were statistically higher than 

the national averages for meeting the 
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018 Page 11

Figure 6. Age-adjusted percentages of nonworking men aged 18–64 who met both aerobic and muscle-strengthening federal guidelines 

through leisure-time physical activity, by state: United States, 2010–2015

 

guidelines, and there was no statistical 

difference between the sexes. This was 

also true among Colorado’s working 

men and women; both were statistically 

higher the national averages for meeting 

the guidelines but were not statistically 

different from one another. Note that 

this was also true among working 

men and women in Massachusetts 

and Washington. Among nonworking 

adults in Colorado, again, there was no 

difference in the extent to which men 

and women met the guidelines, but only 

nonworking women were statistically 

higher than the national average for that 

group. In addition, men and women in 

New Hampshire, Utah, and Wyoming 

were equally likely to meet the 2008 

guidelines for both aerobic and musclestrengthening activities through LTPA, 

but only women were statistically higher 

than the national average. 

Multivariate analyses of 

state-level variation in sex, 

work status, health and 

disability, and occupational 

distributions

The sequence of maps shows 

interesting and distinctive patterns in 

the outcome of interest—age-adjusted 

percentages of adults aged 18–64 who 

met the 2008 guidelines for both aerobic 

and muscle-strengthening activities 

through LTPA—for different subgroups 

of adults by state. Generally, states that 

were statistically below the national 

average were consistently concentrated 

in the Southeastern United States, 

thus magnifying the overall effect. 

Adults living in Arkansas, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, and South Carolina had 

percentages that were statistically lower 

than the averages shown in all seven 

figures, while adults in Tennessee and 

West Virginia had percentages that were 

statistically lower than the averages 

shown in six of the seven figures. 

Indiana (in the Great Lakes region but 

contiguous with Kentucky) and New 

York (in the Northeast region) also 

had percentages that were statistically 

lower than the averages shown in every 

figures. In contrast, adults living in the 

Far West and Rocky Mountain regions 

were somewhat more likely than adults 

in other regions to meet the guidelines 

through LTPA: Idaho had percentages 

that were statistically higher than the 

averages shown in all seven figures, 

and Colorado and Washington had 

percentages that were statistically higher 

than the averages in six of the seven 

figures. Generally speaking, however, 
Page 12 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

Figure 7. Age-adjusted percentages of nonworking women aged 18–64 who met both aerobic and muscle-strengthening federal guidelines 

through leisure-time physical activity, by state: United States, 2010–2015

 

ph

Table C. Parameter estimates and standard errors from state-level models predicting percentage of adults aged 18–64 meeting 2008 

ysical activity guidelines through leisure-time physical activity, by work status, health status, and occupation: United States, 2010–2015

Variable

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 (full) Full model (parsimonious)

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Partial 

R square

Intercept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *44.97 

(16.51)

0.009 7.44 (12.86) 0.566 12.83 (19.96) 0.524 39.06 (2.63) less than 

0.000

---

Percentage of adults who are working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.15 (0.16) 0.359 0.02 (0.17) 0.932 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in fair or poor health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *–1.11 (0.26) less than 

0.000

–0.53 (0.32) 0.101 –0.71 (0.17) 0.000 0.384

Percentage of men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 (0.30) 0.968 0.18 (0.33) 0.596 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in managerial occupations . . . . . . . . . . . 0.70 (0.51) 0.175 0.45 (0.49) 0.361 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in professional occupations. . . . . . . . . . . *0.49 (0.24) 0.048 0.24 (0.24) 0.339 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in community or social 

service occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.34 (0.42) 0.425 0.20 (0.40) 0.614 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in sales occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.28 (0.35) 0.435 0.15 (0.34) 0.654 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in production occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.23 (0.19) 0.214 –0.26 (0.23) 0.262 –0.38 (0.12) 0.003 0.104

Model statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model R square = 0.40

F value (model) = 10.27

Model R square = 0.40

F value (model) = 6.05

Model R square = 0.53

F value (model) = 5.84

Model R square = 0.49

F value (model) = 22.84

*Indicates statistical significance in models 1–3 at 0.05 level.

--- Data not available.

... Category not applicable.

NOTES: Based on age-adjusted and weighted percentages; the percentages of women, of adults not working, of adults in excellent, very good or good health, and of adults in service occupations 

serve as reference categories for the variables included in the models. The parsimonious model utilizes a stepwise selection option with slentry = 0.05 and slstay = 0.05. SE is standard error.

SOURCE: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2015.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018 Page 13

Table D. Parameter estimates and standard errors from state-level models predicting percentage of adults aged 18–64 meeting 2008 

physical activity guidelines through leisure-time physical activity, by disability, work status, health status, and occupation: 

United States, 2010–2015

Variable

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 (full) Full model (parsimonious)

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Partial 

R square

Intercept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.29 (15.98) 0.170 7.44 (12.86) 0.566 –3.59 (17.07) 0.834 11.69 (7.28) 0.115 ---

Percentage of adults who are 

working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 (0.17) 0.858 0.14 (0.17) 0.406 0.34 (0.09) 0.001 0.152

Percentage of adults limited in physical 

functioning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *–0.73 (0.25) 0.006 –0.22 (0.28) 0.438 ... ... ...

Percentage of men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.13 (0.33) 0.696 0.29 (0.33) 0.394 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in managerial 

occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.70 (0.51) 0.175 0.43 (0.50) 0.401 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in professional 

occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *0.49 (0.24) 0.048 0.25 (0.25) 0.336 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in community or 

social service occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.34 (0.42) 0.425 0.30 (0.40) 0.467 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in sales 

occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.28 (0.35) 0.435 0.17 (0.35) 0.635 ... ... ...

Percentage of adults in production 

occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.23 (0.19) 0.214 –0.35 (0.23) 0.130 –0.59 (0.12)

Less than 

0.000 0.301

Model statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model R square = 0.28

F value (model) = 6.15

Model R square = 0.40

F value (model) = 6.05

Model R square = 0.50

F value (model) = 5.30

Model R square = 0.45

F value (model) = 19.91

--- Data not available.

*Indicates statistical significance in models 1–3 at 0.05 level.

... Category not applicable.

NOTES: Based on age-adjusted and weighted percentages; the percentages of women, of adults not working, of adults not limited in physical functioning, and of adults in service occupations serve as 

reference categories for the variables included in the models. The parsimonious model utilizes a stepwise selection option with slentry = 0.05 and slstay = 0.05. SE is standard error.

SOURCE: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2015.

states that were statistically higher than 

the average also tended to be dispersed 

across more regions: Massachusetts 

(in the Northeast) and Minnesota (in 

the Plains) had percentages that were 

statistically higher in five of the seven 

figures. Lastly, percentages meeting 

the guidelines among men were less 

regionally concentrated than among 

women, especially with respect to 

exceeding the guidelines. 

In an effort to understand the patterns 

apparent in Figure 1, a multivariate 

analysis examined whether state variation 

in the percentages of adults working (as 

opposed to the percentage not working), 

in fair or poor health (as opposed to those 

in excellent, very good, or good health), 

experiencing any difficulty in physical 

functioning (as opposed to no difficulty), 

and by occupational distributions for 

working adults accounted for some or 

all of the state variation in meeting the 

guidelines via LTPA. These explanatory 

variables are shown in Technical Notes 

Tables I–V. Each of these variables 

has been shown in previous research 

to be associated with LTPA rates when 

examined at the person level 

(8,9,18,29–33). 

Accordingly, several OLS regression 

models were used to predict state 

percentages of adults meeting the 

guidelines for both aerobic and musclestrengthening activities via LTPA. Results 

of these analyses are shown in Tables C

and D. Because initial analyses showed 

that percentages of adults in fair or poor 

health were highly correlated with the 

percentages of adults with difficulty in 

physical functioning (i.e., a disability), 

the first series of models (Table C) 

includes the percentages of adults in 

fair or poor health while the second 

series of models (Table D) includes the 

percentages of adults with a disability. 

Regarding the occupational distributions, 

the percentage of adults working in 

service occupations is the reference 

group for the five occupational categories 

included in the models. 

Model 1 in Table C contains three 

explanatory variables: the percentage 

of working adults in each state, the 

percentage of men in each state, and the 

percentage of adults in fair or poor health 

in each state. Results indicated that only 

one explanatory variable—the percentage 

of adults in fair or poor health—was 

negatively associated (at the 0.05 level) 

with state percentages of adults meeting 

the guidelines via LTPA. In other words, 

as the percentage of adults in fair or 

poor health increases from one state 

to the next, there is a corresponding 

decrease in the state-level percentage 

of adults meeting the guidelines. Model 

2 included the five variables indicating 

the percentages of adults working in 

managerial, professional, community 

or social services, sales, and production 

occupations (relative to the referent, 

the percentage of adults in service 

occupations). Note that the percentage 

of adults in professional occupations 

was positively associated (at the 0.05 

level) with the percentage of adults 

meeting the guidelines, meaning that 

as the percentage of adults working as 

professionals increases across states, the 

percentage meeting the guidelines via 

LTPA also increases. 

Model 3, which combines the 

explanatory variables from the first two 

models, did not contain any statistically 

significant parameter estimates (at 

0.05), although the percent age of adults 

in fair or poor health was marginally 

informative (the p value is 0.10) and the 

explanatory variables explained 53% of 

the variance in state-level percentages 

of adults meeting the guidelines via 

LTPA. The final model in Table C is a 

parsimonious version of Model 3, with 

stepwise selection applied at the 0.05 

level, and indicated that two variables—
Page 14 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

the percentages of adults in fair or poor 

health and those working in production 

occupations—were both negatively 

associated with state-level percentages of 

adults meeting the guidelines via LTPA. 

Together, these two terms explained 48% 

of the variance in state-level percentages 

of adults meeting the guidelines: the 

percentage of adults in fair or poor health 

explained 38%, while the percentage 

of adults in production occupations 

explained an additional 10%. 

Comparable results were obtained 

from the series of models in Table D, 

which included the percentage of adults 

with a disability as an explanatory 

variable. In Model 1, the percentage of 

adults with a disability was negatively 

associated (at the 0.05 level) with 

state percentages of adults meeting 

the guidelines via LTPA. Model 2 

includes the percentages of adults in 

managerial, professional, community 

or social services, sales, and production 

occupations, so the results are identical 

to those in Table C, where the percentage 

of adults in professional occupations was 

positively associated (at the 0.05 level) 

with the state-level percentages of adults 

meeting the guidelines via LTPA. Model 

3 combines the explanatory variables 

from the first two models, but did not 

contain any statistically significant 

estimates (at 0.05), even though the 

explanatory variables explained 50% of 

the variances in state-level percentages 

of adults meeting the guidelines via 

LTPA. The final model in Table D is a 

parsimonious version of Model 3 and 

indicated that two variables—statelevel percentages of working adults and 

adults in production occupations—were 

associated with state percentages of 

adults meeting the guidelines via LTPA. 

The percentage of adults working in 

production occupations was negatively 

associated with meeting the guidelines 

at the state level, and explained 30% of 

the variance in the state percentages. 

On the other hand, the percentage of 

adults who were working per state was 

positively associated with percentages of 

adults meeting the guidelines at the state 

level and explained an additional 15% of 

the variance. Perhaps most notably, the 

percentage of adults with a disability was 

not significantly associated with meeting 

the guidelines at the state level, unlike 

the fair or poor health indicator in the 

parsimonious model in Table C. 

Similar substantive results are 

obtained if these models are run 

separately for men and women 

(Table E). For example, state-level 

percentages of working men, men in 

fair or poor health, and men working in 

managerial, professional, community 

or social service, sales, and production 

occupations can be used to predict 

state percentages of men aged 18–64 

meeting the guidelines for both aerobic 

and muscle-strengthening activities via 

LTPA (Figure 2). The parsimonious 

version of this model indicated that 

the percentage of men working in 

professional occupations was positively 

associated with meeting the guidelines 

(explaining 45% of the variance in 

this outcome), while the percentage 

of men in production occupations was 

negatively associated with meeting the 

guidelines (explaining an additional 

8%). A comparable model (with female 

percentages) can also be used to predict 

the state percentages of women aged 

18–64 meeting the guidelines via LTPA 

(Figure 3). The parsimonious model 

indicated that the percentage of women 

in fair or poor health was negatively 

associated with the outcome (explaining 

Table E. Parameter estimates and standard errors from separate state-level models predicting percentages of men and women aged 18–64 

meeting 2008 physical activity guidelines through leisure-time physical activity (with fair or poor health as an explanatory variable): 

United States, 2010–2015

Male models Female models

Variable

Full model Full model (parsimonious) Full model Full model (parsimonious)

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Partial 

R square

Parameter 

(SE) P value

Parameter 

(SE) P value 

Partial 

R square

Intercept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *35.26 (14.40) 0.019 27.64 (6.43) Less than 

0.000

--- 9.75 (19.17) 0.614 24.37 (3.40) Less than 

0.000

---

Percentage working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 (0.18) 0.503 ... ... ... 0.00 (0.00) 0.429 ... ... ...

Percentage in fair or poor health. . . . . . –0.22 (0.26) 0.408 ... ... ... *–0.71 (0.26) 0.008 –0.87 (0.18) Less than 

0.000

0.346

Percentage in managerial 

professions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.58 (0.31) 0.071 ... ... ... 0.61 (0.43) 0.168 0.59 (0.30) 0.061 0.047

Percentage in professional 

occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.32 (0.25) 0.208 0.61 (0.20) 0.003 0.451 0.09 (0.20) 0.639 ... ... ...

Percentage in community or social 

service occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.58 (0.40) 0.156 ... ... ... –0.01 (0.30) 0.962 ... ... ...

Percentage in sales occupations . . . . . –0.25 (0.26) 0.336 ... ... ... 0.20 (0.35) 0.561 ... ... ...

Percentage in production 

occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *–0.39 (0.15) 0.010 –0.29 (0.10) 0.008 0.076 –0.12 (0.30) 0.692 ... ... ...

Model statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model R square = 0.61

F value (model) = 9.56

Model R square = 0.53

F value (model) = 26.69

Model R square = 0.41

F value (model) = 4.25

Model R square = 0.39

F value (model) = 15.55

*Indicates statistical significance in full models at 0.05 level.

--- Data not available.

... Category not applicable.

NOTES: Based on age-adjusted and weighted percentages, the percentages not working, in excellent, very good, or good health, and in service occupations serve as reference categories for the 

variables included in the models. The parsimonious model for men utilizes a stepwise selection option with slentry = 0.05 and slstay = 0.05; the parsimonious model for women utilizes a stepwise 

selection option with slentry= 0.10 and slstay = 0.10. SE is standard error.

SOURCE: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2015.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018 Page 15

35% of the variance in this model), while 

the percentage of women working as 

managers was positively associated with 

the outcome (explaining an additional 

5%). 

Discussion

A previously published NCHS 

report showed that professionals and 

managers were more likely than adults 

in production and related occupations 

to meet the 2008 guidelines during 

their leisure time, and that men were 

more likely than women to meet these 

guidelines through LTPA (18), despite 

the fact that men are more likely than 

women to be working in production and 

related occupations (34). The current 

report examines state-level variation 

in meeting the guidelines for both 

working and nonworking adults aged 

18–64. The figures in this report show 

distinctive patterns by state in the extent 

to which U.S. adults met the 2008 

federal guidelines for both aerobic and 

muscle-strengthening activities through 

LTPA. In general, Southeastern states 

were consistently overrepresented in all 

“below average” categories shown in the 

seven figures: Percentages for Arkansas, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, and South 

Carolina were statistically significantly 

lower than average percentages in every 

figure, while Tennessee and West Virginia 

had lower-than-average percentages in 

six of the seven figures. A few states in 

other parts of the United States were also 

in this category, including Indiana and 

New York, which were statistically below 

average in every figure. For the most part, 

however, adults aged 18–64 residing in 

the Southeastern United States were much 

less likely than adults residing in other 

areas of the United States to have met the 

guidelines through LTPA.

On the other hand, states in the 

Western and Rocky Mountain regions 

were consistently more likely to be 

in the significantly higher category. 

Percentages for Idaho show it was 

above average in every figure, as were 

Colorado and Washington in six out of 

seven figures. In general, states that were 

statistically significantly higher with 

respect to meeting the guidelines were 

more dispersed across multiple regions 

in the United States than states where 

residents were statistically below average 

with respect to meeting the guidelines. 

Moreover, figures showing percentages 

of women meeting the guidelines by 

state retained somewhat more regional 

concentration, even when work status 

was taken into account. However, in 

figures showing the percentages of men 

meeting the guidelines by state, there was 

less regional concentration, especially 

in the western part of the United States, 

and particularly when working men were 

distinguished from nonworking men.

Additional tables in the Technical 

Notes show considerable state-level 

variation among working adults 

compared with nonworking adults as 

a whole (as well as among men and 

women), health and physical functioning 

among adults (and among working and 

nonworking men and women), and 

in occupational distributions among 

working adults (as well as among 

working men and women). Several 

of these factors were also associated, 

at the state level, with meeting the 

guidelines though LTPA, as OLS 

regression analyses indicated. States 

with higher percentages of professionals 

and managers relative to production 

workers (e.g., Colorado) generally had 

higher percentages of working adults 

meeting the federal guidelines for 

physical activity during their leisure time 

than did states with more production 

workers and fewer professionals and 

managers (e.g., Mississippi). On the 

other hand, West Virginia and Kentucky 

were disadvantaged twice with respect to 

meeting the guidelines. Roughly onethird of men aged 18–64 in these states 

were not working, and roughly 40% of 

these men were in fair or poor health or 

disabled. Taken together, such findings 

are consistent with previous research 

showing state variation in both morbidity 

and mortality (19–24). 

The HP 2020 objective regarding 

physical activity specifies that 20.1% of 

all adults meet both aerobic and musclestrengthening federal guidelines by 2020. 

Among all women aged 18–64, 18.7% 

met the guidelines, but this is nearly 

two percentage points lower than the 

objective. While the average for working 

women (20.9%) was above the target, 

the average among nonworking women 

was 14.6%, almost six percentage points 

lower than the HP 2020 target. Only 

nonworking women in five states—

Colorado, Idaho, New Hampshire, Utah, 

and Washington—were statistically 

above this average. 

 It is important to note that adults 

working in physically demanding jobs 

or engaging in physical activity as they 

commute to and from work may be 

less likely to engage in LTPA, which 

represents only a part of total physical 

activity. Because respondents’ physical 

activity performed in the workplace or 

while commuting cannot be directly 

assessed using NHIS, these forms of 

physical activity remain unmeasured 

variables. This may explain, at least in 

part, why New York had such relatively 

low percentages of adults meeting the 

2008 guidelines through LTPA. More 

than 6% of commuters in New York State 

walk to work, placing the state second, 

behind only Alaska, among all states in 

the percentage of commuters walking 

to work (35). Nevertheless, if LTPA has 

more health benefits than occupational 

physical activity—as several previous 

studies have concluded (11–17)—then 

the choices that Americans make 

regarding both their occupation and 

state of residence can have very real 

consequences for their morbidity, 

disability, and mortality.

References

1. Steffen LM, Arnett DK, Blackburn H, 

Shah G, Armstrong C, Luepker RV, 

Jacobs Jr. DR. Population trends in 

leisure-time physical activity: Minnesota 

Heart Survey, 1980–2000. Med Sci Sports 

Exerc 38(10):1716–23. 2006.

2. Barnes PM, Schoenborn CA. Physical 

activity among adults: United States, 

2000. Advance data from vital and health 

statistics; no. 333. Hyattsville, MD: 

National Center for Health Statistics. 

2003. 

3. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2008 Physical Activity 

Guidelines for Americans. Available from: 

http://www.health.gov/PAGuidelines/.

4. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Healthy People. Available 

at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/

sites/default/files/HP2020_LHI_Nut_

PhysActiv.pdf. 
Page 16 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

5. Schoenborn CA, Adams PF, Peregoy JA.

Health behaviors of adults: United States,

2008–2010. National Center for Health

Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10(257). 2013.

6. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. State indicator report on

physical activity, 2010.

7. Church TS, Thomas DM, Tudor-Locke

C, Katzmarzyk PT, Earnest CP, Rodarte

RQ, et al. Trends over 5 decades in U.S.

occupational-related physical activity and

their associations with obesity. PLoS One

6(5): e19657. 2011.

8. Caban-Martinez AJ, Lee DJ, Fleming LE,

LeBlanc WG, Arheart KL, Chung-Bridges

K, et al. Leisure-time physical activity

levels of the U.S. workforce. Prev Med

44:432–36. 2007.

9. Brownson RC, Boehmer TK, Luke DA.

Declining rates of physical activity in the

United States: What are the contributors?

Annu Rev Public Health 26:421–43.

2005.

10. Katzmarzyk PT, Church TS, Craig CL,

Bouchard C. Sitting time and mortality

from all causes, cardiovascular disease,

and cancer. Med Sci Sports Exerc

41(5):998–1005. 2009.

11. Finger JD, Tylleskar T, Lampert T,

Mensink GB. Physical activity patterns

and socioeconomic position: The

German National Health Interview and

Examination Survey 1998 (GNHIES98).

BMC Public Health 12:1079. 2012.

12. Gutierrez-Fisac JL, Guallar-Castillion

P, Diez-Ganan L, Lopez GE, Banegas Jr

B, Rodriguez AF. Work-related physical

activity is not associated with body mass

index and obesity. Obes Res 10(4):270–6.

2002.

13. Abu-Omar K, Rutten A. Relation of

leisure time, occupational, domestic,

and commuting physical activity to

health indicators in Europe. Prev Med

47(3):319–23. 2008.

14. Barengo NC, Kastarinen M, Lakka T,

Nissinen A, Tuomilehto J. Different forms

of physical activity and cardiovascular

risk factors among 24–64-year-old men

and women in Finland. Eur J Cardiovasc

Prev Rehabil 13(1):51–9. 2006.

15. Hu G, Sarti C, Jousilahti P, Silventoinen

K, Barengo NC, Tuomilehto J. Leisure

time, occupational, and commuting

physical activity and the risk of stroke.

Stroke 36:1994–9. 2005.

16. Beenackers MA, Kamphuis CBM, Giskes

K, Brug J, Kunst AE, Burdorf A, van

Lenthe FJ. Socioeconomic inequalities in

occupational, leisure-time, and transport

related physical activity among European

adults: A systematic review. Int J Behav

Nutr Phys Act 9:116. 2012.

17. Oppert JM, Thomas F, Charles MA,

Benetos A, Basdevant A, Simon C.

Leisure-time and occupational physical

activity in relation to cardiovascular risk

factors and eating habits among French

adults. Public Health Nutr 9(6):746–54.

2006.

18. Blackwell DL, Clarke TC. Occupational

differences among employed adults

who met 2008 federal guidelines for

both aerobic and muscle-strengthening

activities: United States, 2008–2014.

National Health Statistics Reports; no

94. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 2016. Available from:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/

nhsr094.pdf.

19. Case A, Deaton A. Mortality and

morbidity in the 21st century. Brookings

Papers on Economic Activity. 2017.

Available from: https://www.brookings.

edu/bpea-articles/mortality-andmorbidity-in-the-21st-century/.

20. Herian MN, Tay L, Hamm JA, Diener E.

Social capital, ideology, and health in the

United States. Soc Sci Med 105:30–7.

2014.

21. Kawachi I, Kennedy BP, Gupta V,

Prothrow-Stith D. Women’s status and the

health of women and men: A view from

the States. Soc Sci Med 48(1):21–32.

1999.

22. Montez JK, Zajacova A, Hayward MD.

Explaining inequalities in women’s

mortality between the U.S. States. SSM

Popul Health 2:561–71. 2016.

23. Subramanian SV, Kawachi I, Kennedy

BP. Does the state you live in make a

difference? Multilevel analysis of selfrated health in the U.S. Soc Sci Med

53(1):9–19. 2001.

24. Montez JK, Zajacova A. Explaining the

widening education gap in mortality

among U.S. white women. J Health Soc

Behav 54(2):166–82. 2013.

25. Parsons VL, Moriarity C, Jonas K, Moore

TF, Davis KE, Tompkins L. Design

and estimation for the National Health

Interview Survey, 2006–2015. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health

Stat 2(165). 2014. Available from:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/

sr_02/sr02_165.pdf.

26. National Center for Health Statistics.

Survey description, National Health

Interview Survey, 2015. 2016. Available

from: ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_

Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/

NHIS/2015/srvydesc.pdf.

27. RTI International. SUDAAN (Release

11.0.0) [computer software]. 2012.

28. Cohen RA, Makuc DM. State, regional,

and national estimates of health insurance

coverage for people under 65 years of

age: National Health Interview Survey,

2004–2006. National Health Statistics

Reports; no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics. 2008.

Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr001.pdf.

29. Burton NW, Turrell G. Occupation, hours

worked, and leisure-time physical activity.

Prev Med 31:673–81. 2000.

30. Kirk MA, Rhodes RE. Occupation

correlates of adults’ participation

in leisure-time physical activity: A 

systematic review. Am J Prev Med

40(4):476–85. 2011.

31. Caban-Martinez AJ, Lee DJ, Goodman E,

Davila EP, Fleming LE, LeBlanc WG, et

al. Health indicators among unemployed

and employed young adults. J Occup

Environ Med 53(2):196–203. 2011.

32. Shaikh RA, Sikora A, Siahpush M,

Singh GK. Occupational variations

in obesity, smoking, heavy drinking,

and non-adherence to physical activity

recommendations: Findings from the

2010 National Health Interview Survey.

Am J Ind Med 58(1):77–87. 2015.

33. Reeves MJ, Rafferty AP. Health lifestyle

characteristics among adults in the

United States, 2000. Arch Intern Med

165(8):854–7. 2005.

34. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS

Reports. Women in the labor force: A 

databook. December 2015. Available

from: https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/

womens-databook/archive/women-in-thelabor-force-a-databook-2015.pdf.

35. Alliance for Biking & Walking. Bicycling

and walking in the United States: 2014

benchmarking report. Available from:

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/

aarp/livable-communities/documents2014/2014-Bike-Walk-BenchmarkingReport.pdf.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018 Page 17

Technical Notes

Table I. Age-adjusted percentages with standard errors of working adults and working men and women aged 18–64, by sex and state: 

United States, 2010–2015

State Men Women All working adults1 Working men1 Working women1

Percent (standard error)

All states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.2 (0.17) 50.8 (0.17) 71.1 (0.21) 76.8 (0.26) 65.6 (0.27)

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.2 (1.34) 53.8 (1.34) 65.2 (1.59) 73.6 (2.12) 57.9 (1.97)

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.3 (1.69) 53.7 (1.69) 76.1 (1.80) 77.4 (2.39) 75.0 (2.29)

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.6 (1.26) 49.4 (1.26) 68.4 (1.46) 74.7 (1.85) 61.7 (1.90)

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.7 (1.37) 51.3 (1.37) 68.2 (1.59) 73.7 (2.08) 63.0 (2.03)

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.0 (0.48) 50.0 (0.48) 68.8 (0.53) 75.6 (0.65) 62.0 (0.73)

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.2 (1.20) 49.8 (1.20) 75.7 (1.28) 82.9 (1.52) 68.3 (1.74)

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . 48.5 (1.41) 51.5 (1.41) 72.0 (1.58) 76.2 (2.12) 67.8 (1.98)

Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.1 (1.69) 49.9 (1.69) 75.3 (1.83) 80.1 (2.30) 70.4 (2.40)

District of Columbia. . . . . 47.7 (1.42) 52.3 (1.42) 70.4 (1.62) 74.8 (2.20) 66.6 (2.01)

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.2 (0.65) 51.8 (0.65) 68.6 (0.82) 73.5 (1.13) 64.0 (1.02)

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.1 (1.00) 52.9 (1.00) 69.0 (1.16) 75.4 (1.35) 63.3 (1.26)

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.0 (1.68) 54.0 (1.68) 73.4 (1.86) 79.8 (2.33) 67.9 (2.42)

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.8 (1.55) 49.2 (1.55) 72.9 (1.72) 78.9 (2.14) 67.0 (2.28)

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2 (0.86) 48.8 (0.86) 71.7 (0.87) 76.9 (1.28) 66.3 (1.29)

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.4 (1.22) 49.6 (1.22) 71.5 (1.37) 75.3 (1.79) 67.5 (1.77)

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.5 (1.28) 47.5 (1.28) 80.9 (1.26) 84.8 (1.50) 76.6 (1.75)

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2 (1.31) 48.8 (1.31) 78.6 (1.35) 86.1 (1.55) 70.7 (1.85)

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.0 (1.26) 51.0 (1.26) 64.6 (1.51) 67.6 (2.05) 61.7 (1.86)

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.1 (1.30) 54.9 (1.30) 67.1 (1.54) 71.7 (2.09) 63.4 (1.89)

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.0 (1.52) 50.0 (1.52) 77.3 (1.59) 79.1 (2.14) 75.3 (1.99)

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.1 (1.28) 49.9 (1.28) 75.2 (1.38) 80.3 (1.76) 70.2 (1.79)

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . 48.0 (1.29) 52.0 (1.29) 75.8 (1.38) 80.8 (1.76) 71.3 (1.78)

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.0 (0.96) 49.0 (0.96) 69.0 (0.97) 74.1 (1.39) 63.7 (1.21)

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.8 (1.18) 50.2 (1.18) 81.9 (1.13) 84.7 (1.43) 79.0 (1.49)

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . 46.7 (1.38) 53.3 (1.38) 67.8 (1.61) 75.7 (2.11) 60.9 (2.01)

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.4 (1.25) 52.6 (1.25) 70.9 (1.42) 74.5 (1.89) 67.8 (1.79)

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.1 (1.85) 50.9 (1.85) 67.4 (2.16) 70.7 (2.83) 64.2 (2.77)

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.2 (1.47) 52.8 (1.47) 79.1 (1.49) 81.0 (1.99) 77.4 (1.88)

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.2 (1.36) 50.8 (1.36) 69.0 (1.58) 73.3 (2.08) 64.6 (2.00)

New Hampshire. . . . . . . . 52.7 (1.56) 47.3 (1.56) 78.7 (1.59) 82.2 (2.00) 74.9 (2.12)

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . 49.6 (1.09) 50.4 (1.09) 71.5 (1.23) 75.5 (1.61) 68.1 (1.57)

New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . 48.5 (1.51) 51.5 (1.51) 65.6 (1.79) 72.4 (2.37) 59.0 (2.24)

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.9 (0.73) 52.1 (0.73) 69.1 (0.81) 74.4 (1.18) 64.1 (1.13)

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . 46.9 (0.96) 53.1 (0.96) 67.6 (1.28) 73.0 (1.65) 62.8 (1.39)

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . 54.6 (1.74) 45.4 (1.74) 87.1 (1.46) 90.6 (1.64) 82.3 (2.18)

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.4 (1.00) 51.6 (1.00) 71.6 (1.22) 75.9 (1.49) 67.6 (1.50)

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.6 (1.34) 52.4 (1.34) 67.8 (1.57) 75.2 (2.01) 61.2 (2.00)

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.8 (1.36) 48.2 (1.36) 66.8 (1.60) 69.5 (2.09) 64.0 (2.06)

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . 50.1 (0.91) 49.9 (0.91) 73.5 (0.93) 78.9 (1.10) 68.1 (1.28)

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . 44.5 (1.71) 55.5 (1.71) 70.4 (1.96) 76.2 (2.59) 65.7 (2.45)

South Carolina . . . . . . . . 48.2 (1.33) 51.8 (1.33) 66.8 (1.56) 74.0 (2.02) 59.7 (1.98)

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . 51.7 (1.69) 48.3 (1.69) 82.1 (1.62) 86.9 (1.89) 77.0 (2.26)

Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . 48.4 (1.28) 51.6 (1.28) 69.8 (1.47) 77.0 (1.90) 63.2 (1.87)

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.7 (0.61) 50.3 (0.61) 73.2 (0.73) 81.6 (0.86) 64.8 (0.98)

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.1 (1.34) 48.9 (1.34) 75.3 (1.44) 82.6 (1.71) 67.7 (1.97)

Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.2 (2.04) 51.8 (2.04) 77.6 (2.13) 83.0 (2.62) 71.6 (2.85)

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.7 (1.12) 52.3 (1.12) 74.2 (1.22) 78.2 (1.61) 70.5 (1.55)

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . 50.5 (1.11) 49.5 (1.11) 71.5 (1.26) 78.6 (1.53) 64.4 (1.67)

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 48.9 (1.44) 51.1 (1.44) 60.0 (1.76) 66.2 (2.32) 54.2 (2.21)

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.5 (1.28) 50.5 (1.28) 78.1 (1.32) 81.0 (1.71) 75.2 (1.71)

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.3 (1.67) 47.7 (1.67) 78.7 (1.71) 89.4 (1.66) 67.3 (2.56)

1

Sample adults were asked whether they were working during the week before the interview. Response categories included, “working for pay at a job or business,” “with a job or business but not 

at work,” “looking for work,” “working, but not for pay, at a family-owned job or business,” and “not working at a job or business and not looking for work.” Respondents “working for pay at a job or 

business,” “with a job or business but not at work,” or “working, but not for pay, at a family-owned job or business” are considered to be working and shown in this table. Respondents who were “looking 

for work” or “not working at a job or business and not looking for work” are considered to be not working and are not shown in the table.

NOTES: Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. Unknown data for the columns were not included in the denominators when 

calculating percentages. Estimates are age adjusted using the projected 2000 U.S. population as the standard population and using three age groups: 18–24, 25–44, 45–64. The estimates in this 

table were not calculated in a manner consistent with the methods used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and should not be compared with the federal government's official employment (or 

unemployment) rates.

SOURCE: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2015.
Page 18 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

Table II. Age-adjusted percentages and standard errors of all adults and nonworking and working adults aged 18–64, who are in fair or poor 

health or have difficulty in physical functioning, by state and sex: United States, 2010–2015

All adults Nonworking men Nonworking women Working men Working women

State

Fair or poor 

health1

 

Difficulty 

in physical 

functioning2

Fair or poor 

health1

Difficulty 

in physical 

functioning2

Fair or poor 

health1

Difficulty 

in physical 

functioning2

Fair or poor 

health1

Difficulty 

in physical 

functioning2

Fair or poor 

health1

 

Difficulty 

in physical 

functioning2

Percent (standard error)

All states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 (0.12) 10.4 (0.12) 26.0 (0.48) 24.9 (0.47) 21.0 (0.31) 22.4 (0.32) 5.1 (0.12) 3.4 (0.10) 5.7 (0.13) 6.7 (0.14)

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 (1.01) 15.0 (1.04) 30.5 (3.69) 27.8 (3.61) 29.4 (2.43) 29.3 (2.30) 5.7 (1.06) 3.4 (0.90) 7.6 (1.20) 8.7 (1.33)

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 (1.07) 10.5 (1.13) 18.3 (4.51) 16.2 (4.32) 29.5 (4.29) 21.5 (3.66) 4.1 (1.01) 4.7 (1.17) 9.1 (1.49) 7.9 (1.45)

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 (0.87) 11.5 (0.87) 25.8 (3.33) 22.7 (3.21) 19.6 (2.21) 22.6 (2.21) 6.4 (0.96) 3.1 (0.75) 6.6 (1.06) 10.3 (1.35)

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 (1.06) 15.3 (1.07) 33.2 (3.73) 35.1 (3.80) 32.1 (2.87) 34.9 (2.78) 5.8 (1.04) 4.2 (0.97) 9.2 (1.30) 8.9 (1.33)

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 (0.29) 10.0 (0.33) 22.9 (1.20) 17.9 (1.08) 18.6 (0.75) 17.5 (0.73) 5.4 (0.32) 2.7 (0.28) 6.1 (0.33) 6.0 (0.41)

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 (0.67) 7.4 (0.68) 16.5 (3.13) 19.7 (3.37) 16.6 (2.17) 18.1 (2.14) 3.7 (0.68) 2.9 (0.65) 5.2 (0.86) 4.8 (0.86)

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 (0.87) 8.9 (0.88) 20.7 (3.69) 23.3 (3.87) 19.4 (2.56) 20.6 (2.48) 4.0 (0.90) 3.3 (0.89) 5.9 (1.05) 6.3 (1.13)

Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 (0.87) 7.4 (0.96) 24.5 (5.14) 17.3 (4.54) 16.7 (3.34) 17.8 (3.25) 6.1 (1.22) *1.8 (0.73) *1.8 (0.71) 3.5 (1.01)

District of Columbia. . . . . 8.9 (0.87) 9.1 (0.89) 20.8 (4.08) 15.7 (3.66) 21.0 (2.84) 23.2 (2.79) 4.7 (0.97) 2.7 (0.80) 2.9 (0.72) 3.8 (0.86)

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 (0.50) 10.4 (0.47) 22.9 (1.89) 23.2 (1.88) 21.8 (1.25) 23.3 (1.15) 4.6 (0.43) 2.9 (0.38) 5.5 (0.46) 5.7 (0.53)

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 (0.55) 11.3 (0.52) 26.3 (2.36) 25.4 (2.81) 22.0 (1.47) 24.2 (1.62) 5.3 (0.75) 3.6 (0.79) 6.1 (0.63) 6.4 (0.73)

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 (0.80) 8.3 (1.01) 29.1 (4.99) 12.5 (3.65) 11.7 (2.71) 9.9 (2.40) 5.4 (1.19) *1.5 (0.69) 5.0 (1.14) 4.5 (1.13)

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 (0.99) 8.7 (0.95) 17.7 (3.93) 23.0 (4.36) 16.9 (2.77) 19.1 (2.76) 5.3 (1.06) 4.0 (1.00) 5.7 (1.18) 7.4 (1.38)

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 (0.38) 8.8 (0.46) 20.4 (2.12) 20.9 (2.27) 17.2 (1.50) 19.7 (1.17) 4.5 (0.51) 2.8 (0.35) 5.2 (0.53) 5.2 (0.58)

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 (0.84) 11.6 (0.85) 26.8 (3.36) 30.1 (3.49) 23.9 (2.52) 25.8 (2.45) 5.0 (0.83) 2.8 (0.68) 7.7 (1.04) 8.6 (1.14)

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 (0.78) 6.8 (0.71) 17.3 (3.40) 18.8 (3.53) 20.6 (3.01) 24.4 (3.03) 3.8 (0.70) 4.9 (0.87) 4.2 (0.81) 6.3 (1.02)

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0 (0.85) 9.1 (0.82) 27.9 (4.43) 28.5 (4.48) 24.4 (2.76) 27.4 (2.72) 4.0 (0.76) 3.7 (0.80) 5.3 (0.94) 6.7 (1.09)

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.7 (1.10) 20.1 (1.10) 38.5 (3.19) 44.3 (3.27) 39.2 (2.59) 40.4 (2.47) 7.6 (1.17) 6.2 (1.15) 9.1 (1.22) 9.8 (1.31)

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 (0.92) 13.2 (0.96) 32.4 (3.56) 29.8 (3.49) 23.7 (2.40) 24.3 (2.30) 6.7 (1.12) 3.7 (0.92) 7.2 (1.10) 7.0 (1.13)

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 (1.00) 9.1 (0.95) 30.5 (4.78) 50.5 (5.22) 22.3 (3.18) 26.5 (3.20) 3.5 (0.87) 3.0 (0.88) 4.8 (1.00) 3.5 (0.89)

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 (0.78) 7.7 (0.74) 21.3 (3.66) 19.7 (3.58) 17.0 (2.42) 16.5 (2.27) 4.0 (0.78) 3.7 (0.81) 4.7 (0.83) 8.4 (1.14)

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . 7.5 (0.73) 7.4 (0.73) 19.6 (3.20) 20.3 (3.25) 18.4 (2.42) 17.9 (2.26) 4.0 (0.81) *2.1 (0.64) 4.6 (0.85) 6.8 (1.06)

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 (0.87) 11.5 (0.68) 30.1 (2.87) 33.0 (2.45) 21.4 (2.28) 29.1 (2.47) 4.5 (0.62) 3.9 (0.77) 5.9 (0.83) 7.2 (0.90)

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 (0.71) 7.1 (0.66) 20.3 (3.57) 23.3 (3.76) 15.4 (2.47) 23.1 (2.74) 4.3 (0.70) 3.7 (0.71) 5.2 (0.79) 7.1 (0.95)

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 (1.10) 17.9 (1.15) 42.0 (4.12) 35.1 (4.00) 32.1 (2.67) 31.8 (2.53) 8.6 (1.30) 7.9 (1.37) 9.0 (1.31) 7.8 (1.27)

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 (0.89) 12.4 (0.90) 32.7 (3.54) 29.3 (3.44) 22.9 (2.45) 26.6 (2.44) 4.8 (0.86) 4.4 (0.90) 8.0 (1.09) 8.1 (1.13)

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0 (1.19) 11.2 (1.27) 33.5 (4.75) 27.7 (4.52) 16.0 (3.17) 22.2 (3.42) 5.9 (1.41) * *3.7 (1.15) *3.7 (1.19)

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 (0.88) 7.6 (0.85) 14.4 (3.53) 17.9 (3.87) 22.5 (3.48) 23.7 (3.36) 3.8 (0.87) *2.3 (0.73) 6.0 (1.03) 9.3 (1.32)

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 (0.89) 10.4 (0.91) 22.6 (3.44) 26.6 (3.66) 19.7 (2.43) 19.6 (2.30) 6.4 (1.07) 3.5 (0.88) 6.0 (1.07) 6.8 (1.17)

New Hampshire. . . . . . . . 10.5 (1.03) 9.0 (0.97) 24.4 (4.70) 25.4 (4.78) 19.2 (3.35) 27.7 (3.61) 4.6 (0.96) 5.4 (1.13) 6.3 (1.18) 7.2 (1.31)

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 (0.62) 7.8 (0.64) 22.2 (2.87) 17.6 (2.64) 13.3 (1.75) 14.2 (1.71) 3.8 (0.66) 3.2 (0.65) 4.7 (0.74) 5.9 (0.86)

New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . 13.7 (1.11) 15.8 (1.20) 36.2 (4.26) 29.5 (4.06) 25.5 (2.75) 26.0 (2.62) 8.3 (1.39) 4.9 (1.19) 8.1 (1.38) 7.9 (1.41)

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 (0.48) 8.6 (0.48) 21.7 (2.13) 20.4 (2.01) 17.9 (1.25) 20.7 (1.38) 4.5 (0.47) 3.7 (0.49) 3.8 (0.44) 4.9 (0.55)

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . 11.7 (0.74) 11.5 (0.70) 26.5 (2.37) 28.5 (3.34) 22.7 (1.74) 21.9 (1.71) 5.1 (0.82) 2.9 (0.59) 5.6 (1.08) 8.3 (1.01)

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . 7.5 (0.99) 8.4 (1.06) 21.8 (5.75) 23.1 (5.90) 16.9 (4.51) 21.8 (4.70) 4.9 (1.04) *2.3 (0.78) 7.7 (1.44) 6.9 (1.42)

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 (0.71) 11.1 (0.73) 25.8 (2.64) 26.9 (2.57) 24.6 (1.79) 27.0 (1.54) 5.2 (0.67) 4.1 (0.61) 5.5 (0.77) 6.8 (0.77)

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 (0.95) 11.9 (0.95) 27.5 (3.66) 32.0 (3.84) 19.5 (2.37) 23.6 (2.41) 6.7 (1.08) 4.2 (0.94) 6.3 (1.07) 7.1 (1.18)

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.9 (0.95) 10.2 (0.90) 22.8 (3.20) 26.2 (3.38) 16.8 (2.40) 22.3 (2.54) 5.2 (0.95) 4.5 (0.97) 6.2 (1.09) 7.7 (1.25)

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . 9.8 (0.55) 10.5 (0.70) 31.1 (2.69) 24.6 (2.15) 23.2 (2.05) 24.0 (1.92) 5.6 (0.66) 3.2 (0.51) 4.6 (0.60) 6.0 (0.71)

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . 11.4 (1.17) 9.5 (1.10) 26.1 (4.42) 31.0 (4.67) 21.6 (3.20) 26.0 (3.24) 5.5 (1.31) *2.8 (1.04) *2.3 (0.81) 6.4 (1.38)

South Carolina . . . . . . . . 11.1 (0.90) 12.5 (0.96) 33.4 (3.77) 27.8 (3.59) 22.4 (2.32) 22.3 (2.21) 4.1 (0.85) 2.4 (0.72) 7.4 (1.18) 5.8 (1.10)

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . 8.0 (0.99) 6.9 (0.93) 14.7 (4.36) 22.7 (5.18) 21.6 (3.95) 22.2 (3.79) *2.2 (0.72) 3.8 (1.02) 6.1 (1.27) 4.9 (1.19)

Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 (0.93) 13.3 (0.95) 36.4 (3.92) 29.4 (3.73) 25.8 (2.48) 27.9 (2.41) 6.4 (1.02) 5.0 (0.99) 5.4 (0.93) 7.3 (1.12)

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 (0.35) 11.1 (0.39) 28.1 (1.79) 23.4 (1.52) 20.9 (1.10) 19.8 (1.09) 6.7 (0.52) 3.9 (0.43) 6.9 (0.47) 7.6 (0.57)

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 (0.77) 7.1 (0.75) 20.9 (3.88) 21.4 (3.93) 16.6 (2.48) 19.1 (2.49) 4.1 (0.78) 3.6 (0.80) 3.6 (0.81) 4.8 (0.96)

Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 (1.16) 5.9 (1.05) *12.9 (4.89) 30.5 (6.76) 24.6 (4.73) 25.5 (4.54) * * * *2.4 (0.99)

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 (0.70) 9.1 (0.70) 28.7 (3.36) 29.3 (3.40) 20.1 (2.24) 19.4 (2.10) 4.5 (0.73) 3.1 (0.67) 4.9 (0.75) 6.7 (0.90)

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 (0.71) 8.7 (0.68) 20.7 (2.77) 27.8 (3.08) 17.3 (1.96) 18.7 (1.91) 4.7 (0.73) 3.5 (0.68) 4.5 (0.77) 6.3 (0.94)

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 21.0 (1.26) 18.4 (1.21) 42.6 (3.48) 45.4 (3.51) 30.7 (2.72) 36.0 (2.69) 7.2 (1.31) 5.1 (1.21) 6.2 (1.22) 11.0 (1.65)

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 (0.75) 8.4 (0.77) 20.4 (3.61) 16.9 (3.37) 22.9 (2.94) 27.9 (2.97) 4.4 (0.80) 2.1 (0.60) 4.7 (0.82) 5.2 (0.90)

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 (1.08) 7.1 (0.94) 23.0 (5.10) 29.9 (5.57) 18.2 (3.46) 30.6 (3.92) 3.3 (0.84) 3.6 (0.95) *3.0 (0.95) 6.2 (1.39)

* Estimates are considered unreliable. Data preceded by an asterisk have a relative standard error (RSE) greater than 30% and less than or equal to 50% and should be used with caution. Data not 

shown have an RSE greater than 50%.

1Based on a survey question that asked respondents, “Would you say [subject name's] health in general was excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” This information was obtained during a part of 

the interview that allowed proxy responses, such that a knowledgeable adult family member could respond on behalf of adults not taking part in the interview. The estimates in this table are based on 

the reported health status (possibly by proxy) for the Sample Adult only. "Fair" and "poor" are combined in this table.

2

In a series of separate questions, respondents were asked the degree of difficulty they experienced performing nine physical activities by themselves and without using any special equipment. The 

activities included walking a quarter of a mile (or three city blocks); standing for 2 hours; stooping, bending, or kneeling; climbing 10 steps without resting; sitting for 2 hours; reaching over one’s head; 

using one’s fingers to grasp or handle small objects; lifting or carrying a 10-pound object (such as a full bag of groceries); and pushing or pulling a large object (such as a living room chair). The 

response categories consisted of “not at all difficult,” “only a little difficult,” “somewhat difficult,” “very difficult,” “can’t do at all,” or “do not do this activity.” “Difficulty in physical functioning” consists of a 

“very difficult” or “can’t do at all” response to at least one of the nine physical activities. Respondents who said that they do not do an activity were treated as missing, along with “refused,” “don’t know,” 

and “not ascertained” responses.

NOTES: Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. Unknowns for the columns were not included in the denominators when 

calculating percentages. Estimates are age adjusted using the projected 2000 U.S. population as the standard population and using three age groups: 18–24, 25–44, and 45–64.

SOURCE: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2015.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018 Page 19

Table III. Age-adjusted occupational distributions with standard errors of working adults aged 18–64, by state: United States, 2010–2015

State Total Managers1 Professionals1

Community or social 

services1 Services1 Sales1

Production and 

related1

Percent (standard error)

All states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.4 (0.13) 17.6 (0.19) 8.2 (0.12) 32.2 (0.21) 10.3 (0.13) 22.3 (0.26)

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.6 (1.03) 17.3 (1.59) 7.7 (1.00) 31.8 (1.71) 9.9 (1.08) 25.7 (2.14)

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.0 (1.25) 15.5 (1.71) 9.1 (1.21) 40.1 (2.02) 6.7 (1.02) 19.7 (2.18)

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.0 (1.00) 15.7 (1.38) 8.5 (0.94) 35.0 (1.57) 11.7 (1.05) 20.1 (1.76)

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.0 (1.04) 17.3 (1.56) 8.2 (1.01) 32.2 (1.68) 9.2 (1.03) 25.0 (2.08)

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.6 (0.35) 17.4 (0.53) 7.2 (0.30) 32.9 (0.61) 10.7 (0.34) 22.1 (0.70)

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 13.5 (1.08) 20.4 (1.38) 7.9 (0.82) 28.7 (1.35) 11.5 (0.94) 18.1 (1.53)

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.4 (1.13) 19.2 (1.64) 8.7 (1.05) 32.4 (1.70) 12.0 (1.17) 18.4 (1.88)

Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.3 (1.42) 21.7 (2.00) 12.1 (1.41) 29.6 (1.93) 7.6 (1.11) 17.6 (2.15)

District of Columbia. . . . . 100.0 14.0 (1.31) 28.8 (1.85) 9.0 (1.05) 32.9 (1.67) 4.3 (0.71) 10.9 (1.48)

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.9 (0.47) 15.4 (0.81) 6.7 (0.58) 36.8 (0.82) 12.4 (0.58) 19.8 (0.89)

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.8 (0.95) 16.2 (1.14) 9.3 (0.67) 30.3 (1.11) 10.1 (0.64) 22.3 (1.74)

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.1 (1.41) 12.6 (1.61) 7.3 (1.13) 40.7 (2.08) 9.8 (1.24) 18.4 (2.18)

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.8 (1.17) 15.3 (1.62) 12.8 (1.34) 29.2 (1.78) 9.9 (1.16) 24.0 (2.23)

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.9 (0.71) 19.4 (0.96) 9.0 (0.69) 30.8 (1.11) 10.2 (0.74) 21.7 (1.02)

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.7 (0.92) 13.9 (1.22) 8.4 (0.88) 30.0 (1.41) 9.6 (0.90) 29.4 (1.88)

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.9 (1.02) 15.9 (1.29) 8.9 (0.90) 29.4 (1.40) 9.3 (0.89) 25.6 (1.79)

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.6 (1.01) 15.8 (1.35) 7.7 (0.89) 29.0 (1.47) 9.6 (0.94) 28.2 (1.94)

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.0 (1.05) 15.6 (1.44) 8.5 (0.99) 29.6 (1.58) 9.3 (0.99) 28.0 (2.07)

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.7 (0.99) 16.5 (1.49) 8.7 (1.01) 33.2 (1.64) 11.9 (1.12) 22.1 (1.93)

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.3 (1.16) 16.3 (1.59) 11.4 (1.23) 31.5 (1.75) 9.6 (1.10) 21.9 (2.07)

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.2 (0.98) 21.6 (1.51) 9.3 (0.95) 33.5 (1.51) 7.2 (0.82) 19.2 (1.68)

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.4 (1.01) 22.1 (1.56) 9.6 (0.99) 30.3 (1.51) 11.2 (1.02) 17.5 (1.66)

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.6 (1.09) 16.8 (1.02) 7.4 (0.71) 30.0 (1.17) 9.5 (0.73) 26.6 (1.42)

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.4 (0.87) 21.5 (1.32) 7.6 (0.77) 31.4 (1.31) 10.3 (0.84) 19.8 (1.49)

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.7 (1.04) 13.7 (1.45) 8.7 (1.07) 26.0 (1.62) 9.5 (1.07) 34.4 (2.34)

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.3 (0.99) 16.2 (1.36) 9.5 (0.97) 33.0 (1.52) 11.0 (1.00) 20.9 (1.75)

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.7 (1.45) 13.2 (1.88) 8.2 (1.36) 36.3 (2.32) 8.2 (1.31) 25.2 (2.80)

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.7 (1.17) 17.4 (1.55) 8.8 (1.04) 34.7 (1.70) 7.3 (0.92) 21.1 (1.95)

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.0 (1.18) 14.0 (1.42) 5.9 (0.86) 39.4 (1.74) 11.6 (1.13) 18.1 (1.83)

New Hampshire. . . . . . . . 100.0 10.6 (1.24) 20.9 (1.77) 7.1 (1.00) 26.3 (1.67) 13.1 (1.26) 22.0 (2.09)

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.2 (0.86) 18.6 (1.25) 9.9 (0.86) 31.2 (1.30) 9.9 (0.83) 21.3 (1.53)

New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.4 (1.32) 14.8 (1.66) 7.9 (1.13) 35.8 (1.95) 10.8 (1.25) 20.4 (2.19)

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.2 (0.54) 17.9 (0.83) 8.8 (0.56) 36.4 (1.00) 10.8 (0.66) 16.9 (0.89)

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.5 (0.73) 15.3 (1.29) 7.7 (0.75) 31.6 (0.89) 9.7 (0.81) 27.3 (1.63)

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.8 (1.16) 16.1 (1.72) 7.0 (1.06) 30.5 (1.87) 7.7 (1.08) 30.9 (2.51)

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.5 (0.67) 18.2 (1.01) 7.9 (0.58) 33.5 (1.46) 9.2 (0.65) 22.7 (1.32)

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.1 (1.01) 13.0 (1.35) 9.8 (1.07) 31.3 (1.63) 10.3 (1.05) 27.6 (2.09)

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.9 (1.12) 18.5 (1.57) 6.9 (0.92) 33.7 (1.67) 10.4 (1.07) 20.6 (1.90)

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.6 (0.70) 18.0 (0.95) 9.0 (0.66) 31.0 (1.03) 10.1 (0.70) 23.4 (1.28)

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.2 (1.31) 17.0 (1.94) 12.2 (1.51) 35.4 (2.15) 6.8 (1.12) 20.3 (2.41)

South Carolina . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.7 (1.00) 14.6 (1.43) 7.3 (0.94) 33.4 (1.67) 13.0 (1.17) 24.0 (2.01)

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.0 (1.23) 17.5 (1.77) 7.1 (1.07) 29.4 (1.85) 12.1 (1.31) 24.9 (2.34)

Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.1 (0.97) 15.3 (1.38) 7.4 (0.90) 32.6 (1.57) 10.7 (1.02) 25.9 (1.95)

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.8 (0.46) 17.1 (0.66) 8.1 (0.45) 30.4 (0.66) 11.5 (0.53) 23.0 (0.97)

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.1 (1.01) 18.6 (1.48) 10.2 (1.03) 31.2 (1.54) 10.0 (0.98) 20.9 (1.80)

Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 13.2 (1.78) 21.6 (2.34) 11.6 (1.63) 34.1 (2.35) 3.8 (0.94) 15.6 (2.41)

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 12.1 (0.97) 22.2 (1.33) 9.0 (0.82) 31.1 (1.29) 8.9 (0.79) 16.7 (1.39)

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.0 (0.91) 20.2 (1.32) 6.4 (0.72) 30.6 (1.32) 10.2 (0.86) 22.6 (1.59)

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.0 (1.29) 16.1 (1.71) 8.7 (1.17) 34.4 (1.93) 8.8 (1.14) 21.9 (2.24)

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.6 (0.92) 18.1 (1.37) 7.7 (0.85) 30.2 (1.43) 8.8 (0.87) 26.7 (1.84)

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.8 (1.28) 19.4 (1.84) 8.3 (1.15) 26.0 (1.78) 9.1 (1.15) 27.3 (2.41)

* Estimates are considered unreliable. Data preceded by an asterisk have a relative standard error (RSE) greater than 30% and less than or equal to 50% and should be used with caution.

1

Sample adults were asked whether they were working during the week before the interview; if so, they were asked their current industry and occupation. These verbatim responses were subsequently 

assigned to four-digit industry and occupation codes by U.S. Census Bureau coding specialists. The two-digit detailed occupation recode available in the 2010–2015 public-use National Health 

Interview Survey Sample Adult files was used to assign respondents to one of the six occupation categories shown in this table. For more information on these occupation categories, see 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr094.pdf.

NOTES: Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. Unknowns for the columns were not included in the denominators when 

calculating percentages. Estimates are age adjusted using the projected 2000 U.S. population as the standard population and using three age groups: 18–24, 25–44, and 45–64.

SOURCE: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2015.
Page 20 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

Table IV. Age-adjusted occupational distributions with standard errors of working men aged 18–64, by state: United States, 2010–2015

State Total Managers1 Professionals1

Community or 

social services1 Services1 Sales1

Production 

and related1

Percent (standard error)

All states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.8 (0.19) 16.3 (0.25) 4.5 (0.12) 22.5 (0.27) 9.8 (0.18) 36.1 (0.39)

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.3 (1.54) 16.0 (2.06) 3.9 (0.95) 20.1 (2.10) 9.3 (1.42) 40.3 (3.25)

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.1 (1.70) 19.3 (2.45) 5.0 (1.18) 21.5 (2.38) 6.0 (1.28) 38.1 (3.56)

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.4 (1.28) 14.9 (1.72) 4.4 (0.87) 27.2 (2.01) 12.6 (1.40) 31.4 (2.65)

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.9 (1.41) 13.8 (1.89) 4.6 (1.00) 23.2 (2.16) 8.8 (1.35) 40.7 (3.17)

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.4 (0.51) 17.3 (0.66) 3.7 (0.30) 24.5 (0.72) 9.5 (0.46) 34.6 (1.02)

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 14.9 (1.41) 19.3 (1.73) 5.2 (0.84) 19.5 (1.62) 12.2 (1.25) 28.9 (2.34)

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.9 (1.60) 18.1 (2.18) 4.6 (1.04) 24.5 (2.28) 10.9 (1.54) 31.0 (3.09)

Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 15.7 (2.11) 18.4 (2.48) 8.6 (1.56) 23.2 (2.52) 5.6 (1.28) 28.5 (3.41)

District of Columbia. . . . . 100.0 12.9 (1.70) 27.5 (2.50) 5.9 (1.15) 30.4 (2.40) 4.0 (0.95) 19.3 (2.61)

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.8 (0.70) 14.1 (0.96) 3.1 (0.36) 28.0 (1.22) 11.3 (0.76) 33.5 (1.42)

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 14.5 (1.62) 15.0 (1.45) 5.0 (0.80) 20.4 (1.13) 8.9 (0.90) 36.2 (2.63)

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 12.2 (1.91) 11.9 (2.08) 5.2 (1.25) 29.7 (2.75) 8.8 (1.59) 32.2 (3.55)

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.8 (1.55) 16.2 (2.13) 9.0 (1.44) 18.8 (2.10) 8.3 (1.39) 37.9 (3.30)

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.4 (0.85) 18.0 (1.36) 5.5 (0.62) 22.9 (1.35) 9.0 (0.91) 34.3 (1.71)

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.2 (1.27) 11.0 (1.45) 5.0 (0.88) 21.1 (1.77) 7.1 (1.04) 45.7 (2.74)

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 13.5 (1.39) 14.8 (1.59) 5.2 (0.87) 17.2 (1.58) 7.4 (1.02) 41.9 (2.61)

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 12.6 (1.43) 13.9 (1.65) 2.6 (0.66) 17.7 (1.70) 9.2 (1.20) 44.0 (2.80)

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.4 (1.55) 11.4 (1.72) 4.5 (0.97) 19.8 (2.00) 8.4 (1.30) 44.4 (3.16)

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.2 (1.49) 13.5 (1.86) 3.0 (0.81) 21.1 (2.07) 10.4 (1.44) 41.9 (3.17)

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 12.5 (1.73) 15.1 (2.07) 6.2 (1.22) 21.6 (2.22) 8.7 (1.42) 35.8 (3.27)

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.7 (1.25) 21.7 (2.02) 5.3 (0.95) 23.8 (1.95) 6.4 (1.05) 34.0 (2.74)

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.6 (1.41) 18.6 (1.97) 6.6 (1.09) 22.0 (1.96) 12.0 (1.43) 30.1 (2.74)

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.9 (1.35) 15.0 (1.23) 4.1 (0.71) 21.4 (1.53) 8.5 (0.82) 40.1 (2.09)

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.2 (1.16) 20.8 (1.72) 5.0 (0.80) 19.0 (1.56) 12.3 (1.22) 32.7 (2.35)

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.1 (1.48) 10.1 (1.72) 2.8 (0.82) 16.3 (1.96) 7.7 (1.32) 53.9 (3.34)

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.3 (1.42) 15.2 (1.78) 5.2 (0.95) 19.9 (1.85) 12.3 (1.41) 36.1 (2.81)

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.5 (1.93) 11.0 (2.29) *4.1 (1.27) 21.1 (2.78) 7.4 (1.66) 46.9 (4.30)

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 14.8 (1.79) 13.9 (1.93) 4.2 (0.97) 22.0 (2.15) 7.9 (1.31) 37.2 (3.18)

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.1 (1.52) 12.9 (1.81) 2.9 (0.79) 30.3 (2.31) 13.1 (1.58) 29.6 (2.90)

New Hampshire. . . . . . . . 100.0 12.3 (1.68) 19.8 (2.26) 2.8 (0.81) 17.8 (2.02) 10.9 (1.53) 36.4 (3.21)

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.9 (1.19) 18.6 (1.64) 4.2 (0.74) 20.9 (1.60) 8.9 (1.05) 36.5 (2.40)

New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.9 (1.77) 13.8 (2.16) 6.4 (1.34) 24.4 (2.51) 11.0 (1.70) 33.5 (3.49)

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.5 (0.77) 16.9 (1.18) 4.5 (0.53) 28.5 (1.26) 10.5 (0.88) 29.0 (1.35)

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.0 (0.93) 13.1 (1.46) 4.0 (0.74) 21.4 (1.42) 9.1 (1.19) 42.4 (2.52)

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.8 (1.66) 16.2 (2.17) *2.8 (0.85) 15.8 (2.01) 7.3 (1.33) 47.1 (3.47)

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.5 (0.79) 16.8 (1.34) 4.6 (0.52) 22.2 (1.41) 10.2 (0.91) 37.7 (1.96)

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.5 (1.34) 11.5 (1.69) 5.6 (1.06) 19.2 (1.95) 8.8 (1.31) 46.3 (3.12)

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.6 (1.52) 16.3 (1.94) 4.3 (0.93) 25.0 (2.13) 9.6 (1.35) 33.2 (2.92)

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.5 (0.96) 14.9 (1.17) 5.6 (0.73) 22.7 (1.51) 9.8 (0.86) 37.5 (1.97)

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.4 (1.69) 13.7 (2.45) 4.4 (1.27) 29.6 (3.04) 8.0 (1.68) 37.0 (4.06)

South Carolina . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.5 (1.40) 13.8 (1.82) 4.0 (0.90) 23.3 (2.09) 13.3 (1.56) 36.2 (3.00)

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . 100.0 13.1 (1.83) 18.0 (2.30) 3.6 (0.97) 13.3 (1.89) 10.1 (1.57) 42.0 (3.48)

Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.3 (1.40) 12.5 (1.69) 2.7 (0.72) 23.2 (2.01) 10.5 (1.36) 40.8 (2.96)

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.1 (0.61) 16.8 (0.89) 4.9 (0.51) 19.6 (0.97) 10.3 (0.60) 37.2 (1.60)

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 12.4 (1.44) 19.5 (1.92) 5.2 (0.94) 22.6 (1.89) 9.6 (1.24) 30.5 (2.63)

Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 16.5 (2.53) 21.4 (3.10) *4.4 (1.35) 29.7 (3.22) *1.7 (0.85) 26.2 (3.92)

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 14.9 (1.39) 21.8 (1.78) 5.0 (0.81) 21.6 (1.66) 9.2 (1.08) 27.5 (2.27)

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.2 (1.20) 18.8 (1.64) 3.3 (0.65) 22.6 (1.64) 10.0 (1.10) 34.2 (2.35)

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.1 (1.76) 14.0 (2.16) 4.6 (1.13) 24.8 (2.50) 9.1 (1.55) 36.5 (3.53)

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.6 (1.27) 15.9 (1.74) 4.4 (0.85) 18.0 (1.70) 8.8 (1.17) 43.2 (2.78)

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 12.1 (1.69) 17.5 (2.18) 5.1 (1.09) 12.0 (1.73) 8.7 (1.40) 44.7 (3.36)

* Estimates are considered unreliable. Data preceded by an asterisk have a relative standard error (RSE) greater than 30% and less than or equal to 50% and should be used with caution.

1

Sample adults were asked whether they were working during the week before the interview; if so, they were asked their current industry and occupation. These verbatim responses were subsequently 

assigned to four-digit industry and occupation codes by U.S. Census Bureau coding specialists. The two-digit detailed occupation recode available in the 2010–2015 public-use National Health 

Interview Survey Sample Adult files was used to assign respondents to one of the six occupation categories shown in this table. For more information on these occupation categories, see 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr094.pdf.

NOTES: Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. Unknowns for the columns were not included in the denominators when 

calculating percentages. Estimates are age adjusted using the projected 2000 U.S. population as the standard population and using three age groups: 18–24, 25–44, and 45–64.

SOURCE: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2015.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018 Page 21

Table V. Age-adjusted occupational distributions with standard errors of working women aged 18–64, by state: United States, 2010–2015

State Total Managers1 Professionals1

Community or 

social services1 Services1 Sales1

Production 

and related1

Percent (standard error)

All states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.9 (0.15) 19.0 (0.24) 12.4 (0.21) 43.0 (0.31) 10.9 (0.20) 6.8 (0.17)

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 4.8 (1.04) 18.7 (1.97) 11.8 (1.65) 44.9 (2.54) 10.6 (1.59) 9.2 (1.49)

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.7 (1.48) 11.6 (1.84) 12.7 (1.94) 57.0 (2.88) 7.1 (1.51) 3.9 (1.13)

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.5 (1.28) 16.9 (1.79) 13.6 (1.65) 44.3 (2.39) 10.6 (1.50) 6.1 (1.15)

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.1 (1.23) 21.2 (2.04) 12.2 (1.66) 42.1 (2.49) 9.8 (1.52) 7.6 (1.35)

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.8 (0.45) 17.6 (0.69) 11.4 (0.53) 43.1 (0.89) 12.1 (0.57) 7.1 (0.46)

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.8 (1.33) 21.8 (1.77) 11.2 (1.37) 39.7 (2.12) 10.5 (1.35) 4.9 (0.94)

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.8 (1.28) 20.1 (1.98) 13.1 (1.69) 40.6 (2.45) 12.7 (1.68) 5.7 (1.17)

Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 6.3 (1.38) 25.8 (2.58) 16.3 (2.21) 36.8 (2.87) 9.3 (1.75) 5.5 (1.37)

District of Columbia. . . . . 100.0 15.2 (1.66) 30.1 (2.20) 12.4 (1.61) 35.5 (2.32) 4.5 (1.02) *2.3 (0.73)

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.8 (0.57) 16.9 (0.96) 10.6 (0.99) 46.1 (1.43) 13.4 (0.92) 5.2 (0.49)

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.9 (0.94) 17.4 (1.19) 13.8 (1.23) 40.9 (1.56) 11.1 (0.80) 7.9 (0.84)

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.5 (1.66) 13.3 (1.99) 9.6 (1.75) 51.8 (2.96) 11.2 (1.89) 4.7 (1.26)

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.8 (1.45) 14.5 (1.98) 17.5 (2.16) 41.5 (2.79) 11.6 (1.84) 7.0 (1.46)

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.2 (0.86) 21.1 (1.26) 13.3 (1.13) 40.2 (1.78) 11.7 (1.17) 6.5 (0.63)

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.0 (1.07) 17.5 (1.65) 12.3 (1.44) 39.5 (2.14) 12.1 (1.44) 11.5 (1.40)

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.8 (1.15) 17.3 (1.69) 13.5 (1.55) 44.2 (2.24) 11.4 (1.45) 5.9 (1.06)

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 5.9 (1.05) 18.4 (1.79) 14.2 (1.64) 43.2 (2.32) 10.2 (1.43) 8.0 (1.28)

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 6.7 (1.13) 19.9 (1.88) 12.7 (1.59) 39.8 (2.32) 10.2 (1.46) 10.7 (1.48)

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 5.3 (1.02) 19.3 (1.88) 14.3 (1.69) 44.2 (2.38) 13.0 (1.63) 3.9 (0.94)

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 5.9 (1.17) 17.5 (1.97) 16.9 (1.97) 42.1 (2.58) 10.5 (1.62) 7.1 (1.35)

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.6 (1.25) 21.8 (1.82) 13.8 (1.54) 44.3 (2.21) 7.9 (1.22) 2.6 (0.71)

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.1 (1.18) 25.8 (1.97) 12.5 (1.51) 38.9 (2.21) 10.4 (1.40) 4.3 (0.93)

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.0 (1.08) 18.9 (1.53) 11.4 (1.18) 40.5 (1.40) 10.7 (1.10) 10.4 (1.44)

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.6 (1.06) 22.4 (1.64) 10.5 (1.23) 44.4 (1.97) 7.9 (1.09) 6.2 (0.96)

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 6.1 (1.17) 17.7 (1.93) 15.2 (1.84) 36.6 (2.46) 11.4 (1.64) 13.1 (1.73)

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.2 (1.11) 17.2 (1.68) 14.1 (1.57) 45.4 (2.23) 9.8 (1.35) 6.3 (1.09)

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.0 (1.76) 15.8 (2.46) 12.8 (2.29) 51.5 (3.40) 9.0 (1.97) *2.9 (1.16)

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 6.5 (1.15) 20.6 (1.97) 13.1 (1.66) 46.8 (2.45) 6.3 (1.21) 6.7 (1.23)

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 10.6 (1.48) 15.4 (1.80) 9.0 (1.45) 49.9 (2.52) 10.2 (1.54) 5.0 (1.10)

New Hampshire. . . . . . . . 100.0 8.7 (1.46) 22.2 (2.23) 12.3 (1.79) 36.7 (2.61) 15.9 (2.01) 4.1 (1.08)

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.3 (0.99) 18.6 (1.53) 16.0 (1.46) 42.6 (1.96) 10.9 (1.25) 4.6 (0.84)

New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.9 (1.62) 16.2 (2.07) 9.4 (1.66) 47.9 (2.83) 10.6 (1.77) 6.0 (1.35)

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.8 (0.67) 18.9 (0.95) 13.5 (0.90) 44.7 (1.34) 10.7 (0.96) 4.3 (0.71)

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . 100.0 6.9 (0.83) 17.5 (1.60) 11.5 (1.03) 41.9 (1.60) 10.2 (1.18) 11.9 (1.15)

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . 100.0 4.4 (1.17) 15.3 (2.14) 12.9 (2.03) 49.1 (3.01) 8.2 (1.67) 10.1 (1.82)

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.4 (0.99) 19.7 (1.25) 11.4 (1.00) 45.5 (2.06) 8.1 (0.75) 6.9 (1.07)

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.5 (1.25) 14.7 (1.74) 14.4 (1.74) 44.7 (2.46) 11.8 (1.62) 7.0 (1.27)

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.0 (1.31) 21.0 (2.04) 9.8 (1.51) 43.6 (2.51) 11.4 (1.63) 6.1 (1.22)

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.5 (0.78) 21.5 (1.25) 12.9 (1.13) 40.7 (1.60) 10.2 (1.15) 7.2 (0.74)

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.6 (1.63) 20.2 (2.43) 19.2 (2.41) 40.3 (2.99) 6.4 (1.51) 5.4 (1.38)

South Carolina . . . . . . . . 100.0 5.6 (1.11) 15.6 (1.81) 11.4 (1.61) 45.1 (2.51) 12.6 (1.69) 9.6 (1.50)

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . 100.0 4.4 (1.15) 16.3 (2.15) 11.2 (1.87) 48.9 (2.94) 14.7 (2.11) 4.5 (1.22)

Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 5.7 (1.03) 18.2 (1.78) 12.6 (1.56) 43.5 (2.31) 11.2 (1.49) 8.9 (1.34)

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.1 (0.59) 17.6 (0.88) 12.1 (0.70) 43.8 (1.03) 12.9 (0.79) 5.5 (0.42)

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 4.8 (0.99) 17.5 (1.83) 16.8 (1.82) 42.4 (2.40) 10.2 (1.48) 8.5 (1.36)

Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.6 (1.87) 24.1 (2.96) 18.5 (2.72) 37.9 (3.38) 6.5 (1.75) *4.4 (1.43)

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 9.4 (1.08) 22.5 (1.60) 13.3 (1.32) 40.5 (1.90) 8.8 (1.11) 5.6 (0.90)

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.6 (1.12) 21.9 (1.71) 10.3 (1.27) 40.5 (2.04) 10.4 (1.28) 8.2 (1.15)

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.9 (1.54) 18.6 (2.18) 13.5 (1.95) 45.5 (2.82) 8.5 (1.60) 4.9 (1.24)

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.3 (1.08) 20.4 (1.74) 11.3 (1.39) 43.1 (2.16) 8.8 (1.25) 9.1 (1.26)

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 6.5 (1.45) 22.0 (2.53) 13.2 (2.10) 46.8 (3.08) 9.9 (1.86) *1.7 (0.80)

* Estimates are considered unreliable. Data preceded by an asterisk have a relative standard error (RSE) greater than 30% and less than or equal to 50% and should be used with caution.

1

Sample adults were asked whether they were working during the week before the interview; if so, they were asked their current industry and occupation. These verbatim responses were subsequently 

assigned to four-digit industry and occupation codes by U.S. Census Bureau coding specialists. The two-digit detailed occupation recode available in the 2010–2015 public-use National Health 

Interview Survey Sample Adult files was used to assign respondents to one of the six occupation categories shown in this table. For more information on these occupation categories, see https://www.

cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr094.pdf.

NOTES: Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. Unknowns for the columns were not included in the denominators when 

calculating percentages. Estimates are age adjusted using the projected 2000 U.S. population as the standard population and using three age groups: 18–24, 25–44, and 45–64.

SOURCE: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2015.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 112  June 28, 2018

For more NCHS NHSRs, visit:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nhsr.htm.

For e-mail updates on NCHS publication releases, subscribe online at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/govdelivery.htm.

For questions or general information about NCHS: Tel: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636) • TTY: 1–888–232–6348

Internet: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs • Online request form: https://www.cdc.gov/info

DHHS Publication No. 2018–1250 • CS293143

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

CDC/NCHS

PERMIT NO. G-284

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

3311 Toledo Road, Room 4551, MS P08

Hyattsville, MD 20782–2064

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

Suggested citation

Blackwell DL, Clarke TC. State variation in 

meeting the 2008 federal guidelines for both 

aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities 

through leisure-time physical activity among 

adults aged 18–64: United States 2010–2015. 

National Health Statistics Reports; no 112. 

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health 

Statistics. 2018.

Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in 

the public domain and may be reproduced 

or copied without permission; citation as to 

source, however, is appreciated.

National Center for Health Statistics

Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., M.B.A., Director

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate Director 

for Science

Division of Health Interview Statistics

Stephen J. Blumberg, Ph.D., Director 

Robin A. Cohen, Ph.D., Acting Associate 

Director for Science