North East LHIN Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Population Health Profile

Transcription

1 North East LHIN Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Population Health Profile November

2 NORTH EAST LHIN DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC AND POPULATION HEALTH PROFILE Table of Contents Summary...ii Our population...ii NE LHIN Population Health Status...ii REFERENCE MAPS OF NORTH EAST LHIN PLANNING AREAS...1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE...2 Population Distribution Estimates and Projections...2 North East LHIN Age-Sex Population Distribution...2 NE LHIN & 2018 Population Distribution, Estimates & Projections (DEP) by Age and Sex...3 NE LHIN 2008 & 2018 Population Distribution, Estimates and Projections by Age and Sex Population Distribution by Age and Sex Population4 Age and Sex as percentages...5 North East LHIN 2008 & 2018 Population Distribution Estimates & Projections by Age and Sex and 2008 Socio-Demographic Characteristics Socio-Demographic Characteristics by Planning Area Socio-Demographic Characteristics by Planning Area...9 HEALTH STATUS...10 Life Expectancy, Mortality, and Potential Years of Life Lost...10 Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality by Planning Area...10 Potential Years of Life Lost (PYLL) and Age Standardized Mortality Rate (ASMR) by Planning Area...10 The Canadian Community Health Survey...11 Health Status and Perception of Health...12 Use of Preventative Care...12 Health Practices/Behaviours...13 Prevalence of Selected Chronic Conditions...13 i

3 North East LHIN Demographic, Socioeconomic and Population Health Profile Summary Our population The North East LHIN covers a large geographic area of approximately 400,000 square kilometres. With a 2006 population of approximately 560,000 persons, the overall population density in the NE LHIN is only 1.4 persons per square kilometre. When compared to the provincial population density of 13.4 persons per sq. km (Southern Ontario has a population density of approximately 100 persons per sq. km), it is not surprising that there are significant challenges to providing health care in the North East LHIN. Furthermore, according to the 2006 census, the North East LHIN has a much higher proportion of Aboriginals than Ontario as a whole, 10% and 2% respectively a significantly higher proportion of Francophones compared to Ontario, 24% and 4% respectively an older population than the province as a whole (17% of NE LHIN is aged 65 and over compared to 14% in Ontario) o the Aged Dependency Ratio (the percent people 65+ relative to working age group 15-64) is 24.5% in the North East vs. Ontario s Aged Dependency Ratio of 19.9% an overall lower education status than the rest of the province with, o only 50.3% of the North East population aged (25+) who have completed post-secondary education vs. the provincial rate of 56.8%, and o 25.9% of the North East population (age 25+) who do not have a high school (or equivalent) certificate vs. the provincial rate of 18.7% a lower employment status with, o an overall unemployment rate in the North East LHIN which is higher than the provincial rate, 8.4% vs. 6.4% respectively, o a participation rate (the percent of the population in the labour force) which is lower than Ontario s, 60.1% vs. 67.1% respectively, and o a youth (age 15-24) unemployment rate in the North East LHIN of 18.6% vs. the provincial rate of 14.5%. Additionally, the rate of population growth in the North East LHIN is nearly stagnant at less than 1%, whereas the provincial growth rate is nearly 8% since the 2001 Census. These geographic, demographic and socioeconomic realities are only some of the challenges to those providing health care in the North East LHIN. NE LHIN Population Health Status The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS 4.1, 2007) reports that there is a smaller proportion of NE LHIN residents who report their health as very good or excellent compared to Ontarians overall. Also, the CCHS shows a higher prevalence of self-reported activity limitation in the NE LHIN compared to Ontario, 40.9% vs. 33.1%, and a higher proportion of persons who report pain or discomfort as limiting their activities, 17.2% vs. 13.0%. Furthermore, the North East LHIN has higher percentages of people whose health practices are known to compromise health status when compared to Ontario. These include: daily smokers, 26.8% vs. 20.6%, exposure to second hand smoke at home, 9.6% vs. 5.7%, and exposure to second hand smoke in vehicles, 13.2% vs. 8.0% adults who are current drinkers reporting heavy drinking, 26.5% vs. 21.1%, and adults who are obese, 22.4% vs. 16.1%. Not surprisingly, the CCHS also shows a higher prevalence of chronic diseases in the North East LHIN, including: ii

4 arthritis/rheumatism, 23.8% vs. 16.2% asthma, 10.0% vs. 8.1% high blood pressure, 20.5% vs. 16.4% diabetes, 7.5% vs. 6.1%, and heart disease, 7.9% vs. 4.8% (2005 data; 2007 data were not available). In addition, the CCHS indicates a lower rate of contact with a medical doctor in the previous 12 months in the North East LHIN 75.8% vs. 80.6%; and a smaller proportion or persons who report having a medical doctor 85.0% vs. 90.4%. Mortality, Potential Years of Life Lost, and Hospitalization An analysis by MOHLTC-Health Analytics (previously the Health System Intelligence Project) of age-standardized mortality and hospitalization rates, as well as rates for potential years of life lost (PYLL 1 ) by ICD-10 chapter, for the years 2002 to 2004 is also quite revealing. The analysis indicates that, in the North East LHIN: PYLL are significantly higher than provincial rates for all causes, and select causes including Respiratory system diseases, Circulatory system diseases, Neoplasms overall and Malignant Neoplasms specifically All-causes age-standardized mortality ratio (ASMR), as well as ASMRs for circulatory system diseases, respiratory system diseases, and neoplasms are all significantly higher than their respective provincial rates. The leading causes of mortality in the North East are circulatory disease (233.3/100,000) followed by neoplasms [cancer] (201.9/100,000). Life expectancy at birth for males and females is significantly lower compared to Ontario (2001) years vs years for both sexes combined Life expectancy at age 65 is also lower in NE LHIN at 17.7 years compared to Ontario s 19.0 years The high prevalence of chronic heart conditions - as evidenced by the CCHS and MOHLTC reports and data - naturally places a burden on the health care system in the North East LHIN, in turn reducing the quality of life for those who suffer from the condition. However, the Sudbury Regional Hospital is the only centre performing by-pass surgery under the Wait Times Strategy in the North East. What follows are a number of tables, charts and graphs detailing the population and health profile of the North East LHIN. At the time of compilation of the following tables, only CCHS cycle 3.1 (2005) data were available. Cycle 4.1 (2007) data presented in this summary will be made available in the near future. Also, only All Causes Age Standardized Mortality Rates and PYLL are presented here. Breakdowns by specific causes for these indicators will be included soon. Please watch for these updates. 1 Potential Years of Life Lost (PYLL) rates are useful for quantifying the number of years of life lost from deaths that occur prematurely (i.e. before age 75) iii

5 Reference Maps of North East LHIN Planning Areas The North East LHIN is broken down into seven Planning Areas (PA). These planning areas are roughly equivalent to what are referred to by Statistics Canada as Census Divisions (CD) and what are know provincially as Counties. This allows for maximum use of existing census demographic, socioeconomic, and health status and utilization data. Additionally, most planning areas also coincide with Public Health Units (PHU) for which invaluable data on health practices and prevalence of select chronic conditions are available through the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). The James & Hudson Bay Coasts (Coast) Planning Area includes a small number of communities from the Cochrane District as well as some from the Kenora District. Combined, the Cochrane and Coast Planning Areas are equivalent to the Porcupine Health Unit. Therefore, Canadian Community Health Survey data represent values for both Cochrane and the Coast PA s. North West LHIN James and Hudson Bay Coasts (1302) LHIN Boundaries (Version 11) Sub-LHIN Boundaries (Version 7.1) Sub-LHIN Planning Areas North East LHIN Also, Nipissing and Parry Sound Planning Areas, combined, are roughly equivalent to the North Bay Parry Sound Health Unit 2. Because of the methods used in the CCHS it is impracticable to distinguish values for these PAs. Map produced by MOHLTC Health Analytics, Algoma (1301) Cochrane (1307) Manitoulin- Sudbury (1305) Timiskaming (1306) Nipissing (1303) kms Parry Sound (1304) 2 The Renfrew PHU extends into a sparsely inhabited section of the Nipissing District much of which is Algonquin Park. 1

6 Demographic and Socioeconomic Profile Population Distribution Estimates and Projections A convenient way to represent the age and sex structure of an area is to use a population pyramid. The proportion of persons in each age band (5 year groups in this case) is represented by individual bars in the pyramid. The proportion of males and females is found on either side of the centre of the pyramid. Below are population pyramids from the 2006 Census of Population (Statistics Canada), and 2008 population estimates as well as 2018 population projections calculated by Environics Analytics for the North LHIN. For comparative purposes, an outline of the respective Ontario population pyramid is superimposed. Detailed numbers and percentages are also presented for reference purposes. Please refer to the Statistics Canada website for technical notes on the 2006 Census of Population at North East LHIN Age-Sex Population Distribution 2006 NE LHIN Census vs Ontario Census 2006 Census 2006 Actual Age Group Male Female Ontario Percentage of Total Population Source: 2006 Census (1) Note: (1) Demographic Estimates and Projections (DEP) data is not directly comparable to 2006 Census because 2008 estimates adjust for the Census undercount Table prepared by 2

7 NE LHIN & 2018 Population Distribution, Estimates & Projections (DEP) by Age and Sex 2008 NE LHIN Estimate vs Ontario Estimate 2018 NE LHIN Projection vs Ontario Projection 2008 DEP 2018 DEP Age Group Male Female Ontario Percentage of Total Population Age Group Mal Percentage of Total Population Femal Ontario Source: 2008 & 2018 Demographic Estimates and Projections (DEP) (1). DEP figures have been adjusted to account for the 2006 Census undercount. Note: (1) DEP data is not directly comparable to 2006 Census because 2008 estimates adjust for the Census undercount Table prepared by 3

8 NE LHIN 2008 & 2018 Population Distribution, Estimates and Projections by Age and Sex 2008 NE LHIN Estimate vs NE LHIN Projection 2008 DEP Ag e Gr ou p Male Female Percentage of Total Population Source: 2008 & 2018 Demographic Estimates and Projections (DEP) (1). DEP figures have been adjusted to account for the 2006 Census undercount. Note: (1) DEP data is not directly comparable to 2006 Census because 2008 estimates adjust for the Census undercount Table prepared by 4

9 2006 Population Distribution by Age and Sex 2006 Population counts by age and sex 2006 TOTAL POPULATION MALE POPULATION FEMALE POPULATION NORTH EAST ONTARIO NORTH EAST ONTARIO NORTH EAST ONTARIO Total Pop 551,691 12,160, ,485 5,930, ,205 6,229, , ,765 12, ,475 12, , , ,590 15, ,675 14, , , ,445 18, ,705 17, , , ,110 19, ,185 18, , , ,260 16, ,450 16, , , ,695 13, ,525 14, , , ,955 14, ,030 14, , , ,985 16, ,220 17, , ,065 1,032,415 21, ,130 22, , , ,975 23, ,390 24, , , ,400 21, ,345 22, , , ,530 20, ,535 20, , , ,980 16, ,545 16, , , ,240 13, ,635 14, , , ,950 11, ,505 12, , , ,910 8, ,585 10, , , ,270 5,020 97,240 7, , , ,810 2,640 60,550 5, , Population age and sex as percentages 2006 TOTAL POPULATION MALE POPULATION FEMALE POPULATION NORTH EAST ONTARIO NORTH EAST ONTARIO NORTH EAST ONTARIO Total Pop 100 * % 100% 48.7% 48.8% 50.6% 51.2% % 5.5% 2.3% 2.8% 2.2% 2.7% % 5.9% 2.7% 3.0% 2.6% 2.9% % 6.7% 3.3% 3.5% 3.1% 3.3% % 6.9% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3.3% % 6.6% 2.9% 3.3% 2.9% 3.3% % 6.1% 2.4% 3.0% 2.6% 3.2% % 6.5% 2.5% 3.1% 2.7% 3.4% % 7.3% 2.9% 3.5% 3.1% 3.7% % 8.5% 3.9% 4.2% 4.1% 4.3% % 8.2% 4.2% 4.0% 4.4% 4.2% % 7.1% 3.9% 3.5% 4.0% 3.7% % 6.4% 3.7% 3.1% 3.7% 3.3% % 4.8% 2.9% 2.3% 3.0% 2.5% % 3.8% 2.4% 1.8% 2.5% 2.0% % 3.3% 2.1% 1.5% 2.2% 1.8% % 2.8% 1.5% 1.2% 1.8% 1.6% % 2.1% 0.9% 0.8% 1.3% 1.3% % 1.6% 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% 1.1% * The sum of age groups may not add to due to random rounding of census numbers. Source: 2006 Census (1) Note: (1) Demographic Estimates and Projections (DEP) data is not directly comparable to 2006 Census because 2008 estimates adjust for the Census undercount Tables prepared by 5

10 North East LHIN 2008 & 2018 Population Distribution Estimates & Projections by Age and Sex 2008 and 2018 Population counts by age and sex TOTAL POPULATION MALE POPULATION FEMALE POPULATION NORTH EAST ONTARIO NORTH EAST ONTARIO NORTH EAST ONTARIO Total Pop 581, ,021 13,021,604 14,358, , ,215 6,441,422 7,106, , ,806 6,580,182 7,252, ,239 26, , ,094 12,953 13, , ,300 12,286 13, , , ,085 25, , ,184 14,934 12, , ,059 14,151 12, , , ,913 26, , ,359 17,796 13, , ,266 17,117 12, , , ,223 29, , ,218 20,661 15, , ,611 19,562 14, , , ,392 36, , ,196 19,659 18, , ,685 18,733 17, , , ,296 41, ,599 1,081,869 17,500 21, , ,310 16,796 20, , , ,208 40, ,030 1,094,973 15,247 20, , ,655 14,961 19, , , ,815 35, , ,807 17,478 18, , ,965 17,337 17, , , ,095 31,263 1,016, ,398 20,271 15, , ,832 20,824 15, , , ,156 35,173 1,056, ,867 24,404 17, , ,353 24,752 17, , , ,871 40, ,637 1,040,776 23,030 19, , ,037 23,841 20, , , ,055 47, ,905 1,062,419 21,005 23, , ,124 21,050 24, , , ,089 44, , ,092 18,538 21, , ,329 18,551 22, , , ,812 38, , ,019 14,411 18, , ,769 15,401 19, , , ,156 31, , ,644 11,545 15, , ,216 12,611 16, , , ,098 23, , ,079 9,203 10, , ,242 10,895 12, , , ,633 16, , ,344 5,757 6, , ,510 7,876 9, , , ,766 17, , ,275 3,657 6,836 75, ,820 7,109 10, , ,455 Source: 2008 & 2018 Demographic Estimates and Projections (DEP) (1). DEP figures have been adjusted to account for the 2006 Census undercount. Note: (1) DEP data is not directly comparable to 2006 Census because 2008 estimates adjust for the Census undercount Table prepared by 6

11 2008 and 2018 Population age and sex as percentages TOTAL POPULATION MALE POPULATION FEMALE POPULATION NORTH EAST ONTARIO NORTH EAST ONTARIO NORTH EAST ONTARIO Total Pop 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 49.5% 49.4% 49.5% 49.5% 50.5% 50.6% 50.5% 50.5% % 4.6% 5.3% 5.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.7% 2.7% 2.1% 2.2% 2.6% 2.5% % 4.3% 5.7% 5.1% 2.6% 2.2% 2.9% 2.6% 2.4% 2.1% 2.8% 2.5% % 4.5% 6.3% 5.4% 3.1% 2.3% 3.2% 2.7% 2.9% 2.2% 3.1% 2.6% % 5.1% 6.9% 5.7% 3.6% 2.6% 3.5% 2.9% 3.4% 2.5% 3.4% 2.8% % 6.1% 7.0% 6.7% 3.4% 3.1% 3.6% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 3.4% 3.3% % 7.1% 6.9% 7.5% 3.0% 3.7% 3.5% 3.8% 2.9% 3.5% 3.4% 3.7% % 6.9% 6.7% 7.6% 2.6% 3.5% 3.4% 3.9% 2.6% 3.4% 3.3% 3.7% % 6.1% 7.1% 6.8% 3.0% 3.1% 3.5% 3.4% 3.0% 3.0% 3.5% 3.4% % 5.3% 7.8% 6.3% 3.5% 2.7% 3.9% 3.1% 3.6% 2.6% 3.9% 3.1% % 6.0% 8.1% 6.5% 4.2% 3.0% 4.0% 3.2% 4.3% 3.0% 4.1% 3.3% % 6.9% 7.3% 7.2% 4.0% 3.4% 3.6% 3.6% 4.1% 3.5% 3.7% 3.7% % 8.1% 6.3% 7.4% 3.6% 4.0% 3.1% 3.7% 3.6% 4.1% 3.2% 3.7% % 7.6% 5.2% 6.4% 3.2% 3.7% 2.6% 3.1% 3.2% 3.9% 2.7% 3.3% % 6.5% 3.9% 5.2% 2.5% 3.2% 1.9% 2.5% 2.6% 3.3% 2.0% 2.7% % 5.4% 3.2% 4.1% 2.0% 2.6% 1.5% 2.0% 2.2% 2.8% 1.7% 2.2% % 3.9% 2.7% 2.8% 1.6% 1.8% 1.2% 1.2% 1.9% 2.1% 1.5% 1.5% % 2.7% 2.0% 1.9% 1.0% 1.2% 0.8% 0.8% 1.4% 1.5% 1.2% 1.1% % 3.0% 1.7% 2.2% 0.6% 1.2% 0.6% 0.8% 1.2% 1.8% 1.1% 1.4% Source: 2008 & 2018 Demographic Estimates and Projections (DEP) (1). DEP figures have been adjusted to account for the 2006 Census undercount. Note: (1) DEP data is not directly comparable to 2006 Census because 2008 estimates adjust for the Census undercount Table prepared by 7

12 2006 and 2008 Socio-Demographic Characteristics 2006 Socio-Demographic Characteristics by Planning Area PLANNING AREAS ALGOMA COCHRANE JAMES AND HUDSON BAY COASTS (4) MANITOULIN- SUDBURY NIPISSING PARRY SOUND TIMISKAMING NE LHIN ONTARIO LHIN RANGE Total population (2006) 117,461 78,692 4, ,392 84,688 40,918 33, ,691 12,160,282 4, ,392 Senior population, age 65+ (2006) 18.6% 14.1% 3.3% 15.1% 16.0% 21.4% 18.2% 16.5% 13.6% 3.3% % Population with English mother tongue Population with French mother tongue 82% 44.7% 36.6% 65.3% 69.6% 91.2% 70.4% 68.7% 68.4% 36.6% % 6.8% 49.0% 0.4% 25.9% 24.9% 3.0% 24.6% 23.1% 4.1% 0.4% % Population of Aboriginal identity 11.0% 7.8% 96.2% 9.2% 8.7% 5.4% 5.0% 9.2% 2.0% 5.0% % Participation Rate (age 15+) Unemployment rate (age 15+) Economic families below LICO (2) (2005) Families (with children) headed by a lone parent 57.5% 62.6% 47.1% 61.9% 59.8% 57.8% 58.5% 60.2% 67.1% 47.1% % 8.9% 8.2% 16.6% 8.4% 8.3% 6.7% 8.2% 8.4% 6.4% 6.7% % 10.3% 9.0% 6.7% 9.1% 11.6% 7.7% 9.1% 9.6% 11.7% 6.7% % 16.2% 13.6% 35.7% 16.4% 16.4% 11.7% 12.6% 15.4% 15.8% 11.7% % Population (aged 25+) without (3) certificate, diploma, degree 24.3% 30.4% 62.0% 24.1% 23.9% 25.9% 31.8% 25.7% 18.7% 23.9% % Population (aged 25+) with completed post-secondary education 49.6% 46.6% 30.7% 52.2% 52.5% 46.4% 45.7% 50.0% 56.8% 30.7% % Child dependency ratio 23.0% 25.3% 65.0% 24.8% 24.3% 22.0% 24.0% 24.3% 26.6% 22.0% % Senior dependency ratio 28.2% 20.6% 5.7% 22.3% 23.6% 33.3% 27.6% 24.5% 19.9% 5.7% % Total dependency ratio 51.2% 45.8% 70.7% 47.1% 47.9% 55.3% 51.6% 48.8% 46.5% 45.8% % Source: 2006 Census (1) For details on the census see: In some cases, very minor differences may be found between this table and the summary presented at the beginning of this document due to rounding and different vintages of source data. Notes: (1) Census Data and Demographic Estimates and Projections (DEP) are not directly comparable due to 2006 Census undercount (2) Low Income Cut-Off: the threshold below which a family spends 20% more of their income on food, shelter, and clothing than the average family. Average expenditures are adjusted for both community and family size. (3) Includes high school graduation certificate or equivalent (4) The values for the Coast PA should be used with caution due to a large portion of population which is not enumerated in the 2006 Census. 8

13 2008 Socio-Demographic Characteristics (1) by Planning Area PLANNING AREAS ALGOMA COCHRANE JAMES AND HUDSON BAY COASTS (4) MANITOULIN- SUDBURY NIPISSING PARRY SOUND TIMISKAMING NE LHIN ONTARIO LHIN RANGE Total population (2008) 123,167 82,283 7, ,376 89,206 43,204 34, ,970 13,021,604 7, ,376 Senior population, age 65+ (2008) 19.4% 14.6% 9.5% 15.6% 16.4% 21.8% 18.6% 16.9% 13.5% 9.5% % Population with English mother tongue Population with French mother tongue 81.3% 44.9% 46.9% 64.3% 69.3% 91.7% 69.7% 68.1% 70.4% 44.9% % 7.6% 48.2% 0.6% 26.4% 25.5% 2.5% 25.4% 23.2% 4.2% 0.6% % Population of Aboriginal identity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A Participation rate (age 15+) Unemployment rate (age 15+) Economic families below LICO (2) (2005) Families (with children) headed by a lone parent 56.4% 61.9% 53.6% 60.8% 59.8% 56.8% 57.9% 59.3% 67.8% 53.6% % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A 15.6% 13.1% 34.3% 16.0% 15.8% 11.3% 13.2% 15.2% 15.3% 11.3% % Population (aged 20+) without (3) certificate, diploma, degree 32.1% 37.6% 51.3% 31.3% 30.4% 36.1% 38.0% 33.2% 25.0% 30.4% % Population (aged 20+) with completed post-secondary education 42.8% 40.3% 26.3% 43.9% 45.1% 40.1% 38.7% 42.6% 49.3% 26.3% % Child dependency ratio 21.3% 23.0% 51.8% 22.9% 22.5% 20.8% 21.7% 22.6% 25.1% 20.8% % Senior dependency ratio 29.2% 21.0% 15.9% 22.6% 24.0% 33.7% 27.7% 25.0% 19.5% 15.9% % Total dependency ratio 50.5% 44.0% 67.7% 45.5% 46.5% 54.6% 49.4% 47.6% 44.6% 44.0% % Source: 2008 Demographic Estimates and Projections (DEP) (1). DEP figures have been adjusted to account for the 2006 Census undercount Notes: (1) Census Data and Demographic Estimates and Projections (DEP) are not directly comparable due to 2006 Census undercount (2) Low Income Cut-Off: the threshold below which a family spends 20% more of their income on food, shelter, and clothing than the average family. Average expenditures are adjusted for both community and family size. (3) Includes high school graduation certificate or equivalent (4) The values for the Coast PA should be used with caution due to a large portion of population which is not enumerated in the Census. 9

14 Health Status Life Expectancy, Mortality, and Potential Years of Life Lost Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality by Planning Area ALGOMA COCHRANE and JAMES AND HUDSON BAY COASTS (2) MANITOULIN- SUDBURY NIPISSING PARRY SOUND (1) TIMISKAMING NE LHIN ONTARIO LHIN RANGE Life expectancy at birth (in years), 2001 Life expectancy at age 65 (in years), 2001 Total (2) Male Female Total (2) Male Female Infant mortality at under 1 year of age (per 1,000), 2001 Total Male Female Bolded values indicate values that are statistically significantly different than the provincial rate. Source: Public Health Agency of Canada, Surveillance Division, Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, Chronic Disease Infobase. Accessed Aug 15, Statistics Canada. Table Life expectancy, abridged life table, by age group and sex, three-year average, Canada, provinces, territories, health regions and peer groups, occasional (years), CANSIM (database). Lang=E&CANSIMFile=CII\CII_1_E.htm&RootDir=CII/ (accessed: November 17, 2008) and Source: MOHLTC, Health Analytics, (1) The Parry Sound Planning Area data also includes data from a portion of the Muskoka Public Health Unit as both areas were part of a merged PHU at the time of data collection. (2) Based on 2001 mortality and population statistics from the Provincial Health Planning Database Potential Years of Life Lost (PYLL) and Age Standardized Mortality Rate (ASMR) by Planning Area Per 100,000 Average ALGOMA COCHRANE JAMES AND HUDSON BAY COASTS (1) MANITOULIN- SUDBURY NIPISSING PARRY SOUND TIMISKAMING NE LHIN ONTARIO LHIN RANGE Total 6,650 7,482 N/A 6,829 6,479 6,441 7,583 6,657 4,735 6,441-7,583 PYLL Male 8,631 9,450 N/A 8,814 8,082 8,823 9,880 8,700 5,791 8,082-9,880 Female 4,685 5,441 N/A 4,842 4,883 3,957 5,244 4,652 3,677 3,957-5,244 Total , ,707 ASMR Male , ,899 Female , ,261 Bolded values indicate values that are statistically significantly different than the provincial rate. Source: MOHLTC Health Analytics Data uses mortality (vital statistics) from 2002 to 2004 from the PHPDB (version 17.02). Denominator uses population estimates from 2003 (sublhin population estimates created by HSIP). Age standardization uses the 1991 Canadian population. (1) values are unreliable. 10

15 The Canadian Community Health Survey The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) is conducted by Statistics Canada and provides invaluable information related to health status, health care utilization and health determinants. The CCHS is a cross-sectional survey that relies upon a large sample of respondents and is designed to provide reliable estimates at the health region level 3. In Ontario this means that data are available at the LHIN and Public Health Unit (PHU) levels. Strictly speaking, information is not available at the NE LHIN Planning Area (PA) level. However, there is strong correspondence between Planning Areas and Public Health Units in the North East. The table below illustrates the correspondence between PAs and PHUs in the North East LHIN. North East LHIN Planning Area Algoma Cochrane James and Hudson Bay Coasts Manitoulin-Sudbury Nipissing* Parry Sound Timiskaming Ontario Public Health Unit (CCHS data) District of Algoma Health Unit Porcupine Health Unit Sudbury & District Health Unit North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit Timiskaming Health Unit *The Renfrew PHU extends into a sparsely inhabited section of the Nipissing District, much of which is Algonquin Park. The James & Hudson Bay Coasts (Coast) Planning Area includes a small number of communities from the Cochrane District as well as some from the Kenora District. Combined, the Cochrane and Coast Planning Areas are equivalent to the Porcupine Health Unit. Therefore, Canadian Community Health Survey data represent values for both Cochrane and the Coast PA s. Nipissing and Parry Sound Planning Areas, combined, are roughly equivalent to the North Bay Parry Sound Health Unit 4. Because of the methods used in the CCHS it is impracticable to distinguish values for these individual PAs. Unless otherwise indicated, values represent percent of persons aged 12 and up for both sexes. Lower Confidence Intervals (LCI) and Upper Confidence Intervals (UCI) are also included. These are useful to compare PHU values to the Ontario values, however a more precise measure of statistical significance (whether or not a PHU value is statistically different from the Ontario value) has been calculated by Statistics Canada for each value and is indicated by bold values in the following tables. Please refer to the Statistics Canada website for technical notes. 3 Statistics Canada, The Renfrew PHU extends into a sparsely inhabited section of the Nipissing District, much of which is Algonquin Park. 11

16 Health Status and Perception of Health CCHS cycle 3.1 (2005) Persons (12+) who reported: ALGOMA COCHRANE and JAMES AND HUDSON BAY COASTS (1) MANITOULIN- SUDBURY NIPISSING And TIMISKAMING NE LHIN Ontario PARRY SOUND (2) % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI Very good or excellent self-reported health Very good or excellent self-reported mental health Participation and activity limitation Very strong or somewhat strong sense of belonging to local community Life stress, quite a lot (18 years and over) Obese, self-reported adult body mass index or higher (18 years and over) Overweight, self-reported adult body mass index to (18 years and over) Self-reported youth body mass index, overweight or obese * * * or more two-week disability days * Injuries within the past 12 months Source: Canadian Community Health Survey cycle 3.1 (2005), Statistics Canada (table , last updated on: ) provided by MOLTC, Bolded values indicate values that are statistically significantly different than the provincial rate. Statistical significance is calculated by Statistics Canada and may produce differing results than simple comparison of confidence intervals. (1) Porcupine Health Unit (2) North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit - value too unreliable to publish * use with caution Use of Preventative Care CCHS cycle 3.1 (2005) Persons (12+) who reported: ALGOMA COCHRANE and JAMES AND HUDSON BAY COASTS (1) MANITOULIN- SUDBURY NIPISSING And TIMISKAMING NE LHIN Ontario PARRY SOUND (2) % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI Has a regular medical doctor Contact with medical doctors in the past 12 months Contact with dental professionals in the past 12 months Contact with alternative health care providers in the past 12 months * Influenza immunization, less than one year ago Pap smear, within the last 3 years (18 to 69 years) Received routine screening mammogram within the last 2 years (50 to 69 years) * Source: Canadian Community Health Survey cycle 3.1 (2005), Statistics Canada (table , last updated on: ) provided by MOLTC, Bolded values indicate values that are statistically significantly different than the provincial rate. Statistical significance is calculated by Statistics Canada and may produce differing results than simple comparison of confidence intervals. (1) Porcupine Health Unit (2) North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit - value too unreliable to publish * use with caution rates for female respondents only 12

17 Health Practices/Behaviours CCHS cycle 3.1 (2005) Persons (12+) who reported: ALGOMA COCHRANE and JAMES AND HUDSON BAY COASTS (1) MANITOULIN- SUDBURY NIPISSING And TIMISKAMING NE LHIN Ontario PARRY SOUND (2) % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI Current daily or occasional smoker Smoking initiation age (5 to 14 years) Complete restriction on smoking at home Complete restriction on smoking at work Exposed to second-hand smoke at home Exposure to second-hand smoke in the past month, in public places * Exposure to second-hand smoke in the past month, in vehicles * Exposure to second-hand smoke in the past month, in vehicles and/or public places * or more drinks on one occasion, 12 or more times a year Leisure-time physically active or moderately active Source: Canadian Community Health Survey cycle 3.1 (2005), Statistics Canada (table , last updated on: ) provided by MOLTC, Bolded values indicate values that are statistically significantly different than the provincial rate. Statistical significance is calculated by Statistics Canada and may produce differing results than simple comparison of confidence intervals. (1) Porcupine Health Unit (2) North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit - value too unreliable to publish * use with caution Prevalence of Selected Chronic Conditions CCHS cycle 3.1 (2005) Persons (12+): ALGOMA NIPISSING COCHRANE and JAMES AND HUDSON BAY COASTS (1) MANITOULIN-SUDBURY And TIMISKAMING NE LHIN Ontario PARRY SOUND (2) % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI % LCI UCI With arthritis or rheumatism With asthma * With diabetes With high blood pressure Source: Canadian Community Health Survey cycle 3.1 (2005), Statistics Canada (table , last updated on: ) provided by MOLTC, Bolded values indicate values that are statistically significantly different than the provincial rate. Statistical significance is calculated by Statistics Canada and may produce differing results than simple comparison of confidence intervals. (1) Porcupine Health Unit (2) North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit - value too unreliable to publish * use with caution 13