Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


77 records – page 1 of 8.

Access to comprehensive psychiatric assessment

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10854
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Resolution
GC13-35
The Canadian Medical Association will work with stakeholders to develop standardized processes to ensure access to comprehensive psychiatric assessment and treatment for people detained within the correctional system.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Resolution
GC13-35
The Canadian Medical Association will work with stakeholders to develop standardized processes to ensure access to comprehensive psychiatric assessment and treatment for people detained within the correctional system.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association will work with stakeholders to develop standardized processes to ensure access to comprehensive psychiatric assessment and treatment for people detained within the correctional system.
Less detail

Access to results of government-funded research

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10863
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Health information and e-health
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC13-64
The Canadian Medical Association supports timely public access and transparency to the results of and information from government-funded research.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Health information and e-health
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC13-64
The Canadian Medical Association supports timely public access and transparency to the results of and information from government-funded research.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association supports timely public access and transparency to the results of and information from government-funded research.
Less detail

Antibiotics for agricultural use

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10916
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Resolution
GC13-99
The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations be amended to close the "own use" provision for the unmanaged importation of antibiotics for agricultural use.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Resolution
GC13-99
The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations be amended to close the "own use" provision for the unmanaged importation of antibiotics for agricultural use.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations be amended to close the "own use" provision for the unmanaged importation of antibiotics for agricultural use.
Less detail

Antibiotics for use in food animals

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10913
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Resolution
GC13-97
The Canadian Medical Association supports the development of a national system to identify and report the identities and quantities of antibiotics acquired domestically or imported for use in food animals.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Resolution
GC13-97
The Canadian Medical Association supports the development of a national system to identify and report the identities and quantities of antibiotics acquired domestically or imported for use in food animals.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association supports the development of a national system to identify and report the identities and quantities of antibiotics acquired domestically or imported for use in food animals.
Less detail

Assessing risk for violence in persons with mental illness

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10859
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC13-40
The Canadian Medical Association will make recommendations regarding training in and the use of standardized processes for assessing risk for violence in persons with mental illness.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC13-40
The Canadian Medical Association will make recommendations regarding training in and the use of standardized processes for assessing risk for violence in persons with mental illness.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association will make recommendations regarding training in and the use of standardized processes for assessing risk for violence in persons with mental illness.
Less detail

Assisting graduates of residency programs to find jobs

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10848
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Health human resources
Resolution
GC13-22
The Canadian Medical Association will work with stakeholders to help new graduates of Canadian residency programs seek job opportunities across Canada.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Health human resources
Resolution
GC13-22
The Canadian Medical Association will work with stakeholders to help new graduates of Canadian residency programs seek job opportunities across Canada.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association will work with stakeholders to help new graduates of Canadian residency programs seek job opportunities across Canada.
Less detail

Best practices for smartphone and smart-device clinical photo taking and sharing

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13860
Date
2018-03-03
Topics
Health information and e-health
Ethics and medical professionalism
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Date
2018-03-03
Topics
Health information and e-health
Ethics and medical professionalism
Text
Clinical photography is a valuable tool for physicians. Smartphones, as well as other devices supporting network connectivity, offer a convenient, efficient method to take and share images. However, due to the private nature of the information contained in clinical photographs there are concerns as to the appropriate storage, dissemination, and documentation of clinical images. Confidentiality of image data must be considered and the dissemination of these images onto servers must respect the privacy and rights of the patient. Importantly, patient information should be considered as any information deriving from a patient, and the concepts outlined therefore apply to any media that can be collected on, or transmitted with, a smart-device. Clinical photography can aid in documenting form and function, in tracking conditions and wound healing, in planning surgical operations, and in clinical decision-making. Additionally, clinical photographs can provide physicians with a valuable tool for patient communication and education. Due to the convenience of this type of technology it is not appropriate to expect physicians to forego their use in providing their patients with the best care available. The technology and software required for secure transfer, communication, and storage of clinical media is presently available, but many devices have non-secure storage/dissemination options enabled and lack user-control for permanently deleting digital files. In addition, data uploaded onto server systems commonly cross legal jurisdictions. Many physicians are not comfortable with the practice, citing security, privacy, and confidentiality concerns as well as uncertainty in regards to regional regulations governing this practice.1 Due to concern for patient privacy and confidentiality it is therefore incredibly important to limit the unsecure or undocumented acquisition or dissemination of clinical photographs. To assess the current state of this topic, Heyns et al. have reviewed the accessibility and completeness of provincial and territorial medical regulatory college guidelines.2 Categories identified as vital and explored in this review included: Consent; Storage; Retention; Audit; Transmission; and Breach. While each regulatory body has addressed limited aspects of the overall issue, the authors found a general lack of available information and call for a unified document outlining pertinent instructions for conducting clinical photography using a smartphone and the electronic transmission of patient information.2 The discussion of this topic will need to be ongoing and it is important that physicians are aware of applicable regulations, both at the federal and provincial levels, and how these regulations may impact the use of personal devices. The best practices supported here aim to provide physicians and healthcare providers with an understanding of the scope and gravity of the current environment, as well as the information needed to ensure patient privacy and confidentiality is assessed and protected while physicians utilize accessible clinical photography to advance patient care. Importantly, this document only focusses on medical use (clinical, academic, and educational) of clinical photography and, while discussing many core concepts of patient privacy and confidentiality of information, should not be perceived as a complete or binding framework. Additionally, it is recommended that physicians understand the core competencies of clinical photography, which are not described here. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) suggests that the following recommendations be implemented, as thoroughly as possible, to best align with the CMA policy on the Principles for the Protection of Patient Privacy (CMA Policy PD2018-02). These key recommendations represent a non-exhaustive set of best practices - physicians should seek additional information as needed to gain a thorough understanding and to stay current in this rapidly changing field. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONSENT * Informed consent must be obtained, preferably prior, to photography with a mobile device. This applies for each and any such encounter and the purpose made clear (i.e. clinical, research, education, publication, etc.). Patients should also be made aware that they may request a copy of a picture or for a picture to be deleted. * A patient's consent to use electronic transmission does not relieve a physician of their duty to protect the confidentiality of patient information. Also, a patient's consent cannot override other jurisdictionally mandated security requirements. * All patient consents (including verbal) should be documented. The acquisition and recording of patient consent for medical photography/dissemination may be held to a high standard of accountability due to the patient privacy and confidentiality issues inherent in the use of this technology. Written and signed consent is encouraged. * Consent should be considered as necessary for any and all photography involving a patient, whether or not that patient can be directly recognized, due to the possibility of linked information and the potential for breach of privacy. The definition of non-identifiable photos must be carefully considered. Current technologies such as face recognition and pattern matching (e.g. skin markers, physical structure, etc.), especially in combination with identifying information, have the potential to create a privacy breach. * Unsecure text and email messaging requires explicit patient consent and should not be used unless the current gold standards of security are not accessible. For a patient-initiated unsecure transmission, consent should be clarified and not assumed. 2. TRANSMISSION * Transmission of photos and patient information should be encrypted as per current-day gold standards (presently, end-to-end encryption (E2EE)) and use only secure servers that are subject to Canadian laws. Explicit, informed consent is required otherwise due to privacy concerns or standards for servers in other jurisdictions. Generally, free internet-based communication services and public internet access are unsecure technologies and often operate on servers outside of Canadian jurisdiction. * Efforts should be made to use the most secure transmission method possible. For data security purposes, identifying information should never be included in the image, any frame of a video, the file name, or linked messages. * The sender should always ensure that each recipient is intended and appropriate and, if possible, receipt of transmission should be confirmed by the recipient. 3. STORAGE * Storing images and data on a smart-device should be limited as much as possible for data protection purposes. * Clinical photos, as well as messages or other patient-related information, should be completely segregated from the device's personal storage. This can be accomplished by using an app that creates a secure, password-protected folder on the device. * All information stored (on internal memory or cloud) must be strongly encrypted and password protected. The security measures must be more substantial than the general password unlock feature on mobile devices. * Efforts should be made to dissociate identifying information from images when images are exported from a secure server. Media should not be uploaded to platforms without an option for securely deleting information without consent from the patient, and only if there are no better options. Automatic back-up of photos to unsecure cloud servers should be deactivated. Further, other back-up or syncing options that could lead to unsecure server involvement should be ascertained and the risks mitigated. 4. Cloud storage should be on a Canadian and SOCII certified server. Explicit, informed consent is required otherwise due to privacy concerns for servers in other jurisdictions. 5. AUDIT & RETENTION * It is important to create an audit trail for the purposes of transparency and medical best practice. Key information includes patient and health information, consent type and details, pertinent information regarding the photography (date, circumstance, photographer), and any other important facts such as access granted/deletion requests. * Access to the stored information must be by the authorized physician or health care provider and for the intended purpose, as per the consent given. Records should be stored such that it is possible to print/transfer as necessary. * Original photos should be retained and not overwritten. * All photos and associated messages may be considered part of the patient's clinical records and should be maintained for at least 10 years or 10 years after the age of majority, whichever is longer. When possible, patient information (including photos and message histories between health professionals) should be retained and amalgamated with a patient's medical record. Provincial regulations regarding retention of clinical records may vary and other regulations may apply to other entities - e.g. 90 years from date of birth applies to records at the federal level. * It may not be allowable to erase a picture if it is integral to a clinical decision or provincial, federal, or other applicable regulations require their retention. 6. BREACH * Any breach should be taken seriously and should be reviewed. All reasonable efforts must be made to prevent a breach before one occurs. A breach occurs when personal information, communication, or photos of patients are stolen, lost, or mistakenly disclosed. This includes loss or theft of one's mobile device, texting to the wrong number or emailing/messaging to the wrong person(s), or accidentally showing a clinical photo that exists in the phone's personal photo album. * It should be noted that non-identifying information, when combined with other available information (e.g. a text message with identifiers or another image with identifiers), can lead to highly accurate re-identification. * At present, apps downloaded to a smart-device for personal use may be capable of collecting and sharing information - the rapidly changing nature of this technology and the inherent privacy concerns requires regular attention. Use of specialized apps designed for health-information sharing that help safeguard patient information in this context is worth careful consideration. * Having remote wipe (i.e. device reformatting) capabilities is an asset and can help contain a breach. However, inappropriate access may take place before reformatting occurs. * If a smartphone is strongly encrypted and has no clinical photos stored locally then its loss may not be considered a breach. * In the event of a breach any patient potentially involved must be notified as soon as possible. The CMPA, the organization/hospital, and the Provincial licensing College should also be contacted immediately. Provincial regulations regarding notification of breach may vary. Approved by the CMA Board of Directors March 2018 References i Heyns M†, Steve A‡, Dumestre DO‡, Fraulin FO‡, Yeung JK‡ † University of Calgary, Canada ‡ Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Canada 1 Chan N, Charette J, Dumestre DO, Fraulin FO. Should 'smart phones' be used for patient photography? Plast Surg (Oakv). 2016;24(1):32-4. 2 Unpublished - Heyns M, Steve A, Dumestre DO, Fraulin FO, Yeung J. Canadian Guidelines on Smartphone Clinical Photography.
Documents
Less detail

Better health, better care and better value

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10960
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2013-05-25
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
BD13-06-209
The Canadian Medical Association will continue to collaborate with the Council of the Federation – Health Care Innovation Working Group to help ensure that Canada delivers on better health, better care and better value.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2013-05-25
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
BD13-06-209
The Canadian Medical Association will continue to collaborate with the Council of the Federation – Health Care Innovation Working Group to help ensure that Canada delivers on better health, better care and better value.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association will continue to collaborate with the Council of the Federation – Health Care Innovation Working Group to help ensure that Canada delivers on better health, better care and better value.
Less detail

Bill C-45: The Cannabis Act

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13861
Date
2018-04-18
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2018-04-18
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The CMA is pleased to provide this submission to the Senate Standing Committee, Social Affairs, Science &Technology on Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act. The CMA has long-standing concerns about the health risks associated with consuming cannabis,i particularly in its smoked form.1,2 Children and youth are especially at risk for cannabis-related harms, given their brains are undergoing rapid and extensive development. The CMA's approach to cannabis is grounded in broad public health policy. It includes promotion of health and prevention of drug dependence and addiction; access to assessment, counselling and treatment services; and a harm reduction perspective. The CMA believes that harm reduction encompasses policies, goals, strategies and programs directed at decreasing adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use for the individual, the community and the society while allowing the user to continue to use drugs, not precluding abstinence.3,4 Specifically, the CMA recommends a multi-faceted cannabis public health strategy that prioritizes impactful and realistic goals before, and certainly no later than, any legalization of cannabis.5 We propose that the first goal should be to develop educational interventions for children, teenagers and young adults. Other goals relate to data collection; monitoring and surveillance; ensuring a proportionate balance between enforcement harms and the direct and indirect harms caused by cannabis use; and research. There is an ongoing need for research into the medicinal and harmful effects of cannabis use. As noted by the Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines, 6 there is limited evidence on such subjects as synthetic cannabinoids; practices like "deep inhalation" to increase the psychoactive effects of cannabis; and the combination of risky behaviours, like early-onset and frequent use, associated with experiencing acute or chronic health problems.6 Since 2002, the CMA has taken a public health perspective regarding cannabis and other illegal drugs. More recently, the CMA endorsed the Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines, and we submitted 22 recommendations to the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation ("the Task Force").7 Overview According to the recent Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey, cannabis is the most used illicit drug in Canada.8 In particular, 25%-30% of adolescents or youth report past-year cannabis use.9 This concerns the CMA. The increasing rate of high usage, despite the fact that non-medical use of cannabis is illegal, coupled with cannabis' increased potency (from 2% in 1980 to 20% in 2015 in the United States),10 the complexity and versatility of the cannabis plant,ii the variable quality of the end product, and variations in the frequency, age of initiation and method of use make it difficult to study the full health impacts and produce replicable, reliable scientific results. The CMA submits, therefore, that any legalization of cannabis for non-medical use must be guided by a comprehensive cannabis public health strategy and include a strong legal-regulatory framework emphasizing harm reduction principles. Given that the Task Force employed a minimizing of harms approach11 and given how the proposed legislation aligns with the Task Force's recommendations,12 the bill addresses several aspects of a legal-regulatory framework "to provide legal access to cannabis and to control and regulate its production, distribution and sale."13 This work provides the starting point for creating a national cannabis public health strategy. The CMA has long called for a comprehensive drug strategy that addresses addiction, prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction.3 There are, however, key public health initiatives that the Canadian government has not adequately addressed and should be implemented before, or no later than, the implementation of legislation. One such initiative is education. Education is required to develop awareness among Canadians of the health, social and economic harms of cannabis use especially in young people. Supporting a Legal-Regulatory Framework that Advances Public Health and Protection of Children and Youth From a health perspective, allowing any use of cannabis by people under 25 years of age, and certainly those under 21 years of age, is challenging for physicians given the effects on the developing brain.1,3,14 The neurotoxic effect of cannabis, especially with persistent use, on the adolescent brain is more severe than on the adult brain.15,16 Further, neurological studies have shown that adolescent-onset cannabis use produces greater deficits in executive functioning and verbal IQ and greater impairment of learning and memory than adult-onset use.17,18 This underscores the importance of protecting the brain during development. Since current scientific evidence indicates that brain development is not completed until about 25 years of age,19 this would be the ideal minimum age for legal cannabis use. Youth and young adults are among the highest users of cannabis in Canada. Despite non-medical use of cannabis being illegal in Canada since 1923, usage has increased over the past few decades. The CMA recognizes that a blanket prohibition of possession for teenagers and young adults would not reflect current reality or a harm reduction approach.3 Harm reduction is not one of polarities rather it is about ensuring the quality and integrity of human life and acknowledging where the individual is at within his/her community and society at large.5 The possibility that a young person might incur a lifelong criminal record for periodic use or possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use means that the long-term social and economic harms of cannabis use can be disproportionate to the drug's physiological harm. The Canadian government has recognized this disproportionality for over 15 years. Since 2001, there have been two parliamentary committee reportsiii and two billsiv introduced to decriminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis (30 g). It was recommended that small amounts of cannabis possession be a "ticketable" offence rather than a criminal one. Given all of the above, the CMA recommends that the age of legalization should be 21 years of age and that the quantities and the potency of cannabis be more restricted to those under age 25. Supporting a Comprehensive Cannabis Public Health Strategy with a Strong, Effective Education Component The CMA recognizes that Bill C-45 repeals the prohibition against simple possession while increasing penalties against the distribution and sale of cannabis to young people, but this is not enough to support a harm reduction approach. We note that the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy, with its $38 million budget, is intended to help reduce smoking rates and change Canadians' perceptions toward tobacco.20 Similarly, there are extensive education programs concerning the dangers of alcohol, particularly for young people.v The government of Canada has proposed a modest commitment of $9.6 million to a public awareness campaign to inform Canadians, especially youth, of the risks of cannabis consumption, and to surveillance activities.21 A harm reduction strategy should include a hierarchy of goals with an immediate focus on groups with pressing needs. The CMA submits that young people should be targeted first with education. The lifetime risk of dependence to cannabis is estimated at 9%, increasing to almost 17% in those who initiate use in adolescence.22 In 2012, about 1.3% of people aged 15 years and over met the criteria for cannabis abuse or dependence - double the rate for any other drug - because of the high prevalence of cannabis use.23 The strategy should include the development of educational interventions, including skills-based training programs, social marketing interventions and mass media campaigns. Education should focus not only on cannabis' general risks but also on its special risks for the young and its harmful effects on them. This is critical given that for many, the perception is that (i) legalization of possession for both adults and young people translates into normalization of use and (ii) government control over the source of cannabis for sale translates into safety of use. Complicating this has been the fear-mongering messaging associated with illegal drugs. The evidence shows that fewer adolescents today believe that cannabis use has any serious health risks24 and that enforcement policies have not been a deterrent.25 Having an appropriate education strategy rolled out before legalization of possession would reduce the numbers of uninformed young recreational users. It would also provide time to engage in meaningful research on the impact of the drug on youth. Such strategies have been successful in the past; for example, the long-termvi Federal Tobacco Control Strategy has been credited with helping reduce smoking rates to an all-time low in Canada.26 The Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines were developed as a "science-based information tool for cannabis users to modify their use toward reducing at least some of the health risks."6 The CMA urges the government to support the widespread dissemination of this tool and incorporation of its messages into educational efforts. Other strategies must include plain packaging and labelling with health information and health warnings. Supporting a One-System Approach. Alternatively, a Review of Legislation in Five Years The CMA believes that once the act is in force, there will be little need for two systems (i.e., one for medical and one for non-medical cannabis use). Cannabis will be available for those who wish to use it for medicinal purposes, either with or without medical authorization (some people may self-medicate with cannabis to alleviate symptoms but may be reluctant to raise the issue with their family physician for fear of being stigmatized), and for those who wish to use it for other purposes. The medical profession does not need to continue to be involved as a gatekeeper once cannabis is legal for all, especially given that cannabis has not undergone Health Canada's usual pharmaceutical regulatory approval process. The Task Force's discussion reflects the tension it heard between those who advocated for one system and those who did not. One concern raised by patients was about the stigma attached to entering retail outlets selling non-medical cannabis. The CMA submits that this concern would be alleviated if the federal government continued the online purchase and mail order system that is currently in place. Given that there is a lack of consensus and insufficient data to calculate how much of the demand for cannabis will be associated with medical authorization, the Task Force recommended that two systems be established, with an obligation to review - specifically, a program evaluation of the medical access framework in five years.11 If there are two systems, then in the alternative, the CMA recommends a review of the legislation within five years. This would allow time to ensure that the provisions of the act are meeting their intended purposes, as determined by research on the efficacy of educational efforts and other research. Five-year legislative reviews have been previously employed, especially where legislation must balance individual choice with protecting public health and public safety.vii For example, like Bill C-45, the purpose of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is to protect public health and public safety.27 Its review within five years is viewed as allowing for a thorough, evidence-based analysis to ensure that the provisions and operations of the act are meeting their intended purpose(s).viii Furthermore, a harm reduction approach lends itself to systematic evaluation of the approach's short- and long-term impact on the reduction of harms.5 The CMA, therefore, submits that if a two-system approach is implemented when the legislation is enacted, the legislation should be amended to include the requirement for evaluation within five years of enactment. Criteria for evaluation may include the number of users in the medical system and the number of physicians authorizing medical cannabis use. The CMA would expect to be involved in the determination of such criteria and evaluation process. Conclusion Support has risen steadily in Canada and internationally for the removal of criminal sanctions for simple cannabis possession, as well as for the legalization and regulation of cannabis' production, distribution and sale. The CMA has long-standing concerns about the health risks associated with consuming cannabis, especially by children and youth in its smoked form. Weighing societal trends against the health effects of cannabis, the CMA supports a broad legal-regulatory framework as part of a comprehensive and properly sequenced public health approach of harm reduction. Recommendations 1. The CMA recommends that the legalization age be amended to 21 years of age, to better protect the most vulnerable population, youth, from the developmental neurological harms associated with cannabis use. 2. The CMA recommends that a comprehensive cannabis public health strategy with a strong, effective health education component be implemented before, and no later than, the enactment of any legislation legalizing cannabis. 3a. The CMA recommends that there be only one regime for medical and non-medical use of cannabis, with provisions for the medical needs of those who would not be able to acquire cannabis in a legal manner (e.g., those below the minimum age). 3b. Alternatively, the CMA recommends that the legislation be amended to include a clause to review the legislation, including a review of having two regimes, within five years. i The term cannabis is used as in Bill C-45: that is, referring to the cannabis plant or any substance or mixture that contains any part of the plant. ii The plant contains at least 750 chemicals, of which there are over 100 different cannabinoids. Madras BK. Update of cannabis and its medical use. Agenda item 6.2. 37th Meeting of the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization; 2015. Available: www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/6_2_cannabis_update.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). iii House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (2001) and the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs (2002). iv An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Bill C-38), which later was reintroduced as Bill C-10 in 2003. v For example, the Substance Use and Addictions Program (SUAP), a federal contributions program, is delivered by Health Canada to strengthen responses to drug and substance use issues in Canada. See Government of Canada. Substance Use and Addictions Program. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2017. Available: www.canada.ca/en/services/health/campaigns/canadian-drugs-substances-strategy/funding/substance-abuse-addictions-program.html (accessed 2017 Jul 27). vi The Federal Tobacco Control Strategy was initiated in 2001 for 10 years and renewed in 2012 for another five years. vii Several federal acts contain review provisions. Some examples include the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC b1996, c 19, s 9 (five-year review); the Preclearance Act, SC 1999, c 20, s 39 (five-year review); the National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5, s 273.601(1) (seven-year review); the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, SC 2005, c 46, s 54 (five-year review); and the Red Tape Reduction Act, SC 2015, c 12 (five-year review). viii The 2012 amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were adopted from Bill S-10, which died on order papers in March 2011. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs reviewed Bill S-10 and recommended that the review period should be extended from two to five years as two years is not sufficient to allow for a comprehensive review. See Debates of the Senate, 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, No 147:66 (2010 Nov 17) at 1550; see also Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Eleventh Report: Bill S-10, An Act to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to Make Related and Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, with Amendments (2010 Nov 4). 1 Canadian Medical Association. Health risks and harms associated with the use of marijuana. CMA submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: The Association; 27 May 2014. Available: www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/Brief-Marijuana-Health_Committee_May27-2014-FINAL.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 2 Canadian Medical Association. A public health perspective on cannabis and other illegal drugs. CMA submission to the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. Ottawa: The Association; 11 Mar 2002. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/BriefPDF/BR2002-08.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 3 Canadian Medical Association. Bill C-2 An Act to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Respect for Communities Act). CMA submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Ottawa: The Association; 28 Oct 2014. Available: www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/submissions/CMA_Brief_C-2_Respect%C3%A9-for_Communities_Act-English.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 4 Harm Reduction International. What is harm reduction? A position statement from Harm Reduction International. London, UK: Harm Reduction International; 2017. Available: www.hri.global/what-is-harm-reduction (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 5 Riley D, O'Hare P. Harm reduction: history, definition and practice. In: Inciardi JA, Harrison LD, editors. Harm reduction: national and international perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2000. 6 Fischer B, Russel C, Sabioni P, et al. Lower-risk cannabis use guidelines: a comprehensive update of evidence and recommendations. Am J Public Health 2017;107(8):e1-e12. 7 Canadian Medical Association. Legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana. CMA submission to the Government of Canada - Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation. Ottawa: The Association; 2016 Aug 29. Available: www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/submissions/2016-aug-29-cma-submission-legalization-and-regulation-of-marijuana-e.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 8 Government of Canada. Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey (CTADS): 2015 summary. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2017. Available: www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-tobacco-alcohol-drugs-survey/2015-summary.html (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 9 Health Canada. Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS): summary of results for 2012. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2014. Available: www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-concerns/drug-prevention-treatment/drug-alcohol-use-statistics/canadian-alcohol-drug-use-monitoring-survey-summary-results-2012.html (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 10 World Health Organization. The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/251056/1/9789241510240-eng.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 11 Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation. A framework for the legalization and regulation of cannabis in Canada: final report. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2016. 12 Government of Canada. Legislative background: an Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts (Bill C-45). Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2017. 13 An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, Bill C-45, First Reading 2017 Apr 13. 14 Crean RD, Crane NA, Mason BJ. An evidence based review of acute and long-term effects of cannabis use on executive cognitive functions. J Addict Med 2011;5(1):1-8. 15 Meier MH, Caspi A, Ambler A, et al. Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109(40):E2657-64 16 Crépault JF, Rehm J, Fischer B. The cannabis policy framework by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: a proposal for a public health approach to cannabis policy in Canada. Int J Drug Policy 2016;34:1-4. 17 Pope HG Jr, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, et al. Early-onset cannabis use and cognitive deficits: What is the nature of the association? Drug Alcohol Depend 2003;69(3):303-310. 18 Gruber SA, Sagar KA, Dahlgren MK, et al. Age of onset of marijuana use and executive function. Psychol Addict Behav 2011;26(3):496-506. 19 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: the current state of evidence and recommendations for research. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2017. 20 Canadian Cancer Society. 2017 federal pre-budget submission. Canadian Cancer Society submission to the Standing Committee on Finance. 2014 Aug. Available: www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/FINA/Brief/BR8398102/br-external/CanadianCancerSociety-e.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 21 Health Canada. Backgrounder: legalizing and strictly regulating cannabis: the facts. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2017. Available: www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2017/04/backgrounder_legalizingandstrictlyregulatingcannabisthefacts.html (accessed 2017 Jul 27) 22 Hall W, Degenhardt L. Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. Lancet 2009;374(9698):1383-91. 23 Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health, 2012. The Daily. 2013 Sep 18. Statistics Canada cat. No. 11-001-X. Available: www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130918/dq130918a-eng.htm (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 24 Miech RA, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg, JE. Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2010. Vol 1: Secondary students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; 2011. 25 Spithoff S, Kahan M. Cannabis and Canadian youth: evidence, not ideology. Can Fam Physician 2014;60(9):785-7. 26 Health Canada. Strong foundation, renewed focus: an overview of Canada's Federal Tobacco Control Strategy 2012-2017. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2012. Available: www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/health-canada/migration/healthy-canadians/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/tobacco-strategy-2012-2017-strategie-tabagisme/alt/tobacco-strategy-2012-2017-strategie-tabagisme-eng.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 27 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, s 9.
Documents
Less detail

The built environment and health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11063
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2013-12-07
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2013-12-07
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Built Environment is part of the overall ecosystem of our earth. It encompasses all the buildings, spaces and products that are created, or at least significantly modified by people. It includes our homes, schools and workplaces, parks, business areas and roads. It extends overhead in the form of electric transmission lines, underground in the form of waste disposal sites and subway trains and across the country in the form of highways (Health Canada, 1997)." The built environment affects every one of us every day, and mounting evidence suggests that it can play a significant role in our state of health and well-being. This policy statement provides the perspective of the Canadian Medical Association on how the built environment can influence health, and what all sectors in society might do to ensure that community design and development takes the health of residents into consideration. Background In the 19th century, the industrial revolution attracted hordes of people into cities. Congestion, squalid living conditions, and lack of clean water, clean air, and proper sewage systems led to outbreaks of diseases such as cholera and tuberculosis. These events, coupled with the development of the germ theory, served as a catalyst for public and professional awareness of how the built environment has direct health impacts; clean water, fresh air, uncongested living conditions, and proper housing were all recognized as constituents of good health. During the past three decades, the 'Healthy Cities' movement has brought a renewed interest to the health implications of the built environment by focusing on disease prevention through community design. Over the years this idea has proliferated, and a body of literature has grown revealing the large scope of health risk factors that may be influenced by the built environment. The literature indicates that the following connections between the built environment and public health are possible: o Decreased physical activity o Increased prevalence of obesity o Increased prevalence of asthma and other respiratory diseases o Injuries and unintended fatalities o Heat exposure. (Frank , Kavage S, & Devlin A, 2012) (Franks, Kavage & Devlin, 2012; Health Canada 2013) There is also mounting evidence that these factors may be compounded for vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and those living in poverty. Smart Growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that became popular almost two decades ago. Though different organizations may differ slightly in their view of what smart growth means, its general aims are to build compact accessible cities that avoid urban sprawl and mitigate auto-dependence. The 'Smart Growth' movement contains tenets that research supports in creating healthy built environments such as mixed land uses, providing transportation alternatives like walking and bicycle infrastructure and public transit, and creating walkable neighbourhoods. (Smart Growth BC, 2012)(See definitions) What the Research Is Telling Us Physical Activity Canada's physical activity guidelines recommend that children from 5 to 11 should be active for at least 60 minutes a day; those 18 and over should be active for at least 150 minutes per week. (Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology, 2011). Participation in regular physical activity bestows substantial health benefits; it can lengthen and improve quality of life and reduce the risk for many physical and mental health conditions. Physical activity can improve overall fitness, lower risk for heart disease, stroke, and high blood pressure, lower risk for non-insulin dependent diabetes and the risk of overweight. (Dannenberg, Frumkin, & Jackson, 2011) Physical activity includes more than exercise and leisure time activity, it also includes active transportation such as walking to school, work or errands as part of daily living. One of the most important determinants of physical activity is a person's neighbourhood. (Jackson & Kochtotzky) Research shows that urban sprawl, access to parks and recreation/fitness facilities, and neighbourhood walkability all may have an impact on physical activity levels (Cutts, Darby, Boone, & Brewis, 2009; Ewing, Schmid, Killingsworth, Zlot, & Raudenbush, 2003). Individuals living in walkable neighbourhood with a mix of land uses and interconnected street networks were found to be 2-4 times more likely to achieve 30 minutes moderate physical activity a day. Urban design characteristics associated with higher physical activity rates include pedestrian-oriented street and site design, parks, trails, playgrounds and other recreational facilities within walking distance and sidewalks. (Frank , Kavage S, & Devlin A, 2012) A barrier to physical activity can be the perception of the lack of a safe place to be active. Safety concerns keep 1 in 5 Canadians from walking or bicycling. Urban design that encourages walking and cycling can improve perceived neighbourhood safety. (Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, 2011) There are unique barriers to active modes of transportation in rural communities. Rural environments often lack pedestrian facilities and bike lanes; stores, schools, jobs, and services are sometimes located far apart from homes; and parks and recreation facilities are rare. Understanding these barriers is the first step towards finding opportunities to remove them. (Active Living Research and the Public Health Institute, 2013) CMA' policy on Active Transportation recommends that all sectors (government, business and the public) work together, as a matter of priority, to create a culture in their communities that supports and encourages active transportation and physical activity. Increased prevalence of obesity Obesity has almost doubled in the past 3 decades; in 1978 the measured obesity rate was 13.8% and in 2008 the measured obesity rate was 25.4% (PHAC/CIHI, 2011). Obesity is associated with high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease, which are among the leading causes of disability and death (Statistics Canada, 2008). Mental health conditions, type II diabetes, several types of cancer, among many other diseases, are also linked to obesity (Guh, Zhang, Bansback, Amarsi, Birmingham, & Anis, 2009). The combined cost of obesity and these related conditions was estimated to be $4.3 billion dollars in 2005 (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2012). There are many factors involved in this increase, but a causal indicator is the decline in physical activity among Canadians: In 2005, 47% of Canadians were reported as being 'inactive' (Human Resource and Skills Development Canada, 2006). Urban design that encourages sedentary living habits such as work, home, school and shopping separated by distances that discourage walking, parking lots built as close as possible to final destinations not only discourage walking but encourage automobile usage. (Jackson, Kochtitzky, CDC) Less walkable, auto dependent built environments have been correlated with higher body weights and obesity. (Frank , Kavage S, & Devlin A, 2012) Furthermore, research indicates that the food environment that we live in, and the amount of healthy food choices we have access to, can affect the chance of becoming obese as well. For example, neighbourhoods with a high density of fast food restaurants or neighbourhoods with poor access to grocery stores (food deserts) have both been correlated with obesity (Larsen & Gilliland, 2008; Cummins & Macintyre, 2006; Frank L. D., 2009). Increased prevalence of asthma and other respiratory diseases In August 2008, the CMA released a report estimating that the effects of air pollution would result in 11,000 hospital admissions and 21,000 deaths Canada wide, totaling a financial cost of close to $8.1 billion dollar (Canadian Medical Association, 2008). Carbon monoxide, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, ozone, and lead, among other toxins, are emitted into the air every day from industrial processes and car exhaust. These air-borne chemicals are associated with heart disease, cancer, acute respiratory illness, and the aggravation of other respiratory illnesses such as asthma (Frank L. D., 2009). While the built environment does not directly produce these chemicals, it has a role to play in where those chemicals are emitted, where they are concentrated, and, in the case of vehicles, how much of them are produced. Urban sprawl has been tied to longer commute times and higher total vehicle miles traveled per person. Neighbourhood design and walkability have been identified as factors that can affect number of vehicle trips taken and transportation mode choice, and increased mixed land use has been identified as a factor that could further decrease emission rates (Newman & Kenworthy, 1989; Frank, Sallis, Conway, Chapman, Saelens, & Bachman, 2006). Injuries and unintentional fatalities Transport-related injuries accounted for a total of $3.7 billion dollars in healthcare costs in Canada in 2009 (SmartRisk, 2009). The majority of this financial burden was related to motor vehicle, pedestrian, and cycling accidents. Death and injuries from these types of incidents typically happen at a younger age which both increases the years of life lost due to death or disability and the financial burden of continuing care (SmartRisk, 2009). The built environment perhaps has the most identifiable and direct correlation to this category of impacts. Designs of auto-oriented environments that promote high traffic volume, high traffic speed, and low accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists lead to increased incidence of injuries and fatalities (Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, 2002). Increased prevalence of illness and death related to heat exposure The 'urban heat island effect' is a phenomenon correlated with urban environments that are primarily asphalt and concrete and lack vegetation and green space. Such environments have been estimated to have anywhere from 1oC to 12oC higher surface level temperatures in comparison to rural areas (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). This can be especially dangerous for elderly individuals in the summertime and studies have demonstrated increased mortality amongst these populations during hot summers (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009). This is not only an issue of building materials and the balance of green space but has to do with isolation as well: If elderly residents have poor access to public transportation they may not be able to reach air-conditioned facilities. Noise Exposure Noise - be it from transport, industry, neighbours, or construction - is a prominent feature of the urban environment. Prolonged exposure to environmental noise has been directly linked to physical and psychosocial health outcomes, including hypertension, high blood pressure and heart disease, hearing impairment, stress levels, and sleep. There is some evidence linking noise to reduced ability to concentrate and more aggressive behavior. (Stansfeld SA, 2003) In general, denser neighbourhoods have higher levels of ambient noise through the concentration of more people, traffic, and activities. However, as with air pollution, noise exposure is extremely site-specific and not necessarily exclusive to walkable or auto-oriented neighbourhoods. (Frank , Kavage S, & Devlin A, 2012) Canadian noise mapping data would assist researchers in assessing how environmental noise affects health and assist communities to proactively manage noise pollution. Vulnerable populations The research shows that certain built environment characteristics may affect specific populations such as children, the elderly, low-income populations. Children: Overweight and obesity is an issue for Canadians nationwide, but particularly so for children. Between 1978 to 2004 there was a 70% increase in overweight and obese children aged 12-17 (Statistics Canada, 2006). Obesity in children can lead to health issues such as hypertension, glucose intolerance, and orthopedic complications (Statistics Canada, 2006). Furthermore obesity in childhood has a high likelihood of carrying over into adulthood and may result in further health problems such as diabetes and heart disease (Statistics Canada, 2006). With this in mind, environments that promote physical activity are especially important for this segment of the population. Living in mixed use communities with walkable destinations, parks and recreational facilities is related to greater physical activity. (Dannenburg, Frumkin & Jackson, 2011) Elderly: The elderly population is generally less physically robust and more prone to chronic illnesses, which make them especially vulnerable to air pollution and heat exposure. Physical activity is an important aspect of daily life for this age group as it has been shown to reduce the negative health impacts of aging (Vogel, Brechat, Lepetre, Kaltenbach, Berthel, & Lonsdorfer, 2009). Being physically active however, requires accessible and safe streets that cater to the needs of individuals with mobility issues. Special consideration is required when constructing the built environment to ensure the needs of this growing population. CMA's policy on Health and Health Care Principles for an Aging Population recommends that communities take the needs and potential limitations of older Canadians into account when designing buildings, walkways, transportation systems or other aspects of the built environment. Low Income Populations: Low income populations are at higher risk for chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure and diabetes, and have a lower overall survivability for major heart attacks (Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control. , 2002; Statistics Canada, 1996-97). They are also more likely to smoke, be overweight or obese, and are less likely to be physically active (Creatore, Gozdyra, Booth, & Glazier, 2007). Many of these factors may be due to limited access to stable housing, housing location (normally close to highways or industrial zones with high pollution exposure), neighbourhood safety, and lack of access to or affordability of healthy food options. Recommendations Planning and public health combined efforts in the 19th century to improve living conditions. Today there is a need for health care practitioners, particularly those in the public health field, and community planners to work together, to share their expertise and efforts, to improve the health and well-being of Canadians. By designing communities that encourage and support healthy living - physical activity, healthy weights, access to healthy foods - we can address some of the risk factors for many chronic diseases and create supportive, active communities. Health Care Associations can: o Advocate for health supportive environments by increasing the public and policy makers' understanding of the impact of the built environment on health. o Advocate for the contribution that public health professionals can make to urban planning and development to ensure that population health impacts are recognized and mitigated. o Provide community planners with strong public health arguments and health data to support healthy communities. Health Care Professionals can: o Incorporate an awareness of a patient's built environment (such as housing, access to transportation and healthy foods) into treatment programs and health counseling. o Encourage your community to adopt policies and design principles that build healthy supportive environments. Federal, Provincial and Local Governments can: o Integrate concepts of population health into urban planning. o Promote multidisciplinary planning teams, including professionals in medicine, public health and community design to ensure that all stakeholders take health impacts into account. o Incorporate health impact assessments into community planning and development initiatives in the public sector. o Encourage the private sector to provide infrastructure and amenities in developments that promote healthy living. The Public can: o Learn more about the connection between the built environment and health and advocate for positive change. o Become involved in public consultations regarding local community planning and development. Further Research o Develop research projects at the Federal level on the impact of the built environment on health to inform and help coordinate programs and initiatives at the provincial and local levels. o Focus on creating a standardized set of health indicators that can be uniformly applied to assess the status of a community's built environment. o Research into the effectiveness of policy options on various communities (urban, suburban, rural). Conclusion It is important that we acknowledge how our surroundings can affect our lives and health, and work together to create positive change. The CMA is willing to work with other people and organizations to ensure that the influence of the built environment on health receives the attention that it warrants with the ultimate goal of building or re-inventing healthy communities for all Canadians. Definitions In order of appearance Inactive: "Respondents are classified as active, moderately active or inactive based on an index of average daily physical activity over the past 3 months. For each leisure time physical activity engaged in by the respondent, an average daily energy expenditure is calculated by multiplying the number of times the activity was performed by the average duration of the activity by the energy cost (kilocalories per kilogram of body weight per hour) of the activity. The index is calculated as the sum of the average daily energy expenditures of all activities. Respondents are classified as follows: 3.0 kcal/kg/day or more = physically active; 1.5 to 2.9 kcal/kg/day = moderately active; less than 1.5 kcal/kg/day = inactive". (Human Resource and Skills Development Canada, 2006). Urban Sprawl: "A particular type of suburban development characterized by very low-density settlements, both residential and non-residential; dominance of movement by use of private automobiles, unlimited outward expansion of new subdivisions and leap-frog developments of these subdivisions; and segregation of land uses by activity." (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999) Walkability: Walkability refers to the ease with which pedestrians can move within and between environments. The literature gives varied definitions but the main variable to consider are the following: mixed land use (defined below), proximity to destinations (accessibility and convenience), pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, urban furniture etc...), street connectivity (short block lengths, availability of multiple alternate routes etc...), aesthetics (landscape, vegetation, architecture), presences of public spaces (parks, plazas, etc...), presence of traffic calming measures (lower speed limits, street narrowing, speed bumps etc...), and access to transit. (Shay, Spoon, & Khattak, 2003) Transportation Mode Choice: Transportation mode choice refers to an individuals decision regarding how to get from one destination to another. The theory behind mode choice is complex and involves characteristics of the built environment, socio-demographic and socioeconomic variables, benefit-cost analysis, and personal preference. (Cervero, Built Environments and Mode Choice: Toward a Normative Framework, 2002) Mixed Land Use: "Land use mix is the composition of uses within a given geographic area." (Cervero, Land Use Mixing and Suburban Mobility, 1998) The uses referred to can be restaurants, offices, studios, shops, or any variety of business, institution, natural space, or recreation site. In the literature there are various indices and equations used to measure the degree of 'mixed land use' in an area. Urban Heat Island Effect: The urban heat island effect occurs when the sun significantly heats urban surfaces (concrete, asphalt, etc...) to significantly higher temperatures than the surroundings air (can be upwards of 27-50oC). Comparatively shaded or more moist regions (such as rural areas with lots of vegetation) stay much closer to the surrounding air temperature. This heat imbalance between urban surfaces and surrounding air causes heat to transfer from those surfaces to the air, elevated the temperature above what it normally would be. This happens both at a surface and an atmospheric level. (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012) Smart Growth: Smart Growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that became popular almost two decades ago. Though different organization's may differ slightly in their view of what smart growth means, it's general aims are to build compact accessible cities that avoid urban sprawl and mitigate auto-dependence. Some of the principles of this movement are as follows: 1). Incorporate mixed land uses into community designs 2). Build compact, accessible neighbourhoods close to jobs and amenities 3). Provide alternative modes of public transportation 4). Diversify housing to meet the needs of people from all socioeconomic classes 5). Maintain and protect natural open spaces 6). Build within existing communities instead of developing beyond community boundaries 7). Preserve agricultural land 8). Use new, sustainable technology in infrastructure and buildings 9). Develop community identity 10). Encourage active citizens to remain engaged in their communities (Smart Growth BC, 2012) Bibliography Human Resource and Skills Development Canada. (2006). Retrieved July 15, 2012, from Indicators of Well-Being in Canada: Physical Activity: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=8 Active Living Research and the Public Health Institute. (2013). Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Promoting Active Transportation in Rural Areas.. Retrieved September 2013, from Active Living Research : http://activelivingresearch.org/where-rubber-meets-road-promoting-active-transportation-rural-areas Canadian Medical Association. (2008). No Breathing Room: National Illness Cost of Air Pollution. Ottawa: CMA. Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology. (2011). Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines. Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009, May 31). Extreme Heat: A Prevention Guide to Promote Your Personal Health and Safety. Retrieved July 15, 2012, from CDC: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/heat_guide.asp Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control. . (2002). Diabetes in Canada, 2nd Edition. Ottawa: Health Canada. Cervero, R. (1998). Land Use Mixing and Suburban Mobility. Transportation Quarterly, 42(3). Cervero, R. (2002). Built Environments and Mode Choice: Toward a Normative Framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment , 7(4), 265-284. Creatore, M., Gozdyra, P., Booth, G., & Glazier, R. (2007). Chapter 1: Setting the Context. In M. Creatore, P. Gozdyra, G. Booth, R. Glazier, & M. Tynan, Neighbourhood Environments and Resources for Healthy Living - A Focus on Diabetes in Toronto: ICES Atlas. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Cummins, S., & Macintyre, S. (2006). Food Environments and Obesity - Neighbourhood or Nation. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(1), 100-104. Cutts, B., Darby, K., Boone, C., & Brewis, A. (2009). City Structure, Obesity, and Environmental Justice: An Integrated Analysis of Physical and Social Barriers to Walkable Streets and Park Access. Social Science and Medicine, 69(9), 1314-1322. Dennenberg, A. L., Howard, F., & J, J. R. (Eds.). (2011). Making Healthy Places Designing and Building for Health, Well-being and Sustainability . Washington: Island Press. Department of Health and Human Resources. (2004, August 20). National Institute of Health. Retrieved July 30, 2012, from Obesity and the Built Environment: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/rfa-es-04-003.html Ewing, R., Schmid, T., Killingsworth, R., Zlot, A., & Raudenbush, S. (2003). Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity. The Science of Health Promotion, 18(1), 47-57. Frank , L., Kavage S, & Devlin A. (2012). Health and the Built Environment: A Review. World Medical Association. Frank, L. D. (2009, January). Final Report on Health Assessment Tool Development for Peel Region by Larry Frank. Retrieved July 15, 2012, from Peel Region: http://www.peelregion.ca/health/urban/pdf/Peel-Lit-Review-Final-11072008-submitted.pdf Frank, L., Sallis, J., Conway, T., Chapman, J., Saelens, B., & Bachman, W. (2006). Many Pathways from Land Use to Health: Associations Between Neighborhood Walkability and Active Tranportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 75-87. Guh, D., Zhang, W., Bansback, N., Amarsi, Z., Birmingham, C., & Anis, A. (2009). The Incidence of Co-morbidities Related to Obesity and Overweight: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Public Health, 9(88), 1-20. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. (2011). Position Statements: Community Design,Physical Activity, Heart Disease and Stroke. Retrieved June 2012, from Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada: http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c.iklQLcMWJtE/b.3820627/ Jackson, R. J., & Kochtotzky, C. (n.d.). Creating a Healthy Enviroment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health. Retrieved April 2012, from Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse Monograph Series: http://www.sprawlwatch.org/health.pdf Larsen, K., & Gilliland, J. (2008). Mapping the Evolution of 'Food Deserts" in a Canadian City: Supermarket Accessibility in London, Ontario, 1961-2005. International Journal of Health Geographics, 7(16), 1-16. Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1989). Gasoline Consumption and Cities. Journal of the American Planning Association , 55(1), 24-37. PHAC/CIHI. (2011). Obesity in Canada. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada. Public Health Agency of Canada. (2012, July 18). Obestiy in Canada: Snapshot. Retrieved July 29, 2012, from Public Health Agency of Canada: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/2009/oc/index-eng.php Shay, E., Spoon, S., & Khattak, A. (2003). Walkable Environments and Walking Activity. Carolina Transportation Program, Department of City and Regional Planning. North Carolina: Carolina Transportation Program. Smart Growth BC. (2012). 10 Smart Growth Principles. Retrieved 30 July, 2012, from Smart Growth BC: http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/Default.aspx?tabid=133 SmartRisk. (2009). The Economic Burden of Injury in Canada. Toronto: SmartRisk. Stansfeld SA, M. M. (2003). Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health. . British Medical Bulletin,, 68, 243-257. Statistics Canada. (1996-97, May 29). National Population Health Survey, Cycle 2. Canada: The Daily. Statistics Canada. (2006, June 28). Childhood Obesity: A Troubling Situation. Retrieved July 15, 2012, from StatsCan: http://www41.statcan.ca/2006/2966/ceb2966_004-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2008). Mortality, Summary List of Causes. Health Statistics Division . Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. (2002). Mean Streets 2002. Washington, DC: STPP. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1999). The State of the cities 1999: Third Annual Report. Washington, DC: USHUD. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, July 13). Heat Island Effect. Retrieved July 29, 2012, from United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/hiri/ United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, June 21). Heat Island Effect: Basic Information. Retrieved July 15, 2012, from United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/hiri/resources/pdf/BasicsCompendium.pdf Vogel, T., Brechat, P., Lepetre, P., Kaltenbach, G., Berthel, M., & Lonsdorfer, J. (2009). Health Benefits of Physical Activity in Older Patients: A Review. The International Journal of Clinical Practice, 63(2), 303-320.
Documents
Less detail

77 records – page 1 of 8.