add choropleth cutoffs to CDPH datasets

[derekeder]

Color group cutoffs provided by Jamyia at CDPH:

Births

• 6.0 – 11.9
• 12.0 – 17.9
• 18.0 – 23.9
• 24+

Breast Cancer

• 8.0 – 20.9
• 21.0 – 27.9
• 28.0 – 34.9
• 35.0 56.9

Breast Cancer Years of Potential Life Lost

• 78.9 – 100
• 200 – 300
• 400 – 500
• 600+

Cancer (All Sites)

• 120 – 160
• 170 – 210
• 220 – 260
• 270 – 280

Cancer (All Sites) Years of Potential Life Lost

• 591 – 1100
• 1200 – 1800
• 1900 – 2500
• 2600 – 2900

Colorectal Cancer Deaths

• <14
• 14 – 16
• 17 – 22
• 23 – 29
• 30 – 55

Colorectal Cancer Deaths Years of Potential Life Lost

• 10 – 79
• 80 – 159
• 160 – 249
• 250+

Fertility

• 20 – 59
• 60 – 79
• 80 – 99
• 100+

Firearm-related Deaths

• 1.0 – 9.9
• 10.0 – 19.9
• 20.0 – 29.9
• 30.0 – 63.9

Firearm- related Deaths Years of Potential Life Lost

• 1 – 200
• 300 – 500
• 600 – 1200
• 1300+

Gonorrhea (Males)

• 40 – 500
• 600 – 1100
• 1200 – 1700
• 1800+

Gonorrhea (Females)

• 34 – 500
• 600 – 1100
• 1200 – 1700
• 1800+

Homicide

• 0–9
• 10 – 19
• 20 – 29
• 30+

Homicide Years of Potential Life Lost

• 0 – 299
• 300 – 899
• 900 – 1499
• 1500+

Low birth weight

• 2.6 – 7.49
• 7.50 – 12.49
• 12.50 – 17.49
• 17.50 – 27.0

Lung Cancer

• 23.0 – 39.9
• 40.0 – 49.9
• 50.0 – 59.9
• 60.0 – 98.9

Prenatal Care in 1st Trimester

• <65
• 65 – 72
• 73 – 80
• 81 – 96

Preterm

• 3–9
• 10 – 13
• 14 – 17
• 18 – 29

Prostate Cancer

• 2.0 – 19.9
• 20.0 – 39.9
• 40.0 – 59.9
• 60.0+

Prostate Cancer Years of Potential Life Lost

• 0 – 49.9
• 50.0 – 99.9
• 100.0 – 139.9
• 140+

TB

• 0 – 3.9
• 3.0 – 7.9
• 8.0 – 11.9
• 12+

Teen Births

• 0 – 39.9
• 40.0 79.9
• 80.0 – 119.9
• 120+

[derekeder]

After an initial pass, found a few missing dataset cutoffs:

• Prenatal Care: 2ND TRIMESTER, 3RD TRIMESTER, NO PRENATAL CARE, NOT GIVEN
• all Lead-related datasets
• Chlamydia in females

[derekeder]

A translation needed to be made for consistency. The numbers will equate to

• greater than or equal to 0 and less than A
• greater than or equal to A and less than B
• greater than or equal to B and less than C
• greater than or equal to C

It helps to look at the list of numbers and think of the gaps in between.

Imported the following cutoffs:

Birth Rate [0,12.0,18.0,24]

Fertility Rate [0,60,80,100]

Low Birth Weight [0,7.50,12.50,17.50]

Prenatal Care - 1ST TRIMESTER [0,65,73,81]

Preterm Births [0,10,14,18]

Teen Birth Rate [0,40.0,80.0,120]

Gonorrhea in females [0,600,1200,1800]

Gonorrhea in males [0,600,1200,1800]

Tuberculosis [0,4.0,8.0,12]

[RoderickJones]

This comment will be tough to articulate, but I’ll take a shot, and be happy to follow up with additional conversation. The categorizations that Jamyia provided above (at my request) were primarily intended for the “slider” visualization, in which I think the point was to allow the user to see change over time on the map. In the current iteration of the Atlas there is no slider mechanism, and this takes away the value of having the new categories.

Let’s use childhood lead poisoning (i.e., the percent elevated blood lead level indicator) as an example. Over the course of the decade, this very bad problem has declined a lot. The percents reported In 1999 were regularly in double digits; this year it’s rare to have a community area with a value above 2%.

If our purpose is to visualize change over time, it is important to have a scale for categories that encompasses the whole spectrum of values over all years. However if our user is most interested in a current snapshot, it is better to have a scale that reflects the most recent year, and ignores the fact that a decade ago, percentages could have been 10 times higher.

I understand this might strike you as inconsistent on our part. I think the confusion came when in the last iteration of the Atlas, Abel Kho’s diabetes data were shown as a slider, and we wanted to be sure to provide good categories for that visualization style. But now we see that there is no slider, and moreover, the figures on the Places pages that provide year-by-year values are a great new development.

I don’t know the best solution for the problem. Part of me thinks the map should just show the most recent year, with categories that reflect the distribution of values in the current year alone. I believe this would serve most of the public health oriented users, and for sure our least-sophisticated users, who could become confused when most/all of the community areas appear to have identical values for the most recent year when we make use of the slider-ready categorizations. I believe most people who are interested enough to explore the map would want to see variation across community areas, and make comparisons using current data, rather than historical data.

If it would be best to get further clarification on this, please let me know. Also if you want me to just say how I think it needs to be (rather than explain the pros and cons) I can do that as well, but didn’t want to do that unilaterally.

[derekeder]

Thanks for this explanation Eric. I believe our purpose is still to show change over time. I plan on adding a slider to transition between years, it just hasn't been implemented yet for the latest iteration. @danxoneil, what do you think?

In the meantime, we will still need cutoffs for:

• all Lead-related datasets
• Chlamydia in females

[JamyiaClark]

Here are the tentative categories.
Chlamydia <700 700 - 1399 1400 - 2099 2100 - 2799 2800+

Lead Screening Rate 70 - 249 250 - 349 350 - 449 450+

Elevated Blood Lead Level 0 - 1.9 2.0 - 4.9 5.0 - 7.9 8.0+