ZIP code
37710
in Briceville, TennesseePopulation 1,083
28.99/ 100
Ranked #30,948 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 3.5%)
Ranked #589 of 616 Tennessee ZIPs (bottom 4.4%)
Ranked #69 of 72 Knoxville, TN ZIPs (bottom 4.2%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Tree cover
94.6%
in the top 0.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Tooth loss
29.9%
in the top 3.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
73.9 per 100,000 residents per year
in the top 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The annual rate of fatal road crashes per 100,000 residents, pooled over a ten-year window.
A rate per resident population. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the rate to be reliable — about 30% of US ZIPs — no value is published rather than an unstable one; those ZIPs are absent from this comparison, not counted as crash-free.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
23%
in the top 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Independent-living disability
13.7%
in the top 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
32%
in the top 5.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Poverty rate
37.5%
in the top 3.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›Obesity
46.7%
in the top 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
23.8%
in the top 5.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFAS — man-made “forever chemicals” that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down — were detected in EPA testing.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›The read
Briceville, Tennessee (ZIP 37710), by its overall standing, sits in the bottom 3.5% nationally (30,948th) and the bottom 4.4% of Tennessee (589th).
The profile opens on the burdens that define it most: modeled tooth loss rests in the top 3.2% nationally, fatal road crashes lies in the top 1.2% nationally, and modeled cognitive disability sits in the top 2.4% nationally. Modeled independent living disability settles in the top 4.7% nationally, modeled fair or poor health registers in the top 5.3% nationally, and poverty stands in the top 3.7% nationally. Modeled obesity lands in the top 2.4% nationally, and mobility disability is in the top 5.3% nationally. PFAS in drinking water resides at the national maximum. More positively, modeled tree cover rests in the top 0.3% nationally.
Defined in plain terms, PFAS in drinking water is the family of man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. The nearest ZIP ranking healthier overall is ZIP 37714, just across the boundary.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts. Compare it against the US, this state and the Knoxville, TN metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 80%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 62%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 3%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 16%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 14%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 4%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 1%
8%
Disability
healthier than 5%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 84%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 91%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 45%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 6%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 6%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 11%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 5%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 2%
8%
Disability
healthier than 8%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 94%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 92%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 3%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 7%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 11%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 7%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 4%
8%
Disability
healthier than 7%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 24%
5%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Findings that name this ZIP
One of our published findings lists this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 79.8; chronic-disease standing 3.5 (bottom 10%) — 76 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #692 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
37714
Tennesseeshares a border
Score 33.32
Closest healthier
37716
Tennesseeshares a border
Score 42.11
Similar health profile
37338
Tennessee100% similar profile
Score 34.63
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 38.9% | 35.1–42.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 46.9% | 42.6–51.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.3% | 8.4–10.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.8% | 10.4–13.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.0% | 8.9–11.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 14.5% | 12.6–16.4 |
| Depression among adults | 32.8% | 28.5–37.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 17.9% | 15.5–20.5 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 44.5% | 40.0–49.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 46.7% | 39.2–55.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.2% | 4.7–5.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 29.9% | 25.0–34.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 14.6% | 12.0–17.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.8% | 74.9–80.7 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.2% | 74.6–81.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 84.5% | 82.2–86.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 57.5% | 51.9–62.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 46.8% | 42.8–50.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 71.7% | 63.2–79.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 12.8% | 10.4–15.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 27.4% | 23.7–31.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 35.5% | 30.3–41.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 40.9% | 34.0–48.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 32.0% | 27.9–35.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 22.9% | 20.3–25.6 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 20.6% | 18.0–23.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 23.0% | 20.2–25.7 |
| Any disability among adults | 46.4% | 41.0–51.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.7% | 9.4–12.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 13.7% | 11.9–15.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 23.8% | 20.7–26.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.5% | 5.7–7.3 |
| Vision disability among adults | 8.2% | 7.2–9.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 37.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.8% (5.1–26.1%) n=609 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 24.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.0% (5.9–24.0%) n=615 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 24.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (4.2–19.5%) n=613 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 6.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 19.0% (10.0–42.6%) n=613 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 1.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.0% (0.4–9.6%) n=613 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.3–10.1%) n=608 |
| Broadband subscription | 84.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.7% (76.0–94.9%) n=608 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 30.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.4% (11.8–33.6%) n=608 |
| Homeownership rate | 81.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.7% (53.4–91.5%) n=608 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.5% (0.0–4.5%) n=608 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.0–8.3%) n=617 |
| Single-parent households | 52.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 52.6% (39.1–68.7%) n=608 |
| Population 65+ | 19.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (11.5–27.9%) n=617 |
| Median age | 51.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (33.8–52.5) n=615 |
| Median household income | $28,362 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $61,577 ($42,745–$94,822) n=594 |
| Median home value | $90,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $215,100 ($120,900–$397,120) n=593 |
| Median gross rent | $675 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $908 ($659–$1,523) n=516 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 70.6 yr ± 1.76 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 75.1 yr (72.6–78.1) n=587 |
About the ± — it’s this estimate’s give-or-take (statisticians call it the standard error). The true life expectancy for this ZIP most likely falls within 1.76 years of 70.6, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured