Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


32 records – page 1 of 4.

Active Transportation

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9483
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2009-05-31
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2009-05-31
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The major diseases affecting the quality and quantity of life of Canadians, which include obesity, diabetes, coronary artery disease, depression and cancer, are all linked to physical inactivity. In Canada, 69% of women and 68% of men in Canada are considered physically inactive.(1) The cost of this inactivity and obesity was estimated at $4.3 billion in 2001.(2) A 10% increase in physical activity could potentially reduce direct health care expenditures by $150 million a year. This does not include indirect costs such as lost productivity due to illness, premature death or a range of other factors, including mental illness and poor quality of life.(3) Thus far, efforts to increase physical activity by changing the behaviour of individuals have had limited success. One reason is that many people have difficulty sustaining behaviours that involve additional time commitments. That is one reason for the increasing emphasis being placed on active transportation, which is any human-powered form of transportation, such as walking and cycling. Walking and cycling can be efficient alternatives to automobile travel. Cycling is usually the fastest mode of travel door to door for distances under five km, and for up to 10 km in city cores. Walking is simpler and nearly as fast for distances up to two km. When travel times are similar for active and motorized transportation, physical activity is gained with no net time lost, and at much lower cost. The cost of operating a motor vehicle is typically $10,000 per year,(4) while operating costs for a bicycle are much lower. Communities that have sidewalks, enjoyable scenery, street lights and nearby stores have improved levels of active transportation and physical activity. However, in recent decades communities have often been designed around the automobile. Street design, parking space, sidewalks and distance to retail destinations have all been planned assuming motorized transportation, and this often makes it difficult to move around communities by walking or cycling. Although individual decision-making remains important in any strategy for increasing active transportation, there is an essential role for communities and governments to play. Major improvements in the health of Canadians in the past 200 years have been due to improved sanitation, access to clean water and injury prevention. The role of individual decision-making in effecting these changes is dwarfed by the impact of the public health measures and infrastructure involved. Just as potable tap water is a health issue, so are decisions about land use, transportation policy and infrastructure. Community design is a major determinant of whether people use active transportation, whether they are physically active and whether they are obese. Canadians need communities that make it easy to be physically active in their daily living. Communities can create an environment in which the physically active choice is the easy choice. They can do this via sidewalks, trails, bicycle lanes and bicycle paths, and by providing pedestrian-friendly intersections, parks and green spaces, and safe bicycle parking spaces. They can also arrange zoning so that retail destinations are within walking or cycling distance of residential areas. This process also includes dedicating a sufficient portion of their street maintenance budget (including snow clearing) to maintaining active transportation routes as well as routes for motorized vehicles. It may include redesigning intersections, giving up vehicle lanes or parking spaces, or increasing the price of parking. Additional benefits to designing communities for pedestrians and cyclists. * a stronger sense of community with greater civic involvement by citizens * increased property values and retail activity * less noise pollution * lower crime rates * less smog and other air pollution * less greenhouse gas production * decreased risk of injury to pedestrians and cyclists * decreased costs of roadway and parking construction. A role for everyone Other sectors can support communities in making active transportation choices easy choices: * Businesses can create a work environment friendly to active transportation, including a corporate culture friendly to physical activity. They can incorporate active transportation planning into building design and create an environment friendly to physical activity. These steps could include making bicycle parking, showers and lockers available, and providing stairs that are pleasant and easier to access than elevators. They can also incorporate a culture of physical activity in decisions about where and how to hold meetings, and what people are allowed to wear to work. * School boards can develop policies to promote active transportation to and from school. These include building and maintaining secure bicycle parking, ensuring safe walking routes within communities, and assisting parents in walking their children to school. * Citizens can use active transportation themselves and treat with respect those who are already making active transportation choices. They can also lobby governments to make their community safer and easier places for cycling and walking. * Physicians can encourage patients to use active transportation as a way to boost their physical activity levels and improving their health. They can also lead by example and use active transportation themselves. Recommendations The CMA 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. The CMA urges governments to: * Commit to long-term plans for active transportation networks that are in keeping with these goals and that include specific benchmarks to measure progress. * Require that active transportation be part of all infrastructure renewal projects, with investment in active transportation vs. motorized transportation in proportion to targeted active transportation use. (Some cities have achieved active transportation rates of up to 15%.) * Develop an awareness campaign to help Canadians to recognize the value of active transportation in their communities. * Require public health impact assessments for all land-use and transportation decisions, including the impact on the chemical environment and on physical activity. * Assess the impact that changes in the "built" environment can have on public health, and which interventions are most safe and effective. 1 Tremblay MS, Katzmarzyk PT, Willms JD. Temporal trends in overweight and obesity in Canada, 1981-1996. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002;26(4):538-43. 2 Katzmarzyk PT, Janssen I. The economic costs associated with physical inactivity and obesity in Canada: an update. Can J App Phys 2004;29(1):104. 3 Katzmarzyk PT, Gledhill N, Shephard RJ. The economic burden of physical inactivity in Canada. CMAJ 2000;163(11): 1435-40. 4 Canadian Automobile Association. Driving Costs: 2005 Edition. Available: www.carpool.ca/pdf/CAA-driving-costs-05.pdf (accessed 2007 Feb. 2).
Documents
Less detail

Health equity and the social determinants of health: A role for the medical profession

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10672
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2012-12-08
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2012-12-08
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Health equity is created when individuals have the opportunity to achieve their full health potential; equity is undermined when preventable and avoidable systematic conditions constrain life choices.1 These conditions are known as the social determinants of health. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines the social determinants of health as the circumstances in which people are born, develop, live and age.2 In 2002, researchers and policy experts at a York University conference identified the following list: income and income distribution; early life; education; housing; food security; employment and working conditions; unemployment and job security; social safety net; social inclusion/exclusion; and health services. 3 Research suggests that 15% of population health is determined by biology and genetics, 10% by physical environments, 25% by the actions of the health care system, with 50% being determined by our social and economic environment.4 Any actions to improve health and tackle health inequity must address the social determinants and their impact on daily life.5 THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH STATUS Social status is one of the strongest predictors of health at the population level. There is a social gradient of health such that those with higher social status experience greater health than those with lower social status. The social gradient is evident not only when comparing the most disadvantaged to the most advantaged; within each strata, even among those holding stable middle-class jobs, those at the lowest end fare less well than those at the higher end. The Whitehall study of civil servants in the United Kingdom found that lower ranking staff have a greater disease burden and shorter life expectancy than higher-ranking staff.6 Differences in medical care did not account for the differences in mortality.7 This gradient has been demonstrated for just about any health condition.8 Hundreds of research papers have confirmed that people in the lowest socio-economic groups carry the greatest burden of illness.9 In 2001, people in the neighbourhoods with the highest 20% income lived about three years longer than those in the poorest 20% neighbourhoods (four years for men; two years for women).10 Dietary deficiencies, common in food insecure households, can lead to an increased chance of chronic disease and greater difficulty in disease management. It is estimated that about 1.1 million households in Canada experience food insecurity, with the risk increasing in single-parent households and in families on social assistance.11 Studies suggest that adverse socio-economic conditions in childhood can be a greater predictor of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in adults than later life circumstances and behavioural choices.12 Effective early childhood development offers the best opportunity to reduce the social gradient and improve the social determinants of health,13 and offers the greatest return on investment.14 Low income contributes not only to material deprivation but social isolation as well. Without financial resources, it is more difficult for individuals to participate in cultural, educational and recreational activities or to benefit from tax incentives. Suicide rates in the lowest income neighbourhoods are almost twice as high as in the wealthiest neighbourhoods.15 This social isolation and its effects are most striking in Canada's homeless population. Being homeless is correlated with higher rates of physical and mental illness. In Canada, premature death is eight to 10 times higher among the homeless.16 The gradient in other social determinants can have an adverse impact as well. A study conducted in the Netherlands estimated that average morbidity and mortality in the overall population could be reduced 25-50% if men with lower levels of education had the same mortality and morbidity levels as those men with a university education.17 Employment status also follows this gradient, such that having a job is better than being unemployed. 18 Unemployment is correlated with increased blood pressure, self-reported ill health, drug abuse, and reductions in normal activity due to illness or injury.19 Unemployment is associated with increases in domestic violence, family breakups and crime. Finally, job security is relevant.20 Mortality rates are higher among temporary rather than permanent workers.21 Canada's Aboriginal people face the greatest health consequences as a result of the social determinants of health. Poverty, inadequate or substandard housing, unemployment, lack of access to health services, and low levels of education characterize a disproportionately large number of Aboriginal peoples.22 The crude mortality rate for First Nations is higher and life expectancy lower than the Canadian average.23 Aboriginal peoples experience higher rates of chronic disease, addictions, mental illness and childhood abuse.24 Aboriginal peoples have higher rates of suicide, with suicide being the leading cause of potential years of life lost in both the First Nations and Inuit populations.25 THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND CANADA'S HEALTH SYSTEM These differences in health outcomes have an impact on the health care system. Most major diseases including heart disease and mental illness follow a social gradient with those in lowest socio-economic groups having the greatest burden of illness.26 Those within the lowest socio-economic status are 1.4 times more likely to have a chronic disease, and 1.9 times more likely to be hospitalized for care of that disease.27 Chronic diseases such as diabetes account for 67% of direct health care costs and 60% indirect costs.28 Research has shown that Canadians with low incomes are higher users of general practitioner, mental health, and hospital services.29 People in the lowest income group were almost twice as likely as those in the highest income group to visit the emergency department for treatment. 30 Part of this may be caused by differences in access to care. Low-income Canadians are more likely to report that they have not received needed health care in the past 12 months.31 Those in the lowest income groups are 50% less likely than those in the highest income group to see a specialist or get care in the evenings or on weekends, and 40% more likely to wait more than five days for a doctor's appointment.32 Barriers to health care access are not the only issue. Research in the U.K.33 and U.S.34 has found that compliance with medical treatment tends to be lower in disadvantaged groups, leading to pain, missed appointments, increased use of family practice services and increased emergency department visits, and corresponding increases in cost. In the U.S., non-adherence has been attributed to 100,000 deaths annually.35 Researchers have reported that those in the lowest income groups are three times less likely to fill prescriptions, and 60% less able to get needed tests because of cost.36 These differences have financial costs. In Manitoba for example, research conducted in 1994 showed that those in the lowest income decile used services totaling $216 million (12.2%). In the same year, those in the highest income decile consumed $97 million (5.5%) of expenditures. If expenditures for the bottom half of the population by income had been the same as the median, Manitoba would have saved $319 million or 23.1% of their health care budget. 37 According to a 2011 report, low-income residents in Saskatoon consume an additional $179 million in health care costs than middle income earners.38 To reduce the burden of illness and therefore system costs, Canada needs to improve the underlying social and economic determinants of health of Canadians. However, until these changes have time to improve the health status of the population, there will still be a large burden of illness correlated to these underlying deficiencies. As a result, the health system will need to be adequately resourced to address the consequences of the social determinants of health. AREAS FOR ACTION The WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health identified four categories through which actions on social determinants can be taken. These include: * reducing social stratification by reducing inequalities in power, prestige, and income linked to socio-economic position; * decreasing the exposure of individuals and populations to the health-damaging factors they may face; * reducing the vulnerability of people to the health damaging conditions they face; and * intervening through health care to reduce the consequences of ill health caused by the underlying determinants.39 All of these areas offer possibilities for action by the physician community. The following section provides suggestions for action by the medical profession through: CMA and national level initiatives; medical education; leadership and research; and clinical practice. CMA and national level initiatives Despite the strong relationship between the social determinants of health and health, little in the way of effective action has resulted. CMA and its partners can and should, advocate for research and push for informed healthy public policy, including health impact assessments for government policies. Additionally, targeted population health programs aimed at addressing the underlying determinants should be supported. All Canadians need a better understanding of the health trends and the impacts of various social and economic indicators. Information about the differences in specific health indicators, collected over time,40 is essential to the task of describing underlying health trends and the impacts of social and economic interventions. Data within primary care practices could be assembled into (anonymous) community-wide health information databases, to address this need. CMA recommends that: 1. The federal government recognize the relationship of the social determinants of health on the demands of the health care system and that it implement a requirement for all cabinet decision-making to include a Health Impact Assessment. 2. Options be examined for minimizing financial barriers to necessary medical care including pharmaceuticals and medical devices necessary for health. 3. Federal and provincial/territorial governments examine ways to improve the social and economic circumstances of all Canadians. 4. Efforts be made to educate the public about the effect of social determinants on individual and population health. 5. Appropriate data be collected and reported on annually. This data should be locally usable, nationally comparable and based on milestones across the life course. Medical education Medical education is an effective means to provide physicians with the information and tools they require to understand the impact of social determinants on the health of their patients and deal with them accordingly.41 In 2001, Health Canada published a report in which they stated that the primary goal of medical education should be the preparation of graduates who know how to reduce the burden of illness and improve the health of the communities in which they practice.42 Among the report's recommendations was a call for greater integration of the social determinants in medical curricula.43 Although the CanMEDS framework has been a part of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada's accreditation process since 2005, challenges to the integration of these competencies remain.44 The report called for a greater emphasis on providing medical students with firsthand experiences in the community and with distinct populations (service learning),45 which addresses the difficulties in teaching the social aspects of medicine within a traditional classroom or hospital setting.46 Many such programs exist across the country.47 However, these programs are still limited and there is a need to increase the availability of longitudinal programs which allow students to build on the skills they develop throughout medical school. Increasingly residency programs which focus on the social determinants of health are being offered.48 These programs are a means of providing physicians with the proper tools to communicate with patients from diverse backgrounds49 and reduce behaviours that marginalized patients have identified as barriers to health services.50 It also provides residents with physician role models who are active in the community. However, medical residents note a lack of opportunities to participate in advocacy during residency.51 Further, while experiential programs are effective in helping to reduce barriers between physicians and patients from disadvantaged backgrounds, greater recruitment of medical students from these marginalized populations should also be explored and encouraged. Finally, physicians in practice need to be kept up to date on new literature and interventions regarding the social determinants. Innovations which help address health equity in practice should be shared with interested physicians. In particular, there is a need for accredited continuing medical education (CME) and a means to encourage uptake.52 CMA recommends that: 6. Greater integration of information on the social determinants and health inequity be provided in medical school to support the CanMEDS health advocate role 7. All medical schools and residency programs offer service learning programs, to provide students with an opportunity to work with diverse populations in inner city, rural and remote settings, and to improve their skills in managing the impact of the social determinants on their patients. 8. CME on the social determinants of health and the physician role in health equity be offered and incentivized for practising physicians. Leadership and research Within many communities in Canada, there are physicians who are working to address social determinants and health equity within the patient populations they serve. This is done in many cases through collaboration with partners within and outside of the health care system. Providing these local physician leaders with the tools they need to build these partnerships, and influence the policies and programs that affect their communities is a strategy that needs to be explored. Evidence-based research about health equity, the clinical setting and the role of physicians is underdeveloped. Interested physicians may wish to participate in research about practice level innovations, as a means of contributing to the evidence base for 'health equity' interventions or simply to share best practices with interested colleagues. Further, physicians can provide the medical support to encourage the adoption of early childhood development practices for example, which support later adult health. In time, research will contribute to training, continuing medical education and potentially to clinical practice guidelines. Physicians can provide leadership in health impact assessments and equity audits within the health care system as well. Data is essential to identify health equity challenges within a program, to propose and test measures that address the issues underlying the disparities. Formal audits and good measurement are essential to develop evidence-based policy improvements.53 Innovative programs such as those within the Saskatoon Health Region and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto are examples of using these tools to improve access and reduce inequities. CMA recommends that: 9. Physicians who undertake leadership and advocacy roles should be protected from repercussions in the workplace, e.g., the loss of hospital privileges. 10. Physician leaders explore opportunities to strengthen the primary care public health interface within their communities by working with existing agencies and community resources. 11. Physician leaders work with their local health organizations and systems to conduct health equity impact assessments in order to identify challenges and find solutions to improve access and quality of care. 12. Physicians be encouraged to participate in or support research on best practices for the social determinants of health and health equity. Once identified, information sharing should be established in Canada and internationally. Clinical practice In consultation with identified health equity physician champions, a number of clinical interventions have been identified which are being undertaken by physicians across the country. These interventions could be undertaken in many practice settings given the right supports, and could be carried out by various members of the collaborative care team.1 First, a comprehensive social history is essential to understand how to provide care for each patient in the context of their life.54 There are a number of tools that can be used for such a consultation and more are in development.55 However, consolidation of the best ideas into a tool that is suitable for the majority of health care settings is needed. There is some concern that asking these questions is outside of the physician role. The CanMEDS health advocate role clearly sees these types of activities as part of the physician role.56 The 'Four Principles of Family Medicine' defined by the College of Family Physicians of Canada, affirms this role for physicians as well.57 Community knowledge was identified as a strategy for helping patients. Physicians who were aware of community programs and services were able to refer patients if/when social issues arose.58 Many communities and some health providers have developed community resource guides.59 For some physicians, developing a network of community resources was the best way to understand the supports available. As a corollary, physicians noted their work in helping their patients become aware of and apply for the various social programs to which they are entitled. The programs vary by community and province/territory, and include disability, nutritional supports and many others. Most if not all of these programs require physicians to complete a form in order for the individual to qualify. Resources are available for some of these programs,60 but more centralized supports for physicians regardless of practice location or province/territory are needed. Physicians advocate on behalf of their patients by writing letters confirming the medical limitations of various health conditions or the medical harm of certain exposures.61 For example, a letter confirming the role of mold in triggering asthma may lead to improvements in the community housing of an asthmatic. Additionally, letters might help patients get the health care services and referrals that they require. As identified leaders within the community, support from a physician may be a 'game-changer' for patients. Finally, the design of the clinic, such as hours of operation or location, will influence the ability of people to reach care.62 CMA recommends that: 13. Tools be provided for physicians to assess their patients for social and economic causes of ill health and to determine the impact of these factors on treatment design. 14. Local databases of community services and programs (health and social) be developed and provided to physicians. Where possible, targeted guides should be developed for the health sector. 15. Collaborative team-based practice be supported and encouraged. 16. Resources or services be made available to physicians so that they can help their patients identify the provincial/territorial and federal programs for which they may qualify. 17. Physicians be cognizant of equity considerations when considering their practice design and patient resources. 18. All patients be treated equitably and have reasonable access to appropriate care, regardless of the funding model of their physician. CONCLUSION Socio-economic factors play a larger role in creating (or damaging) health than either biological factors or the health care system. Health equity is increasingly recognized as a necessary means by which we will make gains in the health status of all Canadians and retain a sustainable publicly funded health care system. Addressing inequalities in health is a pillar of CMA's Health Care Transformation initiative. Physicians as clinicians, learners, teachers, leaders and as a profession can take steps to address the problems on behalf of their patients. REFERENCES 1 A full review of the consultations is provided in the companion paper The Physician and Health Equity: Opportunities in Practice. 1 Khalema, N. Ernest (2005) Who's Healthy? Who's Not? A Social Justice Perspective on Health Inequities. Available at: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/chps/crosslinks_march05.cfm 2 World Health Organization (2008) Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf 3 Public Health Agency of Canada (N.D.) The Social Determinants of Health: An Overview of the Implications for Policy and the Role of the Health Sector. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/oi-ar/pdf/01_overview_e.pdf 4 Keon, Wilbert J. & Lucie Pépin (2008) Population Health Policy: Issues and Options. Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/392/soci/rep/rep10apr08-e.pdf 5 Friel, Sharon (2009) Health equity in Australia: A policy framework based on action on the social determinants of obesity, alcohol and tobacco. The National Preventative Health Taskforce. Available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/0FBE203C1C547A82CA257529000231BF/$File/commpaper-hlth-equity-friel.pdf 6 Wilkinson, Richard & Michael Marmot eds. (2003) Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts: Second Edition. World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/98438/e81384.pdf 7 Khalema, N. Ernest (2005) Who's Healthy?... 8 Dunn, James R. (2002) The Health Determinants Partnership Making Connections Project: Are Widening Income Inequalities Making Canada Less Healthy? Available at: http://www.opha.on.ca/our_voice/collaborations/makeconnxn/HDP-proj-full.pdf 9 Ibid 10 Wilkins, Russ; Berthelot, Jean-Marie; and Ng E. [2002]. Trends in Mortality by Neighbourhood Income in Urban Canada from 1971 to 1996. Health Reports 13 [Supplement]: pp. 45-71 11 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts. Available at: http://www.thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf 12 Raphael, Dennis (2003) "Addressing The Social Determinants of Health In Canada: Bridging The Gap Between Research Findings and Public Policy." Policy Options. March 2003 pp.35-40. 13 World Health Organization (2008) Closing the gap in a generation... 14 Hay, David I. (2006) Economic Arguments for Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Canadian Policy Research Networks. Available at: http://www.cprn.org/documents/46128_en.pdf 15 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social Determinants of Health... 16 Ibid. 17 Whitehead, Margaret & Goran Dahlgren (2006) Concepts and principles for tackling social inequities in health: Levelling up Part 1. World Health Organization Europe. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/74737/E89383.pdf 18 Wilkinson, Richard & Michael Marmot eds. (2003) "Social Determinants of Health... 19 Ferrie, Jane E. (1999) "Health consequences of job insecurity." In Labour Market Changes and Job Security: A Challenge for Social Welfare and Health Promotion. World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/98411/E66205.pdf 20 Marmot, Michael (2010) Fair Society Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review: Executive Summary. Available at: http://www.marmotreview.org/AssetLibrary/pdfs/Reports/FairSocietyHealthyLivesExecSummary.pdf 21 World Health Organization (2008) Closing the gap in a generation... 22 Aboriginal Healing Foundation, Frequently Asked Questions (Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Directorate, 2009) Available at: http://www.ahf.ca/faq 23Health Council of Canada, "The Health Status Of Canada's First Nations, Métis And Inuit Peoples", 2005, Available at:http://healthcouncilcanada.ca.c9.previewyoursite.com/docs/papers/2005/BkgrdHealthyCdnsENG.pdf 24 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social Determinants of Health... 25Health Council of Canada, (2005)"The Health Status Of Canada's First Nations, Métis And Inuit Peoples... 26 Dunn, James R. (2002) The Health Determinants Partnership... 27 CIHI/CPHI (2012) Disparities in Primary Health Care Experiences Among Canadians with Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/PHC_Experiences_AiB2012_E.pdf 28 Munro, Daniel (2008) "Healthy People, Healthy Performance, Healthy Profits: The Case for Business Action on the Socio-Economic Determinants of Health." The Conference Board of Canada. Available at: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/Libraries/NETWORK_PUBLIC/dec2008_report_healthypeople.sflb 29 Williamson, Deanna L. et.al. (2006) "Low-income Canadians' experiences with health-related services: Implications for health care reform." Health Policy. 76(2006) pp. 106-121. 30 CIHI/CPHI (2012) Disparities in Primary Health Care Experiences Among Canadians... 31 Williamson, Deanna L. et.al. (2006) "Low-income Canadians'... 32 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social Determinants of Health... 33 Neal, Richard D. et.al. (2001) "Missed appointments in general practice: retrospective data analysis from four practices." British Journal of General Practice. 51 pp.830-832. 34 Kennedy, Jae & Christopher Erb (2002) "Prescription Noncompliance due to Cost Among Adults with Disabilities in the United States." American Journal of Public Health. Vol.92 No.7 pp. 1120-1124. 35 Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten & M. Robin DiMatteo. Chapter 8: Assessing and Promoting Medication Adherence. pp. 81-90 in King, Talmadge E, Jr. & Margaret B. Wheeler ed. (2007) Medical Management of Vulnerable and Underserved Patients... 36 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social Determinants of Health... 37 Dunn, James R. (2002) The Health Determinants Partnership... 38 Saskatoon Poverty Reduction Partnership (2011) from poverty to possibility...and prosperity: A Preview to the Saskatoon Community Action Plan to Reduce Poverty. Available at: http://www.saskatoonpoverty2possibility.ca/pdf/SPRP%20Possibilities%20Doc_Nov%202011.pdf 39 World Health Organization (2005) Action On The Social Determinants Of Health: Learning From Previous Experiences. Available at: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/action_sd.pdf 40 Braveman, Paula (2003) "Monitoring Equity in Health and Healthcare: A Conceptual Framework."Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition. Sep;21(3):181-192. 41 Royal College of Physicians (2010) How doctors can close the gap: Tackling the social determinants of health through culture change, advocacy and education. Available at: http://www.marmotreview.org/AssetLibrary/resources/new%20external%20reports/RCP-report-how-doctors-can-close-the-gap.pdf 42 Health Canada (2001) Social Accountability: A Vision for Canadian Medical Schools. Available at: http://www.medicine.usask.ca/leadership/social-accountability/pdfs%20and%20powerpoint/SA%20-%20A%20vision%20for%20Canadian%20Medical%20Schools%20-%20Health%20Canada.pdf 43 Ibid. 44 Dharamsi, Shafik; Ho, Anita; Spadafora, Salvatore; and Robert Woollard (2011) "The Physician as Health Advocate: Translating the Quest for Social Responsibility into Medical Education and Practice." Academic Medicine. Vol.86 No.9 pp.1108-1113. 45 Health Canada (2001) Social Accountability: A Vision for Canadian Medical Schools... 46 Meili, Ryan; Fuller, Daniel; & Jessica Lydiate. (2011) "Teaching social accountability by making the links: Qualitative evaluation of student experiences in a service-learning project." Medical Teacher. 33; 659-666. 47 Ford-Jones, Lee; Levin, Leo; Schneider, Rayfel; & Denis Daneman (2012) "A New Social Pediatrics Elective-A Tool for Moving to Life Course Developmental Health." The Journal of Pediatrics. V.160 Iss. 3 pp.357-358; Meili, Ryan; Ganem-Cuenca, Alejandra; Wing-sea Leung, Jannie; & Donna Zaleschuk (2011) "The CARE Model of Social Accountability: Promoting Cultural Change." Academic Medicine. Vol.86 No.9 pp.1114-1119. 48 Cuthbertson, Lana "U of A helps doctors understand way of life in the inner city." Edmonton Journal Dec 22, 2010. Available at: http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=943d7dc3-927b-4429-878b-09b6e00595e1 49 Willems, S.; Maesschalck De, S.; Deveugele, M.; Derese, A. & J. De Maeseneer (2005) "Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor-patient communication: does it make a difference?" Patient Education and Counseling. 56 pp. 139-146. 50 Bloch, Gary; Rozmovits, Linda & Broden Giambone (2011) "Barriers to primary care responsiveness to poverty as a risk factor for health." BioMed Central Family Practice. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2296-12-62.pdf; Schillinger, Dean; Villela, Theresa J. & George William Saba. Chapter 6: Creating a Context for Effective Intervention in the Clinical Care of Vulnerable Patients. pp.59-67. In King, Talmadge E, Jr. & Margaret B. Wheeler ed. (2007) Medical Management of Vulnerable and Underserved Patients. 51 Dharamsi, Shafik; Ho, Anita; Spadafora, Salvatore; and Robert Woollard (2011) "The Physician as Health Advocate... 52 UCL Institute of Health Equity (2012) The Role of the Health Workforce in Tackling Health Inequalities... 53 Meili, Ryan (2012) A Healthy Society: How A Focus On Health Can Revive Canadian Democracy. Saskatoon: Canada. Purich Publishing Limited. pp.36 54 UCL Institute of Health Equity (2012) The Role of the Health Workforce in Tackling Health Inequalities... 55 Bloch, Gary (2011) "Poverty: A clinical tool for primary care "Family & Community Medicine, University of Toronto. Available at: http://www.healthprovidersagainstpoverty.ca/system/files/Poverty%20A%20Clinical%20Tool%20for%20Primary%20Care%20%28version%20with%20References%29_0.pdf ; Bricic, Vanessa; Eberdt, Caroline & Janusz Kaczorowski (2011) "Development of a Tool to Identify Poverty in a Family Practice Setting: A Pilot Study." International Journal of Family Medicine. Available at: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijfm/2011/812182/ ; Based on form developed by: Drs. V. Dubey, R.Mathew & K. Iglar; Revised by Health Providers Against Poverty (2008) " Preventative Care Checklist Form: For average-risk, routine, female health assessments." Available at: http://www.healthprovidersagainstpoverty.ca/Resourcesforhealthcareproviders ; Based on form developed by: Drs. V. Dubey, R.Mathew & K. Iglar; Revised by Health Providers Against Poverty (2008) " Preventative Care Checklist Form: For average-risk, routine, male health assessments." Available at: http://www.healthprovidersagainstpoverty.ca/Resourcesforhealthcareproviders 56 Frank, Dr. Jason R. ed. (2005) "The CanMEDS 2005 Physician Competency Framework: Better standards. Better physicians. Better Care." Office of Education: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Available at: http://rcpsc.medical.org/canmeds/CanMEDS2005/CanMEDS2005_e.pdf 57 Tannenbaum, David et.al. (2011) "Triple C Competency-based Curriculum: Report of the Working Group on Postgraduate Curriculum Review-Part 1 58 UCL Institute of Health Equity (2012) The Role of the Health Workforce in Tackling Health Inequalities... 59 Doyle-Trace L, Labuda S. Community Resources in Cote-des-Neiges. Montreal: St Mary's Hospital Family Medicine Centre, 2011. (This guide was developed by medical residents Lara Doyle-Trace and Suzan Labuda at McGill University.); Mobile Outreach Street Health (N.D.) Pocket MOSH: a little MOSH for your pocket: A Practitioners Guide to MOSH and the Community We Serve. Available at: http://www.cdha.nshealth.ca/mobile-outreach-street-health 60 Health Providers Against Poverty (N.D.) Tools and Resources. Available at: http://www.healthprovidersagainstpoverty.ca/Resourcesforhealthcareproviders 61 Meili, Ryan (2012) A Healthy Society: How A Focus...pp.61; UCL Institute of Health Equity (2012) The Role of the Health Workforce in Tackling Health Inequalities... 62 Rachlis, Michael (2008) Operationalizing Health Equity: How Ontario's Health Services Can Contribute to Reducing Health Disparities. Wellesley Institute. Available at: http://wellesleyinstitute.com/files/OperationalizingHealthEquity.pdf
Documents
Less detail

Restricting marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children and youth in Canada: A Canadian health care and scientific organization policy consensus statement

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10676
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2012-12-08
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2012-12-08
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Restricting Marketing of Unhealthy Foods and Beverages to Children and Youth in Canada: A Canadian Health Care and Scientific Organization Policy Consensus Statement POLICY GOAL Federal government to immediately begin a legislative process to restrict all marketing targeted to children under the age of 13 of foods and beverages high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium and that in the interim the food industry immediately ceases marketing of such food to children. PURPOSE OF STATEMENT This policy consensus statement was developed to reflect the growing body of evidence linking the promotion and consumption of diets high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium1 to cardiovascular and chronic disease (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, obesity, cancer, and heart disease and stroke)— leading preventable risk factors and causes of death and disability within Canada and worldwide. (1-3) (1) For the remainder of the document, reference to foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium will be framed as foods high in fats, sugars or sodium. The current generation of Canadian children is expected to live shorter, less healthy lives as a result of unhealthy eating. (4) Canadians’ overconsumption of fat, sodium and sugar, rising rates of childhood obesity, growing numbers of people with cancer, heart disease and stroke, and the combined strain they exert on the health care system and quality of life for Canadians necessitates immediate action for Canadian governments and policy-makers. Restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages directed at children is gaining increasing international attention as a cost-effective, population-based intervention to reduce the prevalence and the burden of chronic and cardiovascular diseases through reducing children’s exposure to, and consumption of, disease-causing foods. (2,5,6) In May 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO released a set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children (5) and called on governments worldwide to reduce the exposure of children to advertising messages that promote foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium and to reduce the use of powerful marketing techniques. In June 2012, the follow-up document, A Framework for Implementing the Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-Alcoholic Beverages to Children, (7) was released. The policy aim should be to reduce the impact on children of marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars, or sodium. WHO (2010): Recommendation 1 What this policy consensus statement offers is the perspective of many major national health care professional and scientific organizations to guide Canadian governments and non-government organizations on actions that need to be taken to protect the health of our future generations, in part by restricting the adverse influence of marketing of foods high in fat, sugar or sodium to Canadian children and youth. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND RATIONALE -Young children lack the cognitive ability to understand the persuasive intent of marketing or assess commercial claims critically. (8) in 1989 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that “advertisers should not be able to capitalize upon children’s credulity” and “advertising directed at young children is per se manipulative”.(5) -The marketing and advertising of information or products known to be injurious to children’s health and wellbeing is unethical and infringes on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which stipulates that, “In all actions concerning children … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” (9) - Unhealthy food advertising during children’s television programs in Canada is higher than in many countries, with children being exposed to advertisements for unhealthy foods and beverages up to 6 times per hour. (10) - Unhealthy food and beverage advertising influences children’s food preferences, purchase requests and consumption patterns and has been shown to be a probable cause of childhood overweight and obesity by the WHO. (1,8,11) - The vast majority of Canadians (82%) want government intervention to place limits on advertising unhealthy foods and beverages to children. (12) - The regulation of food marketing to children is an effective and cost-saving population-based intervention to improve health and prevent disease. (13,14) - Several bills have been introduced into the House of Commons to amend the Competition Act and the Food and Drug Act to restrict commercial advertising, including food, to children under 13 years of age. None have yet been passed. (15) - Canada’s current approach to restricting advertising to children is not effective and is not in line with the 2010 WHO recommendations on the marketing of foods and beverages to children, nor is it keeping pace with the direction of policies being adopted internationally, which ban or restrict unhealthy food and beverage marketing targeted to children. (16,17) LEGISLATIVE RULING The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that “advertising directed at young children is per se manipulative” Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (AG), 1989 FOOD MARKETING TO CHILDREN: A TIMELY OPPORTUNITY FOR CANADA Childhood obesity and chronic disease prevention are collective priorities for action of federal, provincial and territorial (F/P/T) governments. (3,5,18,19) Strategy 2.3b of the 2011 Federal, Provincial and Territorial Framework for Action to Promote Healthy Weights stipulates “looking at ways to decrease the marketing of foods and beverages high in fat, sugar and/or sodium to children. “(5, p. 31) The 2010 Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada has also identified the need to “continue to explore options to reduce the exposure of children to marketing for foods that are high in sodium" as a key activity for F/P/T governments to consider. (19, p. 31) In their 2010 set of recommendations, the WHO stipulated that governments are best positioned to lead and ensure effective policy development, implementation and evaluation. (6) To date, there has been no substantive movement by the federal government to develop coordinated national-level policies that change the way unhealthy foods and beverages are produced, marketed and sold. Current federal, provincial and industry-led self-regulatory codes are inconsistent in their scope and remain ineffective in their ability to sufficiently reduce children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing, nor have they been adequately updated to address the influx of new marketing mediums to which children and youth in Canada are increasingly subjected. Quebec implemented regulations in 1980 restricting all commercial advertising. (20) Although the ban has received international recognition and is viewed as world leading, several limitations remain, in part due exposure of Quebec children to marketing from outside Quebec, weak enforcement of the regulations and narrow application of its provisions. Accordingly, the undersigned are calling on the federal government to provide strong leadership and establish a legislative process for the development of regulations that restrict all commercial marketing of foods and beverages high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium to children. Strong federal government action and commitment are required to change the trajectory of chronic diseases in Canada and institute lasting changes in public health. Specifically: Efforts must be made to ensure that children…are protected against the impact of marketing [of foods with a high content of fat, sugar and sodium] and given the opportunity to grow and develop in an enabling food environment — one that fosters and encourages healthy dietary choices and promotes the maintenance of healthy weight. (7, p. 6) Such efforts to protect the health of children must go beyond the realm of federal responsibility and involve engagement, dialogue, leadership and advocacy by all relevant stakeholders, including all elected officials, the food and marketing sector, public health, health care professional and scientific organizations, and most importantly civil society. The undersigned support the development of policies that are regulatory in nature to create national and/or regional uniformity in implementation and compliance by industry. “Realizing the responsibility of governments both to protect the health of children and to set definitions in policy according to public health goals and challenges — as well as to ensure policy is legally enforced — statutory regulation has the greatest potential to achieve the intended or desired policy impact.” WHO (2012), p. 33 POLICY/LEGISLATIVE SPECIFICATIONS The following outline key definitions and components of an effective and comprehensive policy on unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children and should be used to guide national policy scope and impact. - Age of Child: In the context of broadcast regulations, the definition of “age of child” typically ranges from under 13 years to under 16 years. In Canada, Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act (20) applies to children under 13 years of age. Consistent with existing legislation, this report recommends that policies restricting marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages be directed to children less than 13 years of age at a minimum. While the science on the impact of marketing on children over 13 is less extensive, emerging research reveals that older children still require protection and may be more vulnerable to newer forms of marketing (i.e., digital media ), in which food and beverage companies are playing an increasingly prominent role. (21-23) Strong consideration should be given to extending the age of restricting the marketing of unhealthy food and beverage to age 16. - Unhealthy Food and Beverages: In the absence of a national standardized definition for “healthy” or “unhealthy” foods, this document defines unhealthy foods broadly as foods with a high content of saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium, as per the WHO recommendations. (5) It is recommended that a robust and comprehensive definition be developed by an interdisciplinary stakeholder working group. - Focus on Marketing: Marketing is more than advertising and involves: …any form of commercial communication or message that is designed to, or has the effect of, increasing the recognition, appeal and/ or consumption of particular products and services. It comprises anything that acts to advertise or otherwise promote a product or service. (6, p. 9) This definition goes beyond the current legal definition of advertisement outlined in the Food and Drug Act as “any representation by any means whatever for the purpose of promoting directly or indirectly the sale or disposal of any food, drug, cosmetic or device.” (24) - Marketing Techniques, Communication Channels and Locations: Legislation restricting unhealthy food marketing needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to address the broad scope of marketing and advertising techniques that have a particularly powerful effect on children and youth. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: . Television . Internet . Radio . Magazines . Direct electronic marketing (email, SMS) . Mobile phones . Video and adver-games . Characters, brand mascots and/or celebrities, including those that are advertiser-generated . Product placement . Cross-promotions . Point-of-purchase displays . Cinemas and theatres . Competitions and premiums (free toys) . Children’s institutions, services, events and activities (schools, event sponsorship) . “Viral and buzz marketing” (25,26) . Directed to Children: The criteria used by the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (20) to determine whether an advertisement is “directed at children” offers a starting point in developing national legislation regarding child-directed media. The loopholes in the Quebec Consumer Protection Act criteria, namely allowing advertising of unhealthy foods and beverages directed at adults during children’s programming, will necessitate the development of an alternative approach or set of criteria that reflects the range of media to which children are exposed and when they are exposed, in addition to the proportion of the audience that is made up of children. Quebec Consumer Protection Act Article 249 To determine whether or not an advertisement is directed at persons under thirteen years of age, account must be taken of the context of its presentation, and in particular of: a)the nature and intended purpose of the goods advertised; b)the manner of presenting such advertisement; c)the time and place it is shown. ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Federal Government Leadership 1.1 Immediately and publicly operationalize the WHO set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children. In working toward the implementation of the WHO recommendations, the federal government is strongly urged to accelerate implementation of the WHO Framework for Implementing the Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Beverages to Children. To this end, the Government of Canada is urged to: 1.2 Convene a Federal, Provincial and Territorial Working Group on Food Marketing to Children to develop, implement and monitor policies to restrict unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children. As stipulated within the WHO Implementation Framework: The government-led working group should ultimately reach consensus on the priorities for intervention, identify the available policy measures and decide how they best can be implemented. (7, p.13) 1.3 In developing policies, it is recommended that the working group: - Develop standardized criteria and an operational definition to distinguish and classify “unhealthy” foods. Definitions should be developed using objective, evidence-based methods and should be developed and approved independent of commercial interests. - Develop a set of definitions/specifications that will guide policy scope and implementation. Consistent with the WHO recommendations, the working group is encouraged to apply the policy specifications identified above. - Set measurable outcomes, targets and timelines for achievement of targets for industry and broadcasters to restrict unhealthy food marketing to children in all forms and settings. It is recommended that policies be implemented as soon as possible and within a 3-year time frame. - Establish mechanisms for close monitoring and enforcement through defined rewards and/or penalties by an independent regulatory agency that has the power and infrastructure to evaluate questionable advertisements and enforce penalties for non-compliance.(2) (2) Such an infrastructure could be supported though the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), similar to the authority of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or the Food and Drug Act via the development of an advertising investigation arm. The nature and extent of penalties imposed should be sufficiently stringent to deter violations. Enforcement mechanisms should be explicit, and infringing companies should be exposed publicly. - Develop evaluation mechanisms to assess process, impact and outcomes of food marketing restriction policies. Components should include scheduled reviews (5 years or as agreed upon) to update policies and/or strategies. To showcase accountability, evaluation findings should be publicly disseminated. 1.4 Provide adequate funding to support the successful implementation and monitoring of the food marketing restriction policies. 1.5 Collaborate with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and other granting councils to fund research to generate baseline data and address gaps related to the impact of marketing in all media on children and how to most effectively restrict advertising unhealthy foods to children. (27) 1.6 Fund and commission a Canadian economic modeling study to assess the cost-effectiveness and the relative strength of the effect of marketing in comparison to other influences on children’s diets and diet-related health outcomes. Similar studies have been undertaken elsewhere and highlight cost– benefit savings from restricting unhealthy food marketing. (13,14) 1.7 Call on industry to immediately stop marketing foods to children that are high in fats, sugar or sodium. 2. Provincial, Territorial and Municipal Governments 2.1 Wherever possible, incorporate strategies to reduce the impact of unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children into provincial and local (public) health or related strategic action plans, and consider all settings that are frequented by children. 2.2 Pass and/or amend policies and legislation restricting unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children that go beyond limitations stipulated in federal legislation and regulations and industry voluntary codes. 2.3 Until federal legislation is in place, strike a P/T Steering Committee on Unhealthy Food Marketing to Children to establish interprovincial consistency related to key definitions and criteria and mechanisms for enforcement, as proposed above. 2.4 Collaborate with local health authorities, non- governmental organizations and other stakeholders to develop and implement education and awareness programs on the harmful impacts of marketing, including but not limited to unhealthy food and beverage advertising. 2.5 Call on industry to immediately stop marketing foods to children that are high in fats, sugar or sodium. 3. Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), Health Care Organizations, Health Care Professionals 3.1 Publicly endorse this position statement and advocate to all Canadian governments to restrict marketing of unhealthy foods to children and youth in Canada. 3.2 Collaborate with governments at all levels to facilitate implementation and enforcement of federal/provincial/municipal regulations or policies. 3.3 Wherever possible, incorporate and address the need for restrictions on unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children into position papers, strategic plans, conferences, programs and other communication mediums. 3.4 Support, fund and/or commission research to address identified research gaps, including the changing contexts and modes of marketing and their implications on the nutritional status, health and well-being of children and youth 3.5 Call on industry to immediately stop the marketing of foods high in fat, sugar or sodium. 4. Marketing and Commercial Industry 4.1 Immediately cease marketing foods high in fats, sugar or sodium. 4.2 Amend the Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CAI) nutrition criteria used to re-define “better-for-you products” to be consistent with currently available international standards that are healthier and with Canadian nutrient profiling standards, once developed. BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE BASE Non-communicable diseases (diabetes, stroke, heart attack, cancer, chronic respiratory disease) are a leading cause of death worldwide and are linked by several common risk factors including high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, obesity, unhealthy diets and physical inactivity. (1,2,3 28) The WHO has predicted that premature death from chronic disease will increase by 17% over the next decade if the roots of the problem are not addressed. (2) Diet-related chronic disease risk stems from long- term dietary patterns which start in childhood (8,28). Canadian statistics reveal children, consume too much fat, sodium and sugars (foods that cause chronic disease) and eat too little fiber, fruits and vegetables (foods that prevent chronic disease). (3) There is evidence that (television) advertising of foods high in fat, sugar or sodium is associated with childhood overweight and obesity. (6,11) Children and youth in Canada are exposed to a barrage of marketing and promotion of unhealthy foods and beverages through a variety of channels and techniques – tactics which undermine and contradict government, health care professional and scientific recommendations for healthy eating. (10,26) Available research indicates that food marketing to children influences their food preferences, beliefs, purchase requests and food consumption patterns. (8,29) A US study showed that children who were exposed to food and beverage advertisements consumed 45% more snacks than their unexposed counterparts. (30) Similarly, preschoolers who were exposed to commercials for vegetables (broccoli and carrots) had a significantly higher preference for these vegetables after multiple exposures (n=4) compared to the control group. (31) Economic modeling studies have shown that restricting children’s exposure to food and beverage advertising is a cost effective population based approach to childhood obesity prevention, with the largest overall gain in disability adjusted life years. (13,14). Canada has yet to conduct a comparable analysis. Marketing and Ethics Foods and beverages high in fats, sugars or sodium is one of many health compromising products marketed to children. It has been argued that policy approaches ought to extend beyond marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to one that restricts marketing of all products to children, as practiced in Quebec (7,26,32). Article 36 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Canada is a signatory, states that, “children should be protected from any activity that takes advantage of them or could harm their welfare and development.” (9) Restricting marketing of all products has been argued to be the most comprehensive policy option in that it aims to protect children from any commercial interest and is grounded in the argument that children have the right to a commercial-free childhood (7, 25,26,32). The focus on restricting unhealthy food and beverage marketing was based in consultations with national health organizations whose mandates, at the time of writing, were more aligned with a focus on unhealthy foods and beverages. This policy statement is not opposed to, and does not preclude further policy enhancements to protect children from all commercial marketing, and therefore encourages further advocacy in this area. In order to inform the debate and help underpin future policy direction, further research is needed. Canada’s Food and Beverage Marketing Environment Television remains a primary medium for children’s exposure to advertising, with Canadian children aged 2–11 watching an average of 18 hours of television per week. (26) In the past two decades, the food marketing and promotion environment has expanded to include Internet marketing, product placement in television programs, films and DVDs, computer and video games, peer-to-peer or viral marketing, supermarket sales promotions, cross- promotions between films and television programs, use of licensed characters and spokes-characters, celebrity endorsements, advertising in children’s magazines, outdoor advertising, print marketing, sponsorship of school and sporting activities, advertising on mobile phones, and branding on toys and clothing. (25,26) A systematic review of 41 international studies looking at the content analysis of children’s food commercials found that the majority advertised unhealthy foods, namely pre-sugared cereals, soft drinks, confectionary and savoury snacks and fast food restaurants. (33) In an analysis of food advertising on children’s television channels across 11 countries, Canada (Alberta sample) had the second-highest rate of food and beverage advertising (7 advertisements per hour), 80% of which were for unhealthy foods and beverages defined as “high in undesirable nutrients and/or energy.” (10) Illustrating the influence of food packaging in supermarkets, two Canadian studies found that for six food product categories 75% of the products were directed solely at children through use of colour, cartoon mascots, pointed appeals to parents and/or cross-merchandising claims, games or activities. Of the 63% of products with nutrition claims, 89% were classified as being “of poor nutritional quality” due to high levels of sugar, fat, or sodium when judged against US-based nutrition criteria. Less than 1% of food messages specifically targeted to children were for fruits and vegetables. (34,35) Food is also unhealthily marketed in schools. A recent study of 4,936 Canadian students from grades 7 to 10 found that 62% reported the presence of snack-vending machines in their schools, and that this presence was associated with students’ frequency of consuming vended goods. (36) In another Canadian analysis, 28% of elementary schools reported the presence of some form of advertising in the school and 19% had an exclusive marketing arrangement with Coke or Pepsi. (37) Given children’s vulnerability, a key tenant of the WHO recommendations on marketing to children is that “settings where children gather should be free from all forms of marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, and free sugars or sodium.” (6, p.9) and need to be included in development of food marketing policies directed at children. The Canadian public wants government oversight in restricting unhealthy food marketing to children. A nation-wide survey of over 1200 Canadian adults found 82% want limits placed on unhealthy food and beverage advertising to children; 53% support restricting all marketing of high-fat, high-sugar or high-sodium foods aimed directly at children and youth. (12) Canada’s Commercial Advertising Environment Internationally, 26 countries have made explicit statements on food marketing to children and 20 have, or are in the process of, developing policies in the form of statutory measures, official guidelines or approved forms of self-regulation. (38) The differences in the nature and degree of these restrictions is considerable, with significant variation regarding definition of child, products covered, communication and marketing strategies permitted and expectations regarding implementation, monitoring and evaluation. (38,39) With the exception of Quebec, Canada’s advertising policy environment is restricted to self-regulated rather than legislative measures with little monitoring and oversight in terms of measuring the impact of regulations on the intensity and frequency of advertising unhealthy foods and beverages to children. (39) Federal Restrictions Nationally, the Food and Drug Act and the Competition Act provide overarching rules on commercial advertising and (loosely) prohibit selling or advertising in a manner that is considered false, misleading or deceptive to consumers. These laws, however, contain no provisions dealing specifically with unhealthy food advertising or marketing to children and youth. (26) The Consumer Package and Labeling Act outlines federal requirements concerning the packaging, labeling, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged non- food consumer products. Packaging and labels, however, are not included under the scope of advertising and therefore not subject to the administration and enforcement of the Act and regulations. (26) Such loopholes have prompted the introduction of three private member's bills into the House of Commons to amend both the Competition Act and the Food and Drugs Act. Tabled in 2007, 2009 and 2012, respectively, none of the bills have, to date, advanced past the First Reading. (15) Industry Restrictions The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code) and the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children (BCAC) together cover Canadian broadcast and non- broadcast advertising. (23) While both have explicit provisions/clauses to cover advertising directed to children (12 years and younger), neither address or explicitly cover unhealthy food and beverage advertising. Further excluded are other heavily used and persuasive forms of marketing directed to children, including in-store promotions, packaging, logos, and advertising in schools or at events, as well as foreign media. (40) Formed in 2008, the Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CAI) defines marketing standards and criteria to identify the products that are appropriate or not to advertise to children under 12 years old. Under this initiative, participating food companies (N=19) are encouraged to direct 100% of their advertising to children under 12 to “better-for-you” products. (41) In 2010, the scope of CAI was expanded to include other media forms, namely video games, child- directed DVDs and mobile media. Despite reportedly high compliance by CAI participants, (41) several fundamental loopholes undermine its level of protection and effectiveness, namely: - Participation is voluntary, exempting non- participators such as President’s Choice, Wendy’s and A&W, from committing to CAI core principles. - Companies are allowed to create their own nutrient criteria for defining “better-for-you” or “healthier dietary choice” products. (32) A 2010 analysis revealed that up to 62% of these products would not be acceptable to promote to children by other countries’ advertising nutrition standards. (16) - Companies are able to adopt their own definition of what constitutes “directed at children” under 12 years. (32) Participants' definitions of child audience composition percentage range from 25% to 50%, significantly more lenient than current Quebec legislation and other international regulatory systems. (7,42,43) - The initiative excludes a number of marketing and advertising techniques primarily directed at children, namely advertiser-generated characters (e.g., Tony the Tiger), product packaging, displays of food and beverage products, fundraising, public service messaging and educational programs. (26,27) Provincial Restrictions The Quebec Consumer Protection Act states that “no person may make use of commercial advertising directed at persons under thirteen years of age.” (26) Despite its merits, the effectiveness of the Quebec ban has been compromised. In its current form, the ban does not protect children from cross-border leakage of child-directed advertisements from other provinces. (40) One study found that while the ban reduced fast food consumption by US$88 million per year and decreased purchase propensity by 13% per week, the outcomes primarily affected French-speaking households with children, not their English-speaking counterparts. (44) A more recent study looking at the ban’s impact on television advertising arrived at similar conclusions and found that Quebec French subjects were exposed to significantly fewer candy and snack promotions (25.4%, p<0.001) compared to the Ontario English (33.7%) and Quebec English (39.8%) groups. (40) The ban has further been criticized for having a weak definition of “advertisement”, which allows adult-targeted advertisements for unhealthy foods during children’s programming (37) and having weak regulatory and monitoring structures. (37,40) In assessing the effectiveness of Quebec’s legislation in reducing children’s exposure to unhealthy food advertising, it is important to note that the ban was not developed to target or reduce the marketing of foods and beverages specifically, but rather to reduce the commercialization of childhood. (27) Public Policy: The Way Forward Several legislative approaches have been undertaken internationally to restrict unhealthy food and beverage marketing. (7,43,45) While more research is needed with regards to the impact of restricting unhealthy food and beverage marketing on child health outcomes (i.e., obesity), a US study estimated that between 14-33% of instances of childhood obesity could be prevented by eliminating television advertising for unhealthy food. (46) An Australian study found that a restriction on non-core-food advertisement between 7am and 8:30pm could reduce children’s exposure to unhealthy food advertising by almost 80%. (47) An evaluation of the UK regulations which restricts television advertising of all foods high in fat, sugar and sodium found that since its introduction there has been a 37% reduction in unhealthy food advertisement seen by children. (25) Restrictions on food marketing are being increasingly advocated internationally. A 2011 International Policy Consensus Conference identified regulating marketing to children as a key policy strategy to prevent childhood obesity. (48) A similar recommendation was made at the September 2011 United Nations high-level meeting on the prevention and control of non- communicable diseases. Restrictions on television advertising for less healthful foods has also been identified as an effective (Class I; Grade B) population-based strategy to improve dietary behaviors in children by the American Heart Association. (49) Within Canada, non-governmental and other health organizations are assuming an equally active role. Among others, the Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada, the Dietitians of Canada, the Alberta Policy Coalition for Chronic Disease Prevention, the Simcoe Board of Health, the Thunder Bay and District Board of Health and the Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Board of Health have issued position papers or statements urging the federal government to implement more stringent regulations on food and beverage marketing to children. (26,42,48) Conclusions The current voluntary, industry self-regulated and ineffective system of restricting the marketing and advertising of foods and beverages fails to protect Canadian Children and thereby contributes to the rising rates of childhood obesity and the likelihood of premature death and disability in our children’s and future generations. Strong federal government leadership and nationwide action from other levels of government and other key stakeholders are needed. Regulation restricting unhealthy food advertising is internationally supported, with a growing evidence base for expanding such regulation to all forms of food marketing. This policy statement offer an integrated, pragmatic and timely response to the national stated priorities of childhood obesity and chronic disease prevention in Canada and supports the F/P/T vision of making Canada, “…a country that creates and maintains the conditions for healthy weights so that children can have the healthiest possible lives.” (4) This policy statement was funded by The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (HSFC) and the Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health (CIHR) Chair in Hypertension Prevention and Control, prepared with the assistance of an ad hoc Expert Scientific Working Group, reviewed and approved by the Hypertension Advisory Committee and endorsed by the undersigned national health organizations. HYPERTENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Manuel Arango, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada Norm Campbell, Canadian Society of Internal Medicine Judi Farrell, Hypertension Canada Mark Gelfer, College of Family Physicians of Canada Dorothy Morris, Canadian Council of Cardiovascular Nurses Rosana Pellizzari, Public Health Physicians of Canada Andrew Pipe, Canadian Cardiovascular Society Maura Rickets, Canadian Medical Association Ross Tsuyuki, Canadian Pharmacists Association Kevin Willis, Canadian Stroke Network STAFF Norm Campbell, HSFC/CIHR Chair in Hypertension Prevention and Control, Chair Tara Duhaney, Policy Director, Hypertension Advisory Committee REFERENCES 1. World Health Organization. Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. WHO Technical Report Series No. 916. Geneva, WHO; 2003. Available at: http://www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/who_fao_expert_report.pdf. Accessed December 2011 2. World Health Organization. 2008-2013 Action Plan for the Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva: WHO; 2008. Available at: http://www.who.int/nmh/Actionplan-PC-NCD- 2008.pdf. Accessed December 2011 3. Public Health Agency of Canada. Tracking Heart Disease and Stroke in Canada. Ottawa, 2009. Available at: http://www.phac- aspc.gc.ca/publicat/2009/cvd-avc/pdf/cvd-avs-2009- eng.pdf. Accessed January 2012 4. Olshansky SJ, Passaro DJ, Hershow RC et al. A potential decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st century. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352:1138-45 5. Public Health Agency of Canada. Curbing Childhood Obesity: A Federal, Provincial and Territorial Framework for Action to Promote Healthy Weights. Ottawa, PHAC; 2011 Available at: http://www.phac- aspc.gc.ca/hp-ps/hl-mvs/framework- cadre/2011/assets/pdf/co-os-2011-eng.pdf. Accessed January 2012 6. World Health Organization. Set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children. Geneva: WHO; 2010. Available at http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/recsmarketing/en/index.html. Accessed December 2011 7. World Health Organization. A Framework for Implementing the Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-Alcoholic Beverages to Children. Geveva: WHO; 2012. Available at: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/MarketingFramework2012.pdf. Accessed June 2012 8. Kunkel D, Wilcox B, Cantor J, Palmer E, Linn S, Dowrick P. Report of the APA Taskforce on Advertising and Children. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2004. Available at: http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/advertising-children.pdf. Accessed January 2012 9. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations, 2009 Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm. Accessed February, 2012 10. Kelly B, Halford JCG, Boyland E, Chapman K, Bautista- Castaño I, Berg C, et al. Television food advertising to children: A global perspective. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:1730-5. Available at: http://www.studenttutor.ca/resources/Television%20Food%20Advertising- %20a%20Global%20Perspective.pdf 11. McGinnis JM, Gootman JA, Kraak VI (Eds.) Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth. Washington, DC: IOM; 2006. 12. Ipsos Reid. Canadians’ Perceptions of, and Support for, Potential Measures to Prevent and Reduce Childhood Obesity. Prepared for the Public Health Agency of Canada. Ottawa, November 2011. Available at: http://www.sportmatters.ca/files/Reports/Ipsos%20Obesity%202011.pdf. Accessed February 2012 13. Cecchini M, Sassi F, Lauer JA, Lee YY, Guajardo- Barron V, Chisholm D. Tackling of Unhealthy Diets, physical inactivity, and obesity: Health effects and cost-effectiveness. Lancet 2010; 376 (9754): 1775- 84 Available at: http://www.who.int/choice/publications/Obesity_Lancet.pdf 14. Magnus A, Habby MM, Carter R, Swinburn B. The cost-effectiveness of removing television advertising of high fat and/or high sugar food and beverages to Australian children. Int J Obes.2009; 33: 1094-1102. Available at: http://eurobesitas.ch/articles/pdf/Magnus_ijo2009156a.pdf 15. Parliament of Canada. Private Member’s Bills. Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?billId=4328259&Mode=1&View=3&Language=E. Accessed April 2012 16. Conrad S. Innovations in Policy Evaluation: Examining the food and beverages included in the Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2010 17. Alberta Policy Coalition for Cancer Prevention. Using Public Policy to Promote Healthy Weights for Canadian Children. Submission to the “Our Health, Our Future – National Dialogue on Healthy Weights” consultation, 2011. 18. Public Health Agency of Canada. The integrated pan- Canadian healthy living strategy. 2005. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hl-vs- strat/pdf/hls_e.pdf. Accessed January 2012 19. Health Canada. Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada: Recommendations of the Sodium Working Group. Ottawa, Ontario, July 2010. Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/sc-hc/H164-121-2010-eng.pdf. Accessed December 2011 20. Quebec Consumer Protection Office. The Consumer Protection Act: Application Guide for Sections 248 and 249. Quebec, 1980 21. Montgomery K, Chester J. Interactive Food and Beverage Marketing: Targeting Adolescents in the Digital Age. J Adolesc Health. 2009: S18-S29. Available at: http://digitalads.org/documents/PIIS1054139X09001499.pdf 22. Harris JL, Brownell KD, Bargh JA. The Food Marketing Defense Model: Integrating Psychological Research to Protect Youth and Inform Public Policy. Soc Issues Policy Rev. 2009; 3(1): 211-271. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/acmelab/articles/Harris%20Brownell%20Bargh%20SIPR.pdf 23. Pechman C, Levine L, Loughlin S, Leslie F. Impulsive and Self-Conscious: Adolescents' Vulnerability to Advertising and Promotion. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. 2005; 24 (2): 202-221. Available at: http://www.marketingpower.com/ResourceLibrary/ Publications/JournalofPublicPolicyandMarketing/2005/24/2/jppm.24.2.202.pdf 24. Health Canada. Food and Drugs Act . R.S., c. F-27. Ottawa: Health Canada; 1985. Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/. Accessed February 2012 25. Mackay S, Antonopoulos N, Martin J, Swinburn B. A comprehensive approach to protecting children from unhealthy food advertising. Melbourne, Australia: Obesity Policy Coalition; 2011. Available at: http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/1105/ m308363_v1_protecting-children- email1%20final%2013.04.11.pdf. Accessed January 2012 26. Cook B. Policy Options to Improve the Children’s Advertising Environment in Canada. Report for the Public Health Agency of Canada Health Portfolio Task Group on Obesity and Marketing. Toronto; 2009. 27. Toronto Board of Health. Food and Beverage Marketing to Children. Staff Report to the Board of Health. Toronto: Board of Health; 2008. Available at: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-11151.pdf. Accessed January 2012 28. The Conference Board of Canada. Improving Health Outcomes: The Role of Food in Addressing Chronic Diseases. Conference Board of Canada, 2010. Available at: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/temp/be083acf- 4c96-4eda-ae80-ee44d264758a/12- 177_FoodandChronicDisease.pdf. Accessed June 2012 29. Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G, Caraher M. Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of food marketing to children. A retrospective summary. Appetite. 2012 (in press). Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666312001511 30. Harris JL, Bargh JA, Brownell KD. Priming Effects of Television Food Advertising on Eating Behavior. Health Psychol. 2009; 28(4):404-13. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/acmelab/articles/Harris_Bargh_Brownell_Health_Psych.pdf 31. Nicklas TA, Goh ET, Goodell LS et al. Impact of commercials on food preferences of low-income, minority preschoolers. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2011; 43(1):35-41. 32. Elliott C. Marketing Foods to Children: Are We Asking the Right Questions. Child Obes. 2012; 8(3): 191-194 33. Hastings G, Stead M, McDermott L, Forsyth A, Mackintosh AM, Rayner M, Godfrey C, Caraher M, Angus K. Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children. Final Report to the UK Food Standards Agency. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Strathclyde Centre for Social Marketing; 2003. Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/promofoodchildrenexec.pdf. Accessed February 2012 34. Elliott C. Marketing fun foods: A profile and analysis of supermarket food messages targeted at children. Can Public Policy. 2008; 34:259-73 35. Elliott C. Assessing fun foods: Nutritional content and analysis of supermarket foods targeted at children. Obes Rev. 2008; 9: 368-377. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/includes/pdf/elliott2.pdf 36. Minaker LM, Storey KE, Raine KD, Spence JC, Forbes LE, Plotnikoff RC, McCargar LJ. Associations between the perceived presence of vending machines and food and beverage logos in schools and adolescents' diet and weight status. Public Health Nutr. 2011; 14(8):1350-6 37. Cook B. Marketing to Children in Canada: Summary of Key Issues. Report for the Public Health Agency of Canada. 2007. Available at: http://www.cdpac.ca/media.php?mid=426. Accessed January 2012 38. Hawkes C, Lobstein T. Regulating the commercial promotion of food to children: a survey of actions worldwide. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2011; 6(2):83-94. 39. Hawkes C, Harris J. An analysis of the content of food industry pledges on marketing to children. Public Health Nutr. 2011; 14:1403-1414. Available at: http://ruddcenter.yale.edu/resources/upload/docs/ what/advertising/MarketingPledgesAnalysis_PHN_5.11.pdf 40. Potvin-Kent M, Dubois, L, Wanless A. Food marketing on children's television in two different policy environments. Int J of Pediatr Obes. 2011; 6(2): e433-e441. Available at: http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/PotvinKent%20IJPO%202011.pdf 41. Advertising Standards Canada. Canadian children’s food and beverage advertising initiative: 2010 compliance report. Available at: http://www.adstandards.com/en/childrensinitiative/ 2010ComplianceReport.pdf. Accessed March 2012 42. Dietitians of Canada. Advertising of Food and Beverage to Children. Position of Dietitians of Canada. 2010. Available at: http://www.dietitians.ca/Downloadable- Content/Public/Advertising-to-Children-position- paper.aspx. Accessed January 2012 43. Hawkes C. Marketing food to children: a global regulatory environment. World Health Organization. 2004(b). Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241591579.pdf. Accessed February 2012 44. Dhar T, Baylis K. Fast-food Consumption and the Ban on Advertising Targeting Children: The Quebec Experience. Journal of Marketing Research. 2011; 48 (5): 799-813. Available at: http://www.marketingpower.com/aboutama/documents/jmr_forthcoming/fast_food_consumption.pdf 45. World Health Organization. Marketing of Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages of Children. Report of a WHO Forum and Technical Meeting. Geneva: WHO; 2006. Available at: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/Oslo%20meeting%20layout%2027%20NOVEMBER. pdf. Accessed January 2012 46. Veerman JL, Van Beeck, Barendregt JJ, Mackenbach JP. By how much would limiting TV food advertising reduce childhood obesity? Eur J Public Health. 2009; 19(4): 365-9. Available at: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/365. full.pdf+html 47. Kelly B, King L, Mauman A, Smith BJ, Flood V. The effects of different regulation systems on television food advertising to children. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007; 31(4): 340-343. 48. Alberta Policy Coalition for Chronic Disease Prevention. Canadian Obesity Network - International Consensus: Take Action to Prevent Childhood Obesity (Press Release). 2011. Available at: http://www.abpolicycoalitionforprevention.ca/ 49. Mozaffarian D, Afshin A, Benowitz NL et al. Population Approaches to Improve Diet, Physical Activity, and Smoking Habits: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;126(12):1514-1563
Documents
Less detail

Position statement on bodychecking in youth ice hockey

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10758
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-05-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-05-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Hockey is one of the most popular sports for Canadian children and youth. While the health benefits of physical activity and sport participation are well recognized, there is increasing concern around the frequency and severity of hockey-related injuries, particularly concussion. Studies consistently identify bodychecking as the primary mechanism associated with youth hockey injuries, including concussion. Policy to delay bodychecking until bantam league play (when participants are 13 to 14 years of age) will reduce the risks of injury and concussion in young ice hockey players. Bodychecking should be eliminated from non-elite youth ice hockey. The age at which bodychecking is introduced in competitive hockey leagues must be reconsidered. Both initiatives require policy change in many provinces/territories, and must be re-evaluated prospectively in light of emerging research. More than 4.5 million Canadians are involved in ice hockey, as coaches, officials, administrators or direct volunteers, and hockey is the most popular winter sport among Canadian children and youth.[1] Hockey Canada reported over 550,000 registered players under the age of 19 in 2008, and participation rates are increasing, especially among girls and young women.[1] While the health benefits of physical activity and sport participation are well recognized, there is increasing concern around the frequency and severity of hockey-related injuries in youth, particularly concussion. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) classifies hockey as a collision sport because of unintentional and intentional body contact, including bodychecking.[2] The AAP published a policy statement on youth ice hockey in 2000, recommending that bodychecking not be allowed for children younger than 15 years of age.[3] There is passionate debate about the risk factors for injury in youth hockey and the relative merits of early or later introduction of bodychecking. Because bodychecking is not allowed in girls' or women's hockey in Canada, the present statement pertains to play in boys' and men's hockey leagues. It reviews the scientific literature on bodychecking injuries, outlines positions in the current debate and makes recommendations on when bodychecking should be introduced into the game. DEFINING BODY CONTACT AND BODYCHECKING Body contact is an individual defensive tactic designed to legally block or impede the progress of an offensive puck carrier. The defensive player moves to restrict action by the puck carrier anywhere on the ice, by skating, angling and positioning. The defensive player cannot hit the offensive player by travelling in an opposite direction to him or by physically extending toward him in an effort to initiate contact. There must be no action where the puck carrier is pushed, hit or shoved into the boards. In contrast, bodychecking is an individual defensive tactic designed to legally separate the puck carrier from the puck. The defensive player physically extends his body toward the puck carrier while moving in an opposite or parallel direction, a deliberate and forceful move not solely determined by the movement of the puck carrier.[1] Bodychecking is taught based on a four-step skill development program outlined by Hockey Canada, with progression through positioning and angling, stick checking, body contact and bodychecking skills.[4] Instruction in bodychecking includes techniques for receiving bodychecks, adhering to rules, and safe play. BODYCHECKING LEGISLATION Hockey Canada groups children and adolescents by age into six play levels: initiation (5 to 6 years of age), novice (7 to 8 years), atom (9 to 10 years), peewee (11 to 12 years), bantam (13 to 14 years), and midget (15 to 17 years). Historically, from the early 1980s until the 2002/2003 season, bodychecking was introduced at age 12 years in Canadian boys' ice hockey. In 2003, four of 13 provincial/territorial branches allowed checking for players as young as nine years old. Hockey Canada mandated the introduction of bodychecking in peewee leagues (ages 11 to 12) in 2009. Quebec has delayed bodychecking until bantam (age 14 from 1978 to 2002, then age 13 following an age change mandated nationally). THE DEBATE Despite lack of evidence, proponents of bodychecking argue that it is a fundamental skill which, learned early, may prevent future injuries. However, the evidence supports that bodychecking is the most common mechanism of injury. The Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine recommends that bodychecking be introduced only in boys' competitive hockey, and no earlier than the bantam (ages 13 to14) or midget (ages 15 to 17) level.[5] The AAP recommends a ban on bodychecking for male players younger than 15 years of age.[3] The present statement marks the first CPS position on this issue. BODYCHECKING AND INJURY Hockey is recognized as a high-risk sport. The speed of play, body contact and bodychecking all contribute to injury risk.[6][7] The injury rate is also high, with Canadian data suggesting that hockey injuries account for 8% to 11% of all adolescent sport-related injuries.[8][10] Unfortunately, serious injuries such as concussion, other brain injuries and spinal cord trauma are not uncommon in hockey.[6][11] The incidence of traumatic brain injury appears to be rising.[12][13] Ice hockey-related fatality rates are double those reported in American football, and catastrophic spinal cord and brain injury rates are almost four times higher for high school hockey players than for high school and college football players.[14][15] Bodychecking is the predominant mechanism of injury among youth hockey players at all levels of competition where it is permitted, accounting for 45% to 86% of injuries.[8][16]-[18] Several published studies, including two recent systematic reviews, reported on risk factors for injury (including bodychecking) in youth hockey.[19][20] Emery and colleagues conducted a systematic review of 24 studies and a meta-analysis including only studies which examined policy allowing bodychecking as a risk factor for injury. Policy allowing bodychecking was found to be a risk factor for all hockey injuries, with a summary incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 2.45 (95% CI 1.7 to 3.6). Furthermore, policy allowing bodychecking was found to be a risk factor for concussion, with a summary OR of 1.71 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.44). These data confirm that bodychecking increases the risk of all injuries and the risk of concussion specifically.[20] Nine of ten studies examining policy allowing bodychecking provided evidence to support a greater risk in bodychecking leagues.[20] The second systematic review found the RR of injury associated with policy allowing bodychecking ranged from 0.6 to 39.8; all but one of these studies found an increased risk of injuries associated with bodychecking.[19] Since the publication of these systematic reviews there have been five additional studies. A Canadian prospective cohort study compared injury rates between peewee ice hockey players in a league where bodychecking is permitted at age 11 years (Alberta) versus players in a league where bodychecking is not permitted until age 13 (Quebec).[21] During the 2007/2008 season, a validated injury surveillance system was used to capture all injuries requiring medical attention and/or time loss from hockey (ie, time between injury and return to play) in 2154 players. There was a threefold increased risk of all game-related injuries (IRR =3.26 [95% CI; 2.31 to 4.60]) and of injury resulting in >7 days time lost from sport (IRR=3.30 [95% CI; 1.77 to 6.17]) in 11- to 12- year-old peewee players from Alberta when compared with Quebec. There was also an almost fourfold increased risk of game-related concussion (IRR=3.88 [95% CI; 1.91 to 7.89]) in Alberta peewee players.[21] Further evidence was reported in a five-year cohort study (2002 to 2007) including all age groups, which demonstrated that injury risk increases 3.75 times (IRR=3.75 [95% CI; 1.51 to 9.74]) in leagues that allow bodychecking compared with those that do not.[22] A second prospective cohort study by Emery et al examined whether the introduction of bodychecking at 11 years of age (Alberta) or 13 years of age (Quebec) affected injury rates in later years (at 13 to 14 years of age).[23] During the 2008/09 season, the same injury surveillance system cited above was used to study 1971 bantam players (13- to 14-year-olds). There was no reduction in game-related injury risk (all injuries) for this age group (IRR=0.85 [95% CI 0.63 to 1.16]), of concussion specifically (IRR=0.84 [95% CI 0.48 to 1.48]), or of concussions resulting in >10 days time lost from sport (IRR=0.6 [95% CI 0.26 to 1.41]) in the Alberta league, compared with Quebec. In fact, the concussion rate found in Alberta peewee players was higher than in bantam players in either province.[22][23] Injuries to bantam players resulting in >7 days time lost from sport were reduced by 33% (IRR=0.67 [95% CI 0.46 to 0.99]) in the Alberta league, where players had had two years of bodychecking experience. However, these findings must be interpreted in light of the three- to fourfold greater injury and concussion risk among peewee players in Alberta, along with a possibly higher 'survival effect' among peewee players moving on to bantam in Quebec when compared with Alberta, where bodychecking is allowed in peewee league play. Recent retrospective studies have examined the influence of policy change based on the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) surveillance data. Injury rates among boys presenting to emergency departments in the Kingston, Ontario area both before and after the 2002 rule change to allow bodychecking in younger players, were reported. There was no change between bodychecking injury rates in 1997 to 2002 (with bodychecking introduced at 11 years of age) and 2003 to 2007 (when bodychecking was introduced at nine years of age).[24] Overall rates of injury actually declined over the later period.[24] However, this retrospective study may also be biased by stronger rule enforcement, better coaching certification and temporal declines in emergency department use for this type of injury over that period. In contrast, retrospective research of CHIRPP data from 1994 to 2004 in five Ontario hospitals examined injury risk following a rule change in 1998 that allowed bodychecking in nine- and 10-year-old hockey players. A 2.2 times greater risk of injury in atom players (9 and 10 years of age) after the rule change was reported (OR=2.2 [95% CI 1.7 to 2.84]).[25] Another retrospective study using CHIRPP data (from 1995 to 2002) compared hockey injuries in children 10 to 13 years of age playing in Ontario, where bodychecking was allowed, with data from Quebec, where bodychecking was not allowed. There was a 2.6 times greater risk of bodycheck-related injuries reported for this age group when bodychecking was allowed (OR=2.65 [95% CI 2.21 to 3.18]).[26] OTHER RISK FACTORS After policy that permits bodychecking, the most commonly investigated risk factors for injury in the scientific literature are: age, session-type (ie, a practice versus a game), level of play, player position, physical size, and a previous history of injury and/or concussion. Most studies examining age found that injury risk increased with age;[8][20][27][29] others suggest no elevated injury risk in older age groups.[30]-[33] Relative age has been examined to "describe the potential advantages (or disadvantages) that result from age differences between peers within one age group".[31] One study examining relative age among hockey players found no evidence that younger (or older) players within a grouping were at elevated injury risk.[31] Additional research supports this finding at the peewee level, where no increased risk was found in first-year players. In bantam leagues, however, there was a 40% greater risk of injury in first-year players when compared with players in their second year.[21][23] Based on session-type, injury risk is reported to be consistently higher in games than in practices, with RR estimates ranging from 2.45 to 6.32.[16][18][27][34] One study also indicated that injury rates were higher in regular season play than during preseason, postseason or tournament games.[30] In general, studies examining level of play have found that injury risks rise with increasing skill levels across all age groups.[31][35][36] However, one study reported that only peewee players in the highest skill division were at the greatest risk of injury, with no significant increase by skill level in other age groups.[8] Larger cohort studies confirmed a consistently greater risk of injury among peewee players who were more highly skilled, but this trend was not observed in the bantam age group.[21][23] When examining player position, some researchers found that forwards were at higher risk of injury than defencemen or goalies, [30][32] while others reported the relative risk of injury was 2.18 times higher for defencemen than forwards.[27] In all three studies, goalies were shown to be at much lower risk than other players. Additional research shows a consistent protective effect for goalies at both the peewee and bantam levels.[21][23] Research on player size has shown conflicting results, with some studies citing increased risk for smaller players in some age groups. Prospective Canadian data show a significantly greater risk of injury in peewee players in the lowest 25th percentile by weight, [21] though this finding was not reflected in the bantam cohort.[23] However, additional research has found lighter bantam players to be at greater risk, while other studies report a significant weight difference, at all levels, between players who sustained a bodychecking-related injury and those who did not.[16][30] Other research examining body weight as a risk factor for shoulder injuries found that heavier players were at greater risk for these injuries.[37] One study looked at height as a possible risk factor for injury and found no evidence of effect among bantam players.[16] By contrast, a history of previous injury or concussion is consistently reported as a significant risk factor for reinjury and further concussion, respectively.[20] One recent Canadian peewee cohort study showed that the risk of injury doubled for players who reported being injured within the past year (IRR=2.07 [95% CI 1.49 to 2.86]), while the risk of concussion tripled for players reporting any previous concussion (2.76 [95% CI 1.1 to 6.91]).[21] The bantam cohort also showed greater risk of reinjury and concussion in players reporting previous injury within the past year (IRR=1.39 [95% CI 1.13 to 1.71]) or any previous concussion (IRR=1.87 [95% CI 1.19 to 2.94]), respectively.[21] INJURY PREVENTION AND RISK REDUCTION Injury prevention and risk reduction programs have been implemented but have not been evaluated rigorously. The STOP (Safety Towards Other Players) program (www.safetytowardsotherplayers.com) is supported by the Ontario Minor Hockey Association (www.omha.net), and includes an education component and the "STOP patch", which is sewn on the back of players' uniforms to remind opponents not to hit from behind. A study evaluating another injury prevention program, "Fair Play", which awards points for sportsmanlike play (based on penalty minutes), suggests an approximate 60% reduction in the risk of injury (OR=0.41 [95% CI 0.11 to 1.47]) where the program is in effect, but the results were not statistically significant.[38] EDUCATION Players, parents, coaches, officials and trainers must be mindful of the potential risks of playing hockey. Hockey Canada has player development, coaching, education and safety promotion programs and resources for coaches, officials, players and parents at www.hockeycanada.ca. Concussion awareness is vital. Athletes and all those involved in their care need to know about the risks, symptoms/signs and how to manage concussive injuries. The CPS statement on concussion evaluation and management is essential reading [39], with additional information available from the Canadian Academy of Sport and Exercise Medicine (www.casm-acms.org), ThinkFirst Canada (www.thinkfirst.ca) and the US Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/ncipc/tbi/Coaches_Tool_Kit.htm). CONCLUSION Studies consistently identify bodychecking as the primary mechanism of hockey-related injuries, including concussion. It is expected that delaying the introduction of bodychecking until the bantam level and restricting bodychecking to elite leagues for older age groups will reduce the risks of injury and concussion substantially. Delaying bodychecking until bantam will have a clear benefit in reducing the risks of injury and concussion in young ice hockey players. Bodychecking should be eliminated from recreational youth ice hockey and the age at which it is introduced in competitive hockey leagues should be reconsidered. Both initiatives require policy change in many provinces/territories in Canada, and policy changes will need to be evaluated on a regular basis in light of emerging research. RECOMMENDATIONS The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends the following: * Eliminating bodychecking from all levels of organized recreational/non-elite competitive male ice hockey. (Grade II-2A evidence) * * Delaying the introduction of bodychecking in elite male competitive leagues until players are 13 to 14 years of age (bantam level) or older. (Grade III-C evidence)* * Implementing Hockey Canada's four-stage skill development program for bodychecking (body positioning, angling, stick checking and body contact) for all leagues. * Educating coaches and trainers, schools, and policy-makers in sport about the signs and symptoms of common hockey injuries, especially concussion. * Improving injury surveillance to better identify the risk factors for, and mechanisms of, hockey injuries. * Policies to reduce injury and promote fair play in hockey, for all age groups and league levels. Clinicians who see young hockey players in their practice should offer the following advice: * Girls and young women should continue participating in non-bodychecking leagues. * Boys should play in recreational/non-elite hockey leagues that do not allow bodychecking. * Elite male players should play in hockey leagues that introduce bodychecking later, when players are 13 to 14 years of age (bantam level) or older. * All players should adhere to fair play and a non-violent sport culture. * Parents and caregivers should learn injury prevention and risk reduction strategies, including concussion prevention, recognition and management. *The levels of evidence and strength of recommendations are based on the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (See Table 1). [40][41] TABLE 1: [SEE PDF] Levels of evidence and strength of recommendations Level of evidence Description I Evidence obtained from at least one properly randomized controlled trial. II-1 Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trial without randomization. II-2 Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-controlled analytical studies, preferably from more than one centre or research group. II-3 Evidence obtained from comparisons between times and places, with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments could also be included in this category. III Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies or reports of expert committees. Grade Description A There is good evidence to recommend the clinical preventive action. B There is fair evidence to recommend the clinical preventive action. C The existing evidence is conflicting and does not allow a recommendation to be made for or against use of the clinical preventive action; however, other factors may influence decision-making. D There is fair evidence to recommend against the clinical preventive action. E There is good evidence to recommend against the clinical preventive action. F There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation; however, other factors may influence decision-making. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This statement was reviewed by the Community Paediatrics and Injury Prevention Committees of the Canadian Paediatric Society. Thanks to Drs. Claire MA LeBlanc, Stan Lipnowski, Peter Nieman, Christina G Templeton and Thomas J Warshawski for their input as past members of the CPS Healthy Active Living and Sports Medicine Committee. HEALTHY ACTIVE LIVING AND SPORTS MEDICINE COMMITTEE Members: Catherine Birken MD; Tracey L Bridger MD (Chair); Mark E Feldman MD (Board Representative); Kristin M Houghton MD; Michelle Jackman MD; John F Philpott MD Liaison: Laura K Purcell MD, CPS Paediatric Sports and Exercise Medicine Section Principal authors: Kristin M Houghton MD; Carolyn A Emery PT PhD May 2013 REFERENCES 1. Hockey Canada, Annual report 2008: www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/55192/la_id/1.htm (Accessed July 4, 2012). 2. Rice SG; American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness. Medical conditions affecting sports participation. Pediatrics 2008;121(4):841-8. 3. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness. Safety in youth ice hockey: The effects of body checking. Pediatrics 2000;105(3 Pt 1):657-8. 4. Hockey Canada. Teaching checking: A progressive approach. 2002: www.omha.net/admin/downloads/Teaching%20Checking.pdf (Accessed July 4, 2012). 5. Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine. Position Statement: Violence and injuries in ice hockey. 1988. www.casm-acms.org/forms/statements/HockeyViolEng.pdf (Accessed July 4, 2012). 6. Emery CA, Risk factors for injury in child and adolescent sport: A systematic review of the literature. Clin J Sport Med 2003;13(4):256-68. 7. Caine D, Caine C, Maffulli N. Incidence and distribution of pediatric sport-related injuries. Clin J Sport Med 2006;16(6):500-13. 8. Emery CA, Meeuwisse WH. Injury rates, risk factors, and mechanisms of injury in minor hockey [comment]. Am J Sports Med 2006;34(12):1960-9. 9. Emery CA, Meeuwisse WH, McAllister JR. Survey of sport participation and sport injury in Calgary and area high schools. Clin J Sport Med 2006;16(1):20-6. 10. Emery C, Tyreman H. Sport participation, sport injury, risk factors and sport safety practices in Calgary and area junior high schools. Paediatr Child Health 2009;14(7):439-44. 11. Tator CH, Carson JD, Cushman R. Hockey injuries of the spine in Canada, 1966-1996 [comment]. CMAJ 2000;162(6):787-8. 12. Proctor MR, Cantu RC. Head and neck injuries in young athletes. Clin Sports Med 2000;19(4): 693-715. 13. Kelly KD, Lissel HL, Rowe BH, Vincenten JA, Voaklander DC. Sport and recreation-related head injuries treated in the emergency department. Clin J Sport Med 2001;11(2):77-81. 14. Mueller FO, Cantu RC. Catastrophic injuries and fatalities in high school and college sports, fall 1982-spring 1988. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1990;22(6):737-41. 15. Cantu RC, Mueller FO. Fatalities and catastrophic injuries in high school and college sports, 1982-1997: Lessons for improving safety. Phys Sportsmed 1999;27(8):35-48. 16. Brust JD, Leonard BJ, Pheley A, Roberts WO. Children's ice hockey injuries. Am J Dis Child 1992;146(6):741-7. 17. Bernard D, Trudel P. Marcotte G. The incidence, types, and circumstances of injuries to ice hockey players at the bantam level (14 to 15 years old). In: Hoerner E, ed. Safety in Ice Hockey. Philadephia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1993:44-55. 18. Benson B, Meeuwisse WH. Ice hockey injuries. In: Maffulli N, Caine DJ, eds. Epidemiology of Pediatric Sports Injuries: Team Sports. Basel: S Karger AG, 2005:86-119. 19. Warsh JM, Constantin SA, Howard A, Macpherson A. A systematic review of the association between body checking and injury in youth ice hockey. Clin J Sport Med 2009;19(2):134-44. 20. Emery CA, Hagel B, Decloe M, Carly M. Risk factors for injury and severe injury in youth ice hockey: A systematic review of the literature. Inj Prev 2010;16(2):113-8. 21. Emery CA, Kang J, Shrier I, et al. Risk of injury associated with body checking among youth ice hockey players. JAMA 2010;303(22):2265-72. 22. Darling, SR, Schaubel DE, Baker JG, Leddy JJ, Bisson LJ, Willer B. Intentional versus unintentional contact as a mechanism of injury in youth ice hockey. Br J Sports Med 2011;45(6):492-7. 23. Emery C, Kang J, Shrier I, et al. Risk of injury associated with bodychecking experience among youth hockey players. CMAJ 2011;183(11):1249-56. 24. Kukaswadia A, Warsh J, Mihalik JP, Pickett W. Effects of changing body-checking rules on rates of injury in minor hockey. Pediatrics 2010;125(4):735-41. 25. Cusimano M, Taback N, McFaull S, Hodgins R, Tsegaye B; Canadian Research Team in Traumatic Brain Injury and Violence. Effect of bodychecking on rate of injuries among minor hockey players. Open Medicine 2011;5(1):e59: www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/246/389 (Accessed July 4, 2012). 26. Macpherson A, Rothman L, Howard A. Body-checking rules and childhood injuries in ice hockey. Pediatrics;117(2):e143-7 [Erratum in Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):2334-6]. 27. Stuart MJ, Smith AM, Nieva JJ, Rock MG. Injuries in youth ice hockey: A pilot surveillance strategy. Mayo Clin Proc 1995;70(4): p. 350-6. 28. Mölsä, J, Kujala U, Myllynen P, Torstila I, Airaksinen O. Injuries to the upper extremity in ice hockey: Analysis of a series of 760 injuries. Am J Sports Med 2003;31(5):751-7. 29. Björkenheim JM, Syvähuoko I, Rosenberg PH. Injuries in competitive junior ice-hockey. 1437 players followed for one season. Acta Orthop Scand 1993;64(4):459-61. 30. Wiggins W. Implication of introducing body checking in ice hockey at different ages. OpenThesis. Lakehead University, 1998: www.openthesis.org/documents/Implication-introducing-body-checking-in-182710.html (Accessed July 4, 2012). 31. Wattie N, Cobley S, Macpherson A, Howard A, Montelpare WJ, Baker J. Injuries in Canadian youth ice hockey: The influence of relative age. Pediatrics 2007;120(1):142-8. 32. Roberts WO, Brust JD, Leonard B. Youth ice hockey tournament injuries: Rates and patterns compared to season play. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;31(1):46-51. 33. Williamson IJS. An epidemiological investigation of concussion in youth ice hockey. Simon Fraser University: MSc thesis, 2006. 34. Smith AM, Stuart MJ, Wiese-Bjornstal DM, Gunnon C. Predictors of injury in ice hockey players. A multivariate, multidisciplinary approach. Am J Sports Med 1997;25(4): 500-7. 35. McKay C, Emery CA, Campbell T, Meeuwisse W. The effect of premature return to play on re-injury risk in elite adolescent ice hockey and associated psychosocial predictors [Abstract]. Br J Sport Med 2008;42(6):532-3. 36. Willer B, Kroetsch B, Darling S, Hutson A, Leddy J. Injury rates in house league, select, and representative youth ice hockey. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37(10):1658-63. 37. Finke RC, Goodwin Gerberich S, Madden M, et al. Shoulder injuries in ice hockey. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1988;10(2):54-8. 38. Brunelle JP, Goulet C, Arguin H. Promoting respect for the rules and injury prevention in ice hockey: Evaluation of the fair-play program. J Sci Med Sport 2005;8(3):294-304. 39. Canadian Paediatric Society, Healthy Active Living and Sports Medicine Committee. Identification and management of children with sport related concussion (Principal author Laura K Purcell). Paediatr Child Health 2012;17(1):31 www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/concussion-evaluation-management. 40. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care for specific clinical preventive actions. CMAJ 2003;169(3):207-8. 41. Canadian Task Force. Quality of Published Evidence. www.canadiantaskforce.ca/_archive/index.html (Accessed July 19, 2012). Disclaimer: The recommendations in this position statement do not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate. Internet addresses are current at time of publication.
Documents
Less detail

Early childhood development

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11476
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-12-06
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-12-06
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Adult health is pre-determined in many ways in early childhood and even by events occurring before birth. The years between conception and the start of school are the time when crucial developments in physical, social, cognitive, emotional and language domains take place. Disruptions during this period can lead to weakened physiological responses, influence brain architecture, and influence how the neuroendocrine, cardiovascular and other systems are developed.1,2 Experiences in early life can even 'get under the skin', changing the ways that certain genes are expressed.3,4 Negative experiences such as poverty or family or parental violence can have significant impacts on this important period of development. Even for those children who don't encounter these types of barriers, there can be problems in the early years. Evidence suggests that adult diseases should be viewed as developmental disorders that begin in early life.5 Just as children are susceptible to negative influences in early life, the period of rapid development means that effective interventions can minimize or eliminate these outcomes. Intervening in the early years has been shown to have the potential to impact developmental trajectories and protect children from risk factors that are present in their daily environments.6 At the government and national level there are four main areas of action: Early childhood learning and care; Support for parents; Poverty reduction; and Data collection for early childhood development. The CMA Recommends that: 1. The federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, implement a national early learning and care program that ensures all children have equal access to high quality child care and early learning. 2. The federal government commit to increasing funding for early childhood development to 1% of GDP to bring Canada in line with other OECD countries. 3. Programs such as early childhood home visiting be made available to all vulnerable families in Canada. 4. Governments support the expansion of community resources for parents which provide parenting programs and family supports. 5. A national strategy to decrease family violence and the maltreatment of children, including appropriate community resources, be developed and implemented in all provinces and territories. 6. The federal government work with provinces and territories to adopt a national strategy to eradicate child poverty in Canada with clear accountability and measurable targets. 7. Provinces and territories implement comprehensive poverty reduction strategies with clear accountability and measurable targets. 8. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to create a robust and unified reporting system on early childhood to ensure that proper monitoring of trends and interventions can take place. 9. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to continue to implement the early development index in all jurisdictions. In addition, work should be supported on similar tools for 18 months and middle childhood. 10. The federal government support the development of a pan-Canadian platform that can share evidence and best practice, and focus research questions around the early years. While most of what is necessary for early childhood development will be done by governments and stakeholders outside of the health care system, there are opportunities for physicians to influence this important social determinant both through medical education, and clinical practice. The CMA Recommends that: 11. Curriculum on early brain, biological development and early learning be incorporated into all Canadian medical schools. 12. Continuing CME on early brain, biological development and early learning be available to all primary-care providers who are responsible for the health care of children. 13. All provinces and territories implement an enhanced 18 month well-baby visit with appropriate compensation and community supports. 14. Physicians and other primary care providers integrate the enhanced 18 month visit into their regular clinical practice. 15. Comprehensive resources be developed for primary-care providers to identify community supports and services to facilitate referral for parents and children. 16. Efforts be made to ensure timely access to resources and programs for children who have identified developmental needs. 17. Physicians serve as advocates on issues related to early childhood development. They should use their knowledge, expertise and influence to speak out on the need and importance of healthy development in the early years. 18. Physicians continue to include literacy promotion in routine clinical encounters with children of all ages. 19. National Medical Associations work with governments and the non-profit sector to explore the development of a clinically based child literacy program for Canada. Background Adult health is pre-determined in many ways in early childhood and even by events occurring before birth. The years between conception and the start of school are the time when crucial developments in physical, social, cognitive, emotional and language domains take place. The early childhood period is the most important development period in life.7 Disruptions during this period can lead to weakened physiological responses, influence brain architecture, and influence how the neuroendocrine, cardiovascular and other systems are developed.8,9 Experiences in early life can even 'get under the skin', changing the ways that certain genes are expressed.10,11 According to research done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the adverse childhood event (ACE)a study, child maltreatment, neglect, and exposure to violence can significantly impact childhood development. The study involved a retrospective look at the early childhood experiences of 17,000 US adults and the impact of these events on later life and behaviour issues. An increased number of ACEs was linked to increases in risky behaviour in childhood and adolescence12 and to a number of adult health conditions including alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, obesity, heart disease, and some forms of cancer.13,14 The greater the number of adverse experiences in childhood the greater the likelihood of health problems in adulthood.15 A high level of ACEs was linked to language, cognitive and emotional impairment; factors which impact on school success and adult functioning.16 Finally, the study found a correlation between experiencing ACEs, suicide, and being the victim of or perpetrating intimate partner violence.17 Poverty is a significant barrier to healthy child development. Children who grow up in poor families or disadvantaged communities are especially susceptible to the physiological and biological changes associated with disease risk.18 Poverty is associated with a number of risk factors for healthy development including: unsupportive parenting, inadequate nutrition and education, high levels of traumatic and stressful events19, including higher rates of traumatic injuries20, poorer housing, lack of services, and limited access to physical activity.21 Children from low-income families score lower than children from high-income families on various measures of school readiness, cognitive development and school achievement22,23, and this gap increases over time with children of low-income families being less likely to attend post-secondary education and gain meaningful employment.24 Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor as adults25,26 and to pass this disadvantage on to their own children.27,28 Children living in poverty have more problem behaviours such as drug abuse, early pregnancy, and increased criminal behaviour.29 Finally, economic hardship in childhood has been linked to premature mortality and chronic disease in adulthood.30 Early adverse events and poverty are serious impediments to healthy development, however, it is not just disadvantaged children that need attention. The early years are critical for all children regardless of socio-economic status. Evidence suggests that adult diseases should be viewed as developmental disorders that begin in early life.31 By 2030, 90% of morbidity in high income countries will be related to chronic diseases.32 These diseases are due in large part to risk factors such as smoking, poor nutrition, alcohol and drug abuse, and inadequate physical activity.33 These risk factors can be heavily influenced by the environment in which people live and can be increased by poor early childhood experiences.34,35 Health promotion and disease/injury prevention programs targeted at adults would be more effective if investments were made early in life on the origins of those diseases and conditions.36,37 Areas for Action While there is reason for concern regarding early childhood development, there is positive news as well. Just as children are susceptible to negative influences in early life, the period of rapid development also means that effective interventions can minimize or eliminate these outcomes. Intervening in the early years has been shown to have the potential to impact developmental trajectories and protect children from risk factors that are present in their daily environments.38 Government and National: Early Childhood Learning and Care Research suggests that 90% of a child's brain capacity is developed by age five, before many children have any access to formal education.39 More than one quarter of Canadian children start kindergarten vulnerable in at least one area of development.40 Approximately two thirds of these deficiencies can be considered preventable. Evidence suggests that each 1% of excess vulnerability in school readiness leads to a reduction in GDP of 1% over the course of that child's life.41 Children who aren't ready for kindergarten are half as likely to read by the third grade, a factor that increases the risk of high school drop-out significantly. 42 While it is possible to intervene later to address these learning deficiencies, these interventions are less effective and much more costly.43 High quality early childhood programs including programs to nurture and stimulate children and educate parents are highly correlated with the amelioration of the effects of disadvantage on cognitive, emotional and physical development among children.44,45 A recent analysis of 84 preschool programs in the United States concluded that children participating in effective pre-school programs can acquire about a third of a year of additional learning in math, language and reading skills.46 Since the implementation of the universal childcare program in Quebec, students in that province have moved from below the national average on standardized tests to above the average.47 In addition, effective early childhood learning programs offer a significant return on investment. Research done on US preschool programs found a return on investment of between four and seventeen dollars for every dollar spent on the program. Evidence from the Quebec universal child care program indicates that the program costs are more than covered by the increased tax revenues generated as a result of increased employment among Quebec mothers. For every dollar spent on the Quebec program, $1.05 is received by the provincial government with the federal government receiving $0.44.48 In terms of early childhood learning and care, Canada is lagging far behind - tied for last place among 25 countries in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) early childhood development indicators.b,49 Canada spends the least amount of money on early childhood learning and care of all countries in the OECD (0.25% of GDP)50, or one quarter of the recommended benchmark. Of this money, fully 65% is attributable to Quebec's universal daycare program.51 Canadian families face great pressures in finding affordable and accessible quality early childhood learning and care spots across the country. In Quebec 69% of children 2-4 regularly attend early childhood learning programs; outside of Quebec the number falls to 38.6%. The challenges for low-income families are even more pronounced with almost 65% of poor children 0-5 receiving no out-of home care.52 The federal government and the provinces and territories must work to bring Canada in line with other OECD countries on early childhood learning and care. The CMA Recommends that: 1. The federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, implement a national early learning and care program that ensures all children have equal access to high quality child care and early learning. 2. The federal government commit to increasing funding for early childhood development to 1% of GDP to bring Canada in line with other OECD countries. Support for Parents A supportive nurturing caregiver is associated with better physical and mental health, fewer behavioural problems, higher educational achievement, more productive employment, and less involvement with the justice system and social services.53 Studies have demonstrated that improved parental-child relationships can minimize the effects of strong, prolonged and frequent stress, referred to as toxic stress54,55, and that the effects of poverty can be minimized with appropriate nurturing and supportive parenting.56 Parental support programs can act as a buffer for children at the same time as strengthening the ability of parents to meet their children's developmental needs.57 Caregivers who struggle with problems such as depression or poverty may be unable to provide adequate attention to their children undermining the attachment relationships that develop in early life. The relatively limited attention that is focused on addressing the deficiencies in time and resources of parents across all socio-economic groups can undermine healthy childhood development.58 One approach that has been shown to improve parental functioning and decrease neglect and child abuse is early childhood home visiting programs, sometimes referred to as Nurse Family partnerships. These programs provide nursing visits to vulnerable young mothers from conception until the children are between two and six depending on the program. The home visits provide prenatal support, educate parents about early childhood development, promote positive parenting, connect parents with resources, and monitor for signs of child-abuse and neglect.59 Results from several randomized controlled trials of these programs in the United States have shown that the program reduces abuse and injury, and improves cognitive and social and emotional outcomes in children. A 15 year follow-up study found lower levels of crime and antisocial behaviour in both the mothers and the children that participated in these programs.60 In Canada Nurse Family Partnerships were first piloted in Hamilton, Ontario. They are now undergoing a broader implementation and review in the Province of British Columbia. These programs should continue to be supported and expanded to all families who would benefit from this proven early childhood intervention. Many Canadian provinces have established community resources for parents. Alberta has recently announced plans to establish parent link centres across the province. These will deliver parenting programs, and be home to community resources and programs.61 Similar programs exist in other provinces such as the early years centres in Ontario62, and family resource centres in Manitoba.63 Early Childhood Development Centres in Atlantic Canada are combining child care, kindergarten and family supports into early childhood centres that are aligned with schools.64 While these programs can go a long way in reducing abuse and neglect, there is still a need for an overarching strategy to reduce neglect and child abuse across the country. As the ACE study in the United States clearly demonstrated, exposure to early adverse events such as family violence or neglect have troubling implications for adult health and behaviours.65 Action must be taken to ensure that avoidable adverse events are eliminated. The CMA Recommends that: 3. Programs such as early childhood home visiting be made available to all vulnerable families in Canada. 4. Governments support the expansion of community resources for parents which provide parenting programs and family supports. 5. A national strategy to decrease family violence and the maltreatment of children, including appropriate community resources, be developed and implemented in all provinces and territories. Poverty reduction In 1989 the Canadian government made a commitment to end child poverty by 2000. As of 2011, more Canadian children and their families lived in poverty than when the original declaration was made.66 Canada ranks 15th out of 17 peer countries with more than one in seven children living in poverty (15.1%).67 Canada is one of the only wealthy nations with a child poverty rate that is actually higher than the overall poverty rate.68 Child poverty is a provincial and territorial responsibility as well. As of 2012, only four provinces had child poverty strategies that met the guidelines put forward by the Canadian Paediatric Society.c,69 Poor children grow up in the context of poor families which means that solutions for child poverty must necessarily minimize the poverty of their parents.70 Efforts to increase the income as well as employment opportunities for parents, in particular single parents, must be part of any poverty reduction strategy.71 Programs, such as affordable child care, that allows parents to be active participants in the work force represent one approach72,73 Quebec's program of early childhood care has increased female workforce participation by 70,000 and reduced the child poverty rate by 50%.74 Addressing poverty could minimize problem areas in child development. According to a 2009 report by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, of 27 factors seen as having an impact on child development, 80% of these showed improvement as family income increased.75 Increasing income has the greatest impact on cognitive outcomes for children the earlier in life the reduction in poverty takes place.76 The federal government and the provinces and territories must work to ensure that poverty does not continue to be a barrier to the healthy development of Canadian children. The CMA Recommends that: 6. The federal government work with provinces and territories to adopt a national strategy to eradicate child poverty in Canada with clear accountability and measurable targets. 7. Provinces and territories implement comprehensive poverty reduction strategies with clear accountability and measurable targets. Data Collection for Early Childhood Development The evidence shows the importance of early childhood development for later success and health. In order to properly design effective interventions to mitigate developmental concerns, there is a need for appropriate data on early childhood health indicators and interventions. Given the variation in outcomes of children among different communities and demographic groups, there is a need for individual level data which is linked to the community level. This will allow providers and governments to develop appropriate interventions. Such an approach is being used by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, the Human Early Learning Partnership in British Columbia, and Health Data Nova Scotia. Researchers at these centres are creating a longitudinal data set by linking administrative data from a range of sources.77 Such data sets should be supported in all provinces and territories. Another tool being used to measure the progress of Canadian children is the Early Development Instrument (EDI). This tool is a 104 item checklist completed by teachers for every child around the middle of the first year of schooling. The checklist measures five core areas of early child development that are known to be good predictors of adult health, education and social outcomes. These include: physical health and well-being; language and cognitive development; social competence; emotional maturity; and communication skills and general knowledge.78,79 This tool has been used at least once in most of the provinces and territories with a commitment from most jurisdictions to continue this monitoring.80 While this is a good start, it gives only a snapshot of development. Ideally a monitoring system plots several points of time in development to identify trajectories of children. Ontario has introduced an enhanced well baby visit at 18 months. This clinical intervention could allow for the capture of development data at an earlier time. There is a need for more comprehensive information at the 18-month and middle childhood phases.81 The CMA Recommends that: 8. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to create a robust and unified reporting system on early childhood to ensure that proper monitoring of trends and interventions can take place. 9. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to continue to implement the early development index in all jurisdictions. In addition, work should be supported on similar tools for 18 months and middle childhood. 10. The federal government support the development of a pan-Canadian platform that can share evidence and best practice, and focus research questions around the early years. Medical Education: Given the importance of early childhood experiences on adult health there is a need for a greater understanding of the biological basis of adult diseases. The medical community needs to focus more attention on the roots of adult diseases and disabilities and focus prevention efforts on disrupting or minimizing these early links to later poor health outcomes.82 The science of early brain development and biology is rapidly evolving. There is a need to ensure that future and current physicians are up to date on this information and its implications for clinical practice.83 The Association of Faculties of Medicine and the Norlien foundation have partnered to provide funding and support for a series of e-learning tools on early brain and biological development.84 Continuing medical education does exist for some components of early childhood development and more work is underway. The Ontario College of Family Physicians has developed a CME that explores early childhood development for practitioners.85 These initiatives must be supported and expanded to all physicians who provide primary care to children and their families. The CMA Recommends that: 11. Curriculum on early brain, biological development and early learning be incorporated into all Canadian medical schools. 12. Continuing CME on early brain, biological development and early learning be available to all primary-care providers who are responsible for the health care of children. Clinical Practice: While many of the threats to early childhood development lie outside of the hospital or medical clinic, there are a number of ways that physicians can help to address this important determinant of health within their practices. Primary care practitioners are uniquely qualified to address this fundamental population health issue,86 and can provide one important component in a multi-sectoral approach to healthy early childhood development.87 Screening and support for parents The health care system is the primary contact for many child-bearing mothers, and for many families, health-care providers are the only professionals with whom they have regular contact during the early years.88,89 According to data from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 97% of Ontario children aged zero to two are seen by a family physician.90 Within a patient-centred medical home, health-care providers can give support and information to parents about issues such as parenting, safety, and nutrition, and can link them to early childhood resourcesd, and other supports such as housing and food security programs. 91,92 Primary-care providers can help patients connect with public health departments who have many healthy baby and healthy child programs.93 Primary-care providers can ensure that screening takes place to identify risk factors to appropriate development.94 This screening should take place as early as the prenatal stage and continue throughout childhood. Screening should include regular assessments of physical milestones such as height, weight and vision and hearing etc. In addition, providers can identify risk factors such as maternal depression, substance abuse, and potential neglect or abuse.95 Given the negative consequences of early violence and neglect on childhood development96, this is a key role for primary-care providers. Screening for social issues such as poverty, poor housing and food insecurity should also be completed.97 A significant time for screening occurs at 18 months. This is the time for the last set of immunizations and in many cases the last time a child will have a regularly scheduled physician visit before the start of school.98 The 18 month well baby visit provides an opportunity to screen for not only medical concerns but child development as well. The enhanced 18 month well baby visite developed in Ontario combines parental observations and clinical judgment to screen for any risks a child might have.99 In Ontario, parental observation is captured through the Nipissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS). The parents complete this standardized tool and report the results to their physicians or other primary-care providers. The NDDS checklist is not meant to be a diagnostic tool but instead helps to highlight any potential areas of concern while also providing information to parents about childhood development. The 'activities for your child' section which accompanies the tool can also help reinforce the importance of development.100 As part of the visit primary-care providers fill out a standardized tool known as the Rourke Baby Record. This tool is an evidence based guide which helps professionals deliver the enhanced visit. This combined with the parental report through the NDDS, allows for a complete picture of the physical as well as the development health of the child at 18 months. Primary-care providers can use the results to discuss parenting and development and link children to specialized services, as necessary, and other community supports and resources. In Ontario early child development and parenting resource system pathways have been developed in many communities to help ensure that primary care providers can be aware of the resources and supports available for their patients.101 As was already noted, almost two thirds of vulnerabilities in readiness for school can be prevented.102 Appropriate identification through screening is a first step in correcting these issues. While the expansion of this approach is currently being reviewed in Nova Scotia, it should be implemented in all provinces and territories with appropriate compensation mechanisms and community based supports. Additionally, consideration should be made to developing screening tools for physicians outside of primary care, ie. emergency departments, who see children who might not have regular primary care physicians. The CMA Recommends that: 13. All provinces and territories implement an enhanced 18 month well-baby visit with appropriate compensation and community supports. 14. Physicians and other primary care providers integrate the enhanced 18 month visit into their regular clinical practice. 15. Comprehensive resources be developed for primary-care providers to identify community supports and services to facilitate referral for parents and children. 16. Efforts be made to ensure timely access to resources and programs for children who have identified developmental needs. 17. Physicians serve as advocates on issues related to early childhood development. They should use their knowledge, expertise and influence to speak out on the need and importance of healthy development in the early years. Literacy By 18 months disparities in language acquisition begin to develop.103 According to US research, by age four, children of families on welfare will hear 30 million less words than children from families with professional parents.104 This can lead to ongoing disparities in childhood learning as evidence suggests that exposure to reading and language from parents is fundamental for success in reading by children.105 Physicians and other primary-care providers can play a role in helping to reduce these disparities. They can encourage reading, speaking, singing and telling stories as part of a daily routine.f Studies have demonstrated that when physicians discuss literacy with parents and provide them with appropriate resources, such as developmentally appropriate children's books, increases in reading frequency and preschool language scores have been found.106 One program which has integrated reading and literacy into clinical practice is the 'Reach out and Read' program in the United States. This program partners with physicians, paediatricians, and nurse practitioners to provide new developmentally appropriate books to children ages 6 months through 5 years, as well as guidance for parents about the importance of reading.107,108 The success of this program has been significant with parents in the program being four to ten times more likely to read frequently with their children, and children scoring much higher on receptive and expressive language scores on standardized tests.109 Given the success of this program for American children, a similar program should be explored in the Canadian context. The CMA Recommends that: 18. Physicians continue to include literacy promotion in routine clinical encounters with children of all ages. 19. National Medical Associations work with governments and the non-profit sector to explore the development of a clinically based child literacy program for Canada. Conclusion The early years represent the most important time of development. The first five years can 'get under the skin' and influence outcomes throughout the life course. Negative experiences such as poverty, violence, poor nutrition, and inadequate parenting can determine behaviours as well as adult health outcomes. Effective early interventions can help to minimize or capitalize on these experiences. Government actions and supports to reduce poverty, child abuse, violence and to enable parents to care for their children are necessary. In addition, appropriate high quality early childhood learning and care programs are required for all Canadians regardless of socio-economic status. Finally, health care providers can play a role in identifying children at risk, supporting their parents to encourage healthy childhood development, and advocating for communities that ensure all Canadian children have the opportunity to grow up happy and healthy. References a The adverse childhood events are: emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, physical neglect, mother treated violently, household substance abuse, household mental illness, parental separation or divorce, incarcerated household member. http://www.cdc.gov/ace/prevalence.htm#ACED b The indicators used for the comparison include: Parental leave of one year with 50% of salary; a national plan with priority for disadvantaged children; subsidized and regulated child care services for 25% of children under 3; subsidized and accredited early education services for 80% of 4 year-olds; 80% of all child care staff trained; 50% of staff in accredited early education services tertiary educated with relevant qualification (this is the only indicator that Canada met); minimum staff-to-children ratio of 1:15 in pre-school education; 1.0% of GDP spent on early childhood services; child poverty rate less than 10%; near-universal outreach of essential child health services. UNICEF (2008) The child care transition: A league table of early childhood education and care in economically advanced countries. Available at: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc8_eng.pdf c To meet the CPS guidelines a province/territory requires anti-poverty legislation promoting long-term action and government accountability for at least three years, and has a poverty reduction strategy with specific targets. d For a list of some of the resources available for early childhood development across the country please see the Canadian Paediatric Society Resource Page: http://www.cps.ca/en/first-debut/map/community-resources e For more detailed information on the enhanced 18 month well baby visit please see the Canadian Paediatric Society Position statement- Williams R & J Clinton. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa, ON; 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (Accessed 2014 Jan 24). For resources available to Ontario primary-care providers please visit: http://machealth.ca/programs/18-month/default.aspx f For information and resources on early literacy please see the Canadian Paediatric Society at: http://www.cps.ca/issues-questions/literacy 1 Williams R et.al. The promise of the early years: How long should children wait? Paediatr Child Health Vol 17 No 10 December 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/issues/2012-early-years-commentary.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 21) 2 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 3 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 4 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 5 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 6 Hutchison P Chair. Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse, with a focus on pre-conception until three years of age. New Zealand House of Representatives. Wellington (NZ); 2013. Available: http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201347/Full-report-text1.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 3). 7 World Health Organization. Closing the Health Equity Gap: Policy options and opportunities for action. Geneva, Switzerland; 2013. Available: http://www.paho.org/equity/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=103&Itemid (accessed 2013 Dec 20) 8 Williams R et al. The promise of the early years: How long should children wait? Paediatr Child Health Vol 17 No 10 December 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/issues/2012-early-years-commentary.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 21) 9 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 10 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 11 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 12 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 13 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development. Cambridge(MA); N.D. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/interactive_features/five-numbers/ (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 14 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 15 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 16 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development. Cambridge(MA); N.D. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/interactive_features/five-numbers/ (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 17 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 18 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 19 Luby J et al. The Effects of Poverty on Childhood Brain Development: The Mediating Effect of Caregiving and Stressful Life Events. JAMA Pediatr. Published online October 28, 2013. 20 Oliver LN, Kohen DE. Neighbourhood variation in hospitalization for un intentional injury among children and teenagers. Health Rep 2010;21(4):9-17 21 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 22 Piano M. Canada 2020 Analytical Commentary No. 6: Are we ready for universal childcare in Canada? Recommendations for equality of opportunity through childcare in Canada. Canada 2020, Ottawa (ON); 2014. Available: http://canada2020.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Canada-2020-Analytical-Commentary-No.-6-Universal-childcare-Jan-29-2014.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 13). 23 Cooper K & Stewart K. Does Money Affect Children's Outcomes? Joseph Rowntree Foundation. London(UK); 2013. Available: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/money-children-outcomes-full.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 20). 24 Piano M. Canada 2020 Analytical Commentary No. 6: Are we ready for universal childcare in Canada? Recommendations for equality of opportunity through childcare in Canada. Canada 2020, Ottawa (ON); 2014. Available: http://canada2020.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Canada-2020-Analytical-Commentary-No.-6-Universal-childcare-Jan-29-2014.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 13). 25 APA Task Force on Childhood Poverty. A Strategic Road-Map: Committed to Bringing the Voice of Pediatricians to the Most Important Problem Facing Children in the US Today. The American Academy of Pediatrics. Elk Grove Village (IL); 2013. Available: http://www.academicpeds.org/public_policy/pdf/APA_Task_Force_Strategic_Road_Mapver3.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 9). 26 HM Treasury. Ending child poverty: mapping the route to 2020. London(UK); 2010. Available: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/images/ecp/budget2010_childpoverty.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 17). 27 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 28 HM Treasury. Ending child poverty: mapping the route to 2020. London(UK); 2010. Available: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/images/ecp/budget2010_childpoverty.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 17). 29 Dreyer BP. To Create a Better World for Children and Families: The Case for Ending Childhood Poverty. Acad. Pediat. Vol 13 No 2. Mar-Apr 2013. Available: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1876-2859/PIIS1876285913000065.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 10). 30 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 31 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 32 Bygbjerg IC. Double Burden of Noncommunicable and Infectious Diseases in Developing Countries. Science Vol.337 21 September 2012 pp.1499-1501. Available: http://health-equity.pitt.edu/3994/1/Double_Burden_of_Noncommunicable_and_Infectious_Diseases.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 11). 33 World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Non-Communicable diseases 2010. Chapter 1: Burden: mortality, morbidity and risk factors. Geneva, Switzerland; 2010. Available: http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report_chapter1.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 11). 34 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 35 Dreyer BP. To Create a Better World for Children and Families: The Case for Ending Childhood Poverty. Acad. Pediat. Vol 13 No 2. Mar-Apr 2013. Available: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1876-2859/PIIS1876285913000065.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 10). 36 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 37 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 38 Hutchison P Chair. Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse, with a focus on pre-conception until three years of age. New Zealand House of Representatives. Wellington (NZ); 2013. Available: http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201347/Full-report-text1.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 3). 39 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 40 Little L. Early Childhood Education and Care: Issues and Initiatives. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Ottawa(ON); 2012. 41 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 42 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 43 Heckman JJ. The Case for Investing in Disadvantaged Young Children. Available: http://heckmanequation.org/content/resource/case-investing-disadvantaged-young-children (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 44 Braveman P, Egerter D & Williams DR. The Social Determinants of Health: Coming of Age. Annu Rev Publ Health. 32:3.1-3.18. 2011. 45 European Union. Commission Recommendation of 20.2.2013: Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage. Brussels (Belgium); 2013. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 24). 46 Yoshikawa H et al. Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Society for Research in Child Development & Foundation for Child Development. New York (NY); 2013. Available: http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 47 Piano M. Canada 2020 Analytical Commentary No. 6: Are we ready for universal childcare in Canada? Recommendations for equality of opportunity through childcare in Canada. Canada 2020, Ottawa (ON); 2014. Available: http://canada2020.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Canada-2020-Analytical-Commentary-No.-6-Universal-childcare-Jan-29-2014.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 13). 48 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 49 Mikkonen J, Raphael D. Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts. Toronto (ON); 2010. Available: http://www.thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf (accessed 2012 Jan 24). 50 Denburg A, Daneman D. The Link between Social Inequality and Child Health Outcomes. Healthcare Quarterly Vol. 14 Oct 2010. 51 Campaign 2000. Canada's Real Economic Action Plan Begins with Poverty Eradication: 2013 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada. Family Service Toronto. Toronto (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/2013C2000NATIONALREPORTCARDNOV26.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 52 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 53 Shonkoff JP et.al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 54 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 55 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 56 Luby J et al. The Effects of Poverty on Childhood Brain Development: The Mediating Effect of Caregiving and Stressful Life Events. JAMA Pediatr. Published online October 28, 2013. 57 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 58 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 59 Knoke D. Early childhood home visiting programs. Centres of Excellence for Children's Well-Being. Toronto(ON); 2009. Available: http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/HomeVisiting73E.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 7). 60 Mercy JA, Saul J. Creating a Healthier Future Through Early Interventions for Children. JAMA June 3, 2009 Vol 301, No.21. 61 Government of Alberta. Alberta improves supports for families. Edmonton(AB); 2014. Available: http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=356434F454042-9B0A-23FD-4AD0402F87D70805 (accessed 2014 Jan 7). 62 Ontario Ministry of Education. Ontario Early Years Centres: Frequently asked questions. Toronto (ON):N.D. Available: http://www.oeyc.edu.gov.on.ca/questions/index.aspx (accessed 2015 Jan 30). 63 Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet. Starting Early, Starting Strong: Manitoba's Early Childhood Development Framework. Government of Manitoba, Winnipeg (MB); 2013. Available: http://www.gov.mb.ca/cyo/pdfs/sess_ECD_framework.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 64 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 65 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 66 Campaign 2000. Canada's Real Economic Action Plan Begins with Poverty Eradication: 2013 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada. Family Service Toronto. Toronto (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/2013C2000NATIONALREPORTCARDNOV26.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 67 Conference Board of Canada. Child Poverty. Ottawa (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/child-poverty.aspx (accessed 2013 Jun 20). 68 Canadian Paediatric Society. Are We Doing Enough? A status report on Canadian public policy and child and youth health. 2012 edition. Ottawa (ON); 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/advocacy/StatusReport2012.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 14). 69 Ibid. 70 APA Task Force on Childhood Poverty. A Strategic Road-Map: Committed to Bringing the Voice of Pediatricians to the Most Important Problem Facing Children in the US Today. The American Academy of Pediatrics. Elk Grove Village (IL); 2013. Available: http://www.academicpeds.org/public_policy/pdf/APA_Task_Force_Strategic_Road_Mapver3.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 9). 71 Campaign 2000. Canada's Real Economic Action Plan Begins with Poverty Eradication: 2013 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada. Family Service Toronto. Toronto (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/2013C2000NATIONALREPORTCARDNOV26.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 72 HM Treasury. Ending child poverty: mapping the route to 2020. London(UK); 2010. Available: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/images/ecp/budget2010_childpoverty.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 17). 73 Fauth B, Renton Z & Solomon E. Tackling child poverty and promoting children's well-being: lessons from abroad. National Children's Bureau. London (UK); 2013. Available: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/892335/tackling_child_poverty_1302013_final.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 74 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 75 Little L. Early Childhood Education and Care: Issues and Initiatives. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Ottawa(ON); 2012. 76 Cooper K & Stewart K. Does Money Affect Children's Outcomes? Joseph Rowntree Foundation. London(UK); 2013. Available: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/money-children-outcomes-full.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 20). 77 Hertzman C, Clinton J, Lynk A. Measuring in support of early childhood development. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/early-childhood-development (accessed 2014 Feb 25). 78 Human Early Learning Partnership. Early Development Instrument. N.D. Available: http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/edi/ (accessed 2014 Oct 8). 79 Adamson P. Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview: Innocenti Report Card 11. UNICEF, Florrence, Italy; 2013. Available: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 80 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://firstwords.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Early-Years-Study-3.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 81 Hertzman C, Clinton J, Lynk A. Measuring in support of early childhood development. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/early-childhood-development (accessed 2014 Feb 25). 82 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 83 Garner AS et al. Early Childhood Adversity, Toxic Stress, and the Role of the Pediatrician: Translating Developmental Science Into Lifelong Health. Pediatrics 2012;129;e224. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2662.full.pdf+html (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 84 Little L. Early Childhood Education and Care: Issues and Initiatives. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Ottawa(ON); 2012. 85 Comley L, Mousmanis P. Improving the Odds: Healthy Child Development: Toolkit: Interdisciplinary MAINPRO CME for Family Physicians and other Primary Healthcare Providers, 6th Edition. Toronto (ON);2010. Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/research-projects/improving-the-odds-healthy-child-development-manual-2010-6th-edition.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 2). 86 Williams RC, Clinton J, Price DJ, Novak NE. Ontario's Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit: program overview, implications for physicians. OMR February 2010. Available: http://omr.dgtlpub.com/2010/2010-02-28/home.php (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 87 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 88 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 89 Williams RC, Clinton J, Price DJ, Novak NE. Ontario's Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit: program overview, implications for physicians. OMR February 2010. Available: http://omr.dgtlpub.com/2010/2010-02-28/home.php (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 90 The Minister of Children and Youth announces that every child will receive and enhanced 18-month visit: Family Physicians Play Key Roles in Healthy Child Development. Toronto(ON). Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/cme/enhanced-18-month-well-baby-visit-key-messages-for-family-physicians.pdf?sfvrsn=1 (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 91 Comley L, Mousmanis P. Improving the Odds: Healthy Child Development: Toolkit: Interdisciplinary MAINPRO CME for Family Physicians and other Primary Healthcare Providers, 6th Edition. Toronto (ON);2010. Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/research-projects/improving-the-odds-healthy-child-development-manual-2010-6th-edition.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 2). 92 Garg A, Jack B, Zuckerman B. Addressing the Social Determinants of Health Within the Patient-Centred Medical Home. JAMA. May 15, 2013 Vol. 309 No.19. 93 Comley L, Mousmanis P. Improving the Odds: Healthy Child Development: Toolkit: Interdisciplinary MAINPRO CME for Family Physicians and other Primary Healthcare Providers, 6th Edition. Toronto (ON);2010. Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/research-projects/improving-the-odds-healthy-child-development-manual-2010-6th-edition.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 2). 94 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 95 Williams R et al. The promise of the early years: How long should children wait? Paediatr Child Health Vol 17 No 10 December 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/issues/2012-early-years-commentary.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 21). 96 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 97 Garg A, Jack B, Zuckerman B. Addressing the Social Determinants of Health Within the Patient-Centred Medical Home. JAMA. May 15, 2013 Vol. 309 No.19. 98 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 99 Canadian Paediatric Society. Are We Doing Enough? A status report on Canadian public policy and child and youth health. 2012 edition. Ottawa (ON); 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/advocacy/StatusReport2012.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 14). 100 Williams RC, Clinton J, Price DJ, Novak NE. Ontario's Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit: program overview, implications for physicians. OMR February 2010. Available: http://omr.dgtlpub.com/2010/2010-02-28/home.php (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 101 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 102 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 103 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development. Cambridge(MA); N.D. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/interactive_features/five-numbers/ (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 104 Denburg A, Daneman D. The Link between Social Inequality and Child Health Outcomes. Healthcare Quarterly Vol. 14 Oct 2010. 105 Shaw A. Read, speak, sing: Promoting literacy in the physician's office. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2006. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/read-speak-sing-promoting-literacy (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 106 Ibid. 107 Reach out and Read. Reach Out And Read: The Evidence. Boston (MA); 2013. Available: https://www.reachoutandread.org/FileRepository/Research_Summary.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 108 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 109 Shaw A. Read, speak, sing: Promoting literacy in the physician's office. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2006. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/read-speak-sing-promoting-literacy (accessed 2014 Feb 10).
Documents
Less detail

Proposed UN Convention on the rights of older persons

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13925
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2018-07-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2018-07-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Dear Minister Freeland: We are a national consortium of experts who serve and advocate for the needs and rights of older people. We are delighted by the recent appointment of a new Minister of Seniors, and send our congratulations to the Honourable Filomena Tassi. We are also encouraged by our Government’s commitment to support the health and economic well-being of all Canadians, and heartened by your promise to listen to, and to be informed by feedback from Canadians. It is in this spirit that we are writing today regarding the need for Canada to provide support and leadership with a goal of developing and ratifying a United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Older Persons. In the context of massive global demographic shifts and an aging population, insightful and careful reflection by the leaders of our organizations has led to universal and strong support for the creation and implementation of a UN Convention to specifically recognize and protect the human rights of our older persons. A UN Convention on the Rights of Older Persons will:
enshrine their rights as equal with any other segment of the population with the same legal rights as any other human being;
categorically state that it is unacceptable to discriminate against older people throughout the world;
clarify the state’s role in the protection of older persons;
provide them with more visibility and recognition both nationally and internationally, which is vitally important given the rate at which Canadian and other societies are ageing;
advance the rights of older women at home and as a prominent factor in Canada’s foreign policy;
have a positive, real-world impact on the lives of older citizens who live in poverty, who are disproportionately older women, by battling ageism that contributes to poverty, ill-health, social isolation, and exclusion;
support the commitment to improve the lives of Indigenous Peoples; members of the LGBTQ community, and visible and religious minorities; and,
provide an opportunity for Canada to play a leadership role at the United Nations while at the same time giving expression to several of the Canadian government’s stated foreign policy goals. We have projected that the cost and impact of not having such a Convention would have a significant negative impact on both the physical and mental health of older Canadians. The profound and tragic consequence would have a domino effect in all domains of their lives including social determinants of health, incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases, social and psychological functioning, not to mention massive financial costs to society. There is recognition of this need internationally and ILC-Canada, along with other Canadian NGOs and organizations have been active at the UN to help raise awareness of the ways a UN Convention on the Rights of Older Persons would contribute to all countries. Changes have already been implemented by our Government that are consistent and aligned with a UN Convention, such as improving the income of vulnerable Canadian seniors, funding for long term care and support for community based dementia programs. These initiatives are all in keeping with support for a Convention on the Rights of Older Persons. They are also reflective of our country’s commitment to engage more fully with the United Nations and provide Canada the stage to demonstrate leadership on a vital international issue. It is an opportunity to champion the values of inclusive government, respect for diversity and human rights including the human rights of women. Scientific evidence demonstrates that human rights treaties help to drive positive change in the lives of vulnerable groups of people. In many countries in the world, older people are not adequately protected by existing human rights law, as explicit references to age are exceedingly rare. Even in countries like Canada, where there are legal frameworks that safeguard older people, a Convention would provide an extra layer of protection, particularly if the Convention has a comprehensive complaints mechanism. Older adults need to be viewed as a growing but underutilized human resource. By strengthening their active role in society including the workforce, they have tremendous capacity, knowledge, and wisdom to contribute to the economy and general well-being of humankind. We are requesting you meet with our representatives, to discuss the vital role of a UN Convention on the Rights of Older Persons and the role your government could play in improving the lives of older people in Canada and around the world. The fact that Canada is ageing is something to celebrate. We are all ageing, whether we are 20 or 85. This is a ”golden opportunity” to showcase Canada as a nation that will relentlessly pursue doing the “right thing” for humanity by supporting a UN Convention that ensures that our future is bright. Please accept our regards, and thank you for your attention to this request. We await your response. Sincerely, Margaret Gillis, President, International Longevity Centre Canada Dr. Kiran Rabheru, Chair of the Board, International Longevity Centre Canada Linda Garcia, Director, uOttawa LIFE Research Institute cc: The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau Prime Minister of Canada The Honourable Filomena Tassi Minister of Seniors The Honourable Jean Yves Duclos Minister for Families, Children and Social Development Ambassador Marc-Andre Blanchard Permanent Representative to Canada at the United Nations The Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor Health Minister Margaret Gillis President International Longevity Centre Canada Dr. Kiran Rabheru Chair of the Board, International Longevity Centre Canada Linda Garcia, PhD Director LIFE Research Institute Dr. Laurent Marcoux President Canadian Medical Association Andrew Padmos, BA, MD, FRCPC, FACP Chief Executive Officer Dani Prud’Homme Directeur général FADOQ Peter Lukasiewicz Chief Executive Officer Gowling WLG Dr. Dallas Seitz, MD, FRCPC President, CAGP Dr. Frank Molnar President, Canadian Geriatrics Society Dr. David Conn Co-Leader Canadian Coalition for Senior’s Mental Health Claire Checkland Director - Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health Joanne Charlebois Chief Executive Officer, Speech-Language & Audiology Canada Claire Betker President Canadian Nurses Association Janice Christianson-Wood, MSW, RSW Title/Organization: President, Canadian Association of Social Workers / Présidente, l’Association canadienne des travail- leurs sociaux François Couillard Chief Executive Officer/Chef de la direction Ondina Love, CAE Chief Executive Officer Canadian Dental Hygienists Association Jean-Guy Soulière President/Président National Association of Federal Retirees /Association nationale des retraités fédéraux Sarah Bercier Executive Director Laura Tamblyn Watts National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly Dr. Keri-Leigh Cassidy Founder Fountain of Health Dr. Beverley Cassidy Geriatric Psychiatris Seniors Mental Health Dalhousie University Dept of Psychiatry Jenny Neal and Janet Siddall CO Chairs, Leadership Team Grandmothers Advocacy Network (GRAN) Kelly Stone President and CEO Families Canada Dr. Becky Temple, MD, CCFP, CCPE President, CSPL Medical Director Northeast, Northern Health Medical Lead Privilege Dictionary Review, BCMQI J. Van Aerde, MD, MA, PhD, FRCPC Clinical Professor of Pediatrics - Universities of Alberta & British Columbia, Canada Associate Faculty - Leadership Studies - Royal Roads Univ, Victo- ria, BC, Canada Past-President - Canadian Society of Physician Leaders Editor-in-Chief / Canadian Journal of Physician Leadership Dr. Rollie Nichol, MD, MBA, CCFP, CCPE Vice-President, CSPL Associate Chief Medical Officer, Alberta Health Services Dr. Shannon Fraser, MSc, FRCSC, FACS Secretary / Treasurer, CSPL Chief General Surgery Jewish General Hospital Linda Gobessi MD FRCPC Medical Director Geriatric Psychiatry Community Services of Ottawa Ottawa Vickie Demers Executive Director / Directrice générale Services communautaires de géronto- psychiatrie d’ Ottawa Geriatric Psychiatry Community Services of Ottawa Ging-Yuek Robin Hsiung, MD MHSc FRCPC FACP FAAN Associate Professor Ralph Fisher and Alzheimer Society of BC Professor Director of Clinical Research Director of Fellowship in Behavioural Neurology UBC Hospital Clinic for Alzheimer and Related Disorders Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine University of British Columbia Adriana Shnall Senior Social Worker Baycrest Health Sciences Harinder Sandhu, D.D.S., Ph.D Professor and Past Director Schulich Dentistry & Vice Dean, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry Western University Dr. Christopher Frank, Chair of Geriatric Education and Recruitment Initiative Jennie Wells, MD Associate Professor, University of Western Ontario Department of Medicine Chair/Chief Division of Geriatric Medicine Parkwood Institute Laura Diachun, MD Program Director, Undergrad Geriatric Education University of Western Ontario Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine Parkwood Institute Sheri-Lynn Kane, MD Program Director Internal Medicine Dept of Medicine Education Office Victoria Hospital Niamh O’Regan, MB ChB, Assistant Professor, University of Western Ontario Parkwood Institute Michael Borrie, MB ChB, FRCPC Professor, University of Western Ontario Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine Parkwood Institute Jenny Thain, MRCP (Geriatrics) Assistant Professor, University of Western Ontario Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine Victoria Hospital Peter R. Butt MD CCFP FCFP Assoc. Professor, Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan Mamta Gautam, MD, MBA, FRCPC, CCPE Dept of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa Psychiatrist, Psychosocial Oncology Program, The Ottawa Hospital President and CEO, PEAK MD Inc. Dr. Shabbir Amanullah Chair, ICPA Arun V. Ravindran, MBBS, MSc, PhD, FRCPC, FRCPsych Professor and Director, Global Mental Health and the Office of Fellowship Training, Department of Psychiatry, Graduate Faculty, Department of Psychology and Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto Sarah Thompson, MD, FRCPC Geriatric Psychiatrist Seniors’ Mental Health Team Addictions and Mental Health Program Louise Plouffe, Ph.D. Director of Research, ILC Canada (retired) Kimberley Wilson, PhD, MSW Assistant Professor, Adult Development & Aging, Department of Family Relations & Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph Andrew R. Frank M.D. B.Sc.H. F.R.C.P.(C) Cognitive and Behavioural Neurologist Medical Director, Bruyère Memory Program Bruyère Continuing Care Ottawa, Canada Diane Hawthorne Family Physician BSc, MD, CCFP, FCFP Dr. Ken Le Clair Prof Emeritus Queens University and. Lead Policy Physician Consultant to Ontario. Seniors Behavioral Support Initative Queens University
Documents
Less detail

The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change - Policy brief for Canada

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14257
Date
2019-11-01
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Date
2019-11-01
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change Policy brief for Canada 1 Finding: Exposure to wildfires is increasing in Canada, with more than half of the 448,444 Canadians evacuated due to wildfires between 1980 and 2017 displaced in the last decade. Recommendation: Incorporate lessons learned from recent severe wildfire seasons into a strengthened pan-Canadian emergency response approach that anticipates increasing impacts as the climate continues to change. Finding: The percentage of fossil fuels powering transport in Canada remains high, though electricity and biofuels are gaining ground. Fine particulate air pollution generated by transportation killed 1063 Canadians in 2015, resulting in a loss of economic welfare for Canadians valued at approximately $8 billion dollars. Recommendation: Develop provincial and territorial legislation requiring automakers to gradually increase the annual percentage of new light-duty vehicles sold that are zero emissions, working toward a target of 100% by 2040. Finding: Canada has the third-highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions from healthcare in the world, with healthcare accounting for approximately 4% of the country’s total emissions. Recommendation: Establish a sustainable healthcare initiative that assembles experts from research, education, clinical practice, and policy to support Canada’s healthcare sector in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preventing pollution-related deaths, consistent with healthcare’s mandate to ‘do no harm’ and the timelines and goals of the Paris Agreement, charting a course for zero-emissions healthcare by 2050. Finding: The health of Canadians is at risk due to multiple and varied risks of climate change, including those described in this policy brief (see Figure 1). An ongoing, coordinated, consistent and pan-Canadian effort to track, report, and create healthy change is required. Recommendation: Integrate health considerations into climate-related policymaking across sectors, including in Canada’s updated 2020 Nationally Determined Contribution Commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, and increase ambition to ensure Canada commits to doing its fair share in achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. Introduction Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century,1 and tackling it could be our greatest health opportunity.2 “The health of a child born today will be impacted by climate change at every stage in their life. Without significant intervention, this new era will come to define the health of an entire generation.”3 However, another path is possible: a world that meets the ambition of the Paris Agreement and proactively adapts to protect health from the climate impacts we cannot now avoid. This year’s briefing presents key findings and recommendations toward this path. Key messages and recommendations Health and climate change in Canada Imagine an infant born today in Canada. This child enters a country warming at double the global rate, with the average temperature in Canada having increased 1.7oC between 1948-2016.4 The North is warming even faster: areas in the Northwest Territories’ Mackenzie Delta are now 3oC warmer than in 1948.5 Climate-related impacts on health and health systems are already being felt,6 with examples outlined in Figure 1. By the time the child is in their twenties, in all feasible emissions scenarios, Canada will have warmed by at least 1.5oC as compared to a 1986-2005 reference period.4 Two scenarios are possible for the remainder of the child’s life. If GHG emissions continue to rise at the current rate (a situation referred to by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the “high emissions scenario,” or ‘RCP8.5’) temperature increases in Canada will continue after 2050, reaching 6oC relative to 1986-2005 by the time the child is in their child’s sixties.4 Globally, this degree of warming places populations at a greater risk of wildfires, extreme heat, poor air quality, and weather-related disasters. It will also lead to changes in vector-borne disease, as well as undernutrition, conflict, and migration. These impacts and others negatively impact mental health,3 including via ecological anxiety and grief.8 Climate change will not impact everyone equally, and can widen existing disparities in health outcomes between and within populations, with Indigenous populations, people in low-resource settings,28 and future generations29 disproportionately affected.30 This degree of warming has the potential to disrupt core public health infrastructure and overwhelm health services.2 Alternatively, if global emissions peak soon and quickly fall to net zero, consistent with the IPCC’s low-emissions scenario, (RCP 2.6), temperatures will remain steady from 2040 onwards.4 Measures needed to accomplish this, such as increasing clean energy, improving Figure 1: Examples of impacts of Climate Change on Health and Health Systems in Canada Indicators of climate-related health impacts and adaptation This year’s policy brief presents information on three key indicators of climate-related health impacts and adaptive responses. Additional recommendations can also be found in the 2017 and 2018 policy briefs.6,24 Wildfires Lancet Countdown data indicates that the number of daily population wildfire exposure events increased from an average of 35,300 in 2001-2004 to 54,100 in 2015-2018, not including those subjected to wildfire smoke. Canadian data supports increasing impacts: more than half of the 448,444 Canadians evacuated due to wildfires between 1980-2017 were displaced in the last decade.35 These exposures not only pose a threat to public health, but also result in major economic and social burdens. 2019 marks a crux point for humanity: choices and policies made in the lead up to the 2020 UNFCCC Nationally Determined Contribution submissions will determine whether the world follows the disastrous high-emissions scenario, or the safer low-emissions path. Children are taking to the streets to demand a livable world. It is the task of today’s political leaders and other adults to exert maximal effort within their spheres of influence in order to set a course for a healthy response to climate change. public transit, cycling and walking rates, and adhering to a plantrich diet in accordance with Canada’s new food guide, decrease emissions, and also improve health and decrease healthcare costs.30 Canada is not on track: in 2016, total Canadian GHG emissions were 704 Mt CO2e, an increase of more than 100 Mt since 1990.31 Policies and measures currently under development but not yet implemented are forecast to reduce national emissions to 592 Mt CO2e by 2030,32 79 Mt CO2e above Canada’s 2030 target of 513 MtCO2e 32—a goal which is itself too weak to represent a fair contribution by Canada to the emissions reductions necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. The Earth as a whole is warming less quickly than Canada—but still far too fast. The IPCC and the World Health Organization have emphasized that keeping global surface temperature warming to 1.5oC is key to obtaining the best outcomes now possible for human health.33,34 To do so would require global net human-caused emissions to fall by about 45% from 2010 by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ by 2050.34 Updated Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement are due to be submitted by 2020: policymakers must integrate health considerations through proposed interventions. Figure 2: Number of Wildfire Evacuees in Canada 1980-2017.* Source: Wildland Fire Evacuation Database, Natural Resources Canada.35 (used with permission) *N.B. Reporting for 2017 only includes evacuations up to and including July In a mid-range GHG emissions scenario, wildfires in Canada are projected to rise 75% rise by the end of the 21st century,36 necessitating a strong adaptive response. Human health impacts of fire include death, trauma, and major burns,37 anxiety during wildfire periods,35,38 and post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression related to evacuations.39,40 Wildfire smoke also travels vast distances41 and increases asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, with growing evidence of an association with all-cause mortality.41 Impacts on health systems can be severe: during the Fort McMurray fire hospital staff evacuated 103 patients in a matter of hours,10,42 and the 2017 British Columbia wildfires resulted in 700+ staff displaced, 880 patients evacuated, and 19 sites closed by the Interior Health Authority, at a cost of $2.7 million.12 Such devastating events also generate significant emissions, contributing to climate change, and helping to generate conditions conducive to future blazes.43 Much can be done to lessen the health impacts of wildfires. Qualitative data indicates that populations who are better-briefed on the local evacuation plan, as well as ways to lessen the risk of fire to their property, are not only more prepared but also less anxious.35,38 Building codes can be changed to help keep smoke out, primary care practitioners can ensure vulnerable patients receive at-home air filtration systems and respiratory medications prior to wildfire season,44 public health professionals can collaborate with municipal officials to maximize smoke forecast-informed outdoor and well-ventilated indoor recreation opportunities,38 and health personnel can help ensure evacuation plans are clearly communicated.45 Sustainable and healthy transport since 2000, they account for less than 4% of the energy used in transport (Figure 3). This rate of change is inconsistent with the emissions pathway required to keep today’s and future children safe. Support is therefore required for investments in public transit,47 and cycling infrastructure,48 creating win-wins for health by increasing physical activity levels and improving community cohesion, while reducing chronic disease, healthcare costs and GHG emissions.49,50 Zero emissions vehicles also reduce air pollution and are increasingly affordable: the up-front cost of electric vehicles is forecast to become competitive on an un-subsidized basis from 2024 onwards.51 British Columbia recently passed legislation requiring all new cars sold to be zero-emission by 2040.52 Other provinces would benefit from matching this ambition. Figure 3: Per Capita Fuel Consumption for Transport in Canada. Source: Lancet Countdown Transport-related pollution is harming the health of Canadians. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution related to land-based transportation was responsible for approximately 1063 deaths in 2015 in Canada, resulting in a loss of economic welfare for Canadians valued at approximately $8 billion dollars.24 Additionally, Canada has the highest pediatric asthma rate amongst countries of comparable income level, with nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from traffic responsible for approximately 1 in 5 new cases of asthma in children.46 With transport responsible for 24% of national GHG emissions in 2017,31 decarbonizing this sector must be prioritized. Progress is entirely too slow: total fuel consumption for road transport per capita decreased 5.4% from 2013 to 2016. While per capita use of electricity and biofuels for transport increased by 600% Healthcare sector emissions Though Canadians are proud of the care they provide for one another with this country’s system of universal healthcare,53 Lancet Countdown analysis reveals an area which should give pause to all who endeavor to “do no harm”: Canada’s healthcare system has the world’s third highest emissions per capita. Previous analysis showed healthcare sector emissions to be responsible for 4.6% of the national total,54 as well as more than 200,000 tons of other pollutants, resulting in 23,000 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost annually.54 Emissions from the health sector represent a strategic mitigation target in a single-payer healthcare system straining under the weight of an inexorably increasing burden of disease. While Canadian healthcare sector emissions are increasing, the world-leading Sustainable Development Unit in England reported an 18.5% decrease in National Health Service, public health and social care system emissions from 2007-2017 despite an increase in clinical activity.55 Despite healthcare being a provincial jurisdiction, there is a role for pan-Canadian sustainability initiatives to unite diverse experts spanning public health and the spectrum of clinical disciplines, economics, sustainability science and beyond. This demands health sector-wide education, consistent with existing efforts to increase environmental literacy for health professionals.56 1. Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, Ball S, Bell S, Bellamy R, et al. Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Lancet 2009;373(9676):1693-733. 2. Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, et al. The 2018 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: shaping the health of nations for centuries to come. Lancet 2018; vol. 392: 2479–514. 3. Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, et al. The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. Lancet 2019; vol. 394: 1836–78. 4. Government of Canada. Canada’s Changing Climate Ottawa, Ontario,; 2019. 5. Government of the Northwest Territories. Climate Observations in the Northwest Territories (1957-2012) Inuvik * Norman Wells * Yellowknife * Fort Smith. 6. Howard C, Rose C, Hancock T. Lancet Countdown 2017 Report: Briefing for Canadian Policymakers. Lancet Countdown and Canadian Public Health Association; 2017 October 31st, 2017. 7. Rosol R, Powell-Hellyer S, Chan HM. Impacts of decline harvest of country food on nutrient intake among Inuit in Arctic Canada: impact of climate change and possible adaptation plan. Int J Circumpolar Health 2016;75(1):31127. 8. Cunsolo A, Ellis N. Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nature Climate Change 2018;8:275-81. 9. Yao J, Eyamie J, Henderson SB. Evaluation of a spatially resolved forest fire smoke model for population-based epidemiologic exposure assessment. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2016;26(3):233-40. 10. Hampshire G. Hospital heroes get patients to safety during Fort McMurray fire: 17 buses took 105 patients to safety in dramatic evacuation. CBC News. 2016. Available from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/hospital-heroesget- patients-to-safety-during-fort-mcmurray-fire-1.3574416. 11. Kirchmeier-Young M, Zwiers F, Gillett N, Cannon A. Attributing extreme fire risk in Western Canada to human emissions. Climatic Change 2017;144(2):365-79. 12. British Columbia Interior Health Authority. Wildfire Emergency Response 2017. 2018. 13. Kirchmeier-Young M, Gillett N, Zwieres F, Cannon A, Anslow F. Attribution of the Influence of Human-Induced Climate Change on an Extreme Fire Season. Earth’s Future: American Geophysical Union 2018. 14. Alberta Health. Impact of Wildfires on the Mental Health of Fort McMurray Residents: Neurotic Disorders, Daily Physician Visits within an Emergency Department 2015 vs. 2016. Alberta Health, Health Standards, Quality and Performance Division, Analytics and Performance Reporting Branch,; 2016. 15. Teufel B, Diro GT, What K, Mildrad SM, Jeong DI, Ganji A, et al. Investigation of the 2013 Alberta flood from weather and climate perspectives. Climate Dynamics 2017:2881-99. 16. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Alberta Flood 2013: The five people we lost. 2014. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/calgary/features/albertaflood2013/ alberta-flood-deaths/. 17. United Nurses of Alberta. UNA Calgary office closed, many health facilities affected by southern Alberta flooding. 2013 June 21, 2013. 18. Yusa A, Berry P, J JC, Ogden N, Bonsal B, Stewart R, et al. Climate Change, Drought and Human Health in Canada. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015;12(7):8359-412. 19. Smoyer-Tomic KE, Klaver JD, Soskolne CL, Spady DW. Health Consequences of Drought on the Canadian Prairies. EcoHealth 2004. 20. Government of Canada Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Impact of Climate Change on Canadian Agriculture. 2015 [Oct 22, 2017]; Available from: http:// www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/agriculture- and-climate/future-outlook/impact-of-climate-change-on-canadian-agriculture/? id=1329321987305 21. Cryderman K. Drought in Western Canada is becoming an agricultural nightmare for farmers. 2018. Available from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/ canada/alberta/article-drought-in-western-canada-is-becoming-an-agricultural- nightmare-for/. 22. Ziska LH, Makra L, Harry SK, Bruffaerts N, Hendrickx M, Coates F, et al. Temper-ature-related changes in airborne allergenic pollen abundance and seasonality across the northern hemisphere: a retrospective data analysis. Lancet Planet Health 2019;3(3):e124-e31. 23. Nelder MP, Wijayasri S, Russell CN, Johnson KO, Marchand-Austin A, Cronin K, et al. The continued rise of Lyme disease in Ontario, Canada: 2017. Canadian Communicable Disease Review 2018;44(10):231-6. 24. Howard C, Rose C, Rivers N. Lancet Countdown 2018 Report: Briefing for Canadian Policymakers. Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Public Health Association, The Lancet Countdown; 2018 November. 25. a. Regional Public Health Department of Montreal. Epidemiological Investigation Heat Wave Summer 2018 in Montréal - Summary. 2019. b. Vogel MM, Zscheischler J, Wartenburger R, et al. Concurrent 2018 hot extremes across Northern hemisphere due to human-induced climate change. Earth's Future, 2019; vol. 7, 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1029/ 2019EF001189 26. Fenech A. Yes, Mr. Premier, Your Province is Shrinking! 2014 [cited 2019 Sept 20, 2019]; Available from: http://projects.upei.ca/climate/2014/02/16/ yes-mr-premier-your-province-is-shrinking/ 27. Kelleya C, Mohtadib S, Canec M, Seagerc R, Kushnirc Y. Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 2015;112 no 11: 3241–6,. 28. Berry HL, Bowen K, Kjellstrom T. Climate change and mental health: a causal pathways framework. Int J Public Health 2010;55(2):123-32. 29. Walpole SC, Rasanathan K, Campbell-Lendrum D. Natural and unnatural synergies: climate change policy and health equity. Bull World Health Organ 2009;87(10):799-801. 30. Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, Blackstock J, Byass P, Cai W, et al. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet 2015;386(10006):1861-914. 31. Government of Canada. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2018 [June 13, 2018.]; Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/ services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html 32. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Progress Towards Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target. 2019 [Sept 3, 2019]; Available from: https://www.canada. ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/cesindicators/progress-towards-canada- greenhouse-gas-reduction-target/2019/progress-towards-ghg-emissions- target-en.pdf 33. Ebi K, Campbell-Lendrum D, Wyns A. The 1.5 Health Report--Synthesis on Health and Climate Science in the IPCC SR1.5. 2018 2018. 34. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global Warming of 1.5C--Summary for Policymakers. 2018 October 8, 2018. 35. Christianson A. Wildland Fire Evacuations in Canada. Natural Resources Canada; 2017. 36. Wotton M, Nock C, Flannigan M. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2010;19(3):253-71. 37. Cameron PA, Mitra B, Fitzgerald M, Scheinkestel CD, Stripp A, Batey C, et al. Black Saturday: the immediate impact of the February 2009 bushfires in Victoria, Australia. Med J Aust 2009;191(1):11-6. 38. Dodd W, Scott P, Howard C, Scott C, Rose C, Cunsolo A, et al. Lived experience of a record wildfire season in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can J Public Health 2018;109(3):327-37. 39. McDermott BM, Lee EM, Judd M, Gibbon P. Posttraumatic stress disorder and general psychopathology in children and adolescents following a wildfire disaster. Can J Psychiatry 2005;50(3):137-43. 40. Papanikolaou V, Adamis D, Mellon RC, Prodromitis G. Psychological distress following wildfires disaster in a rural part of Greece: a case-control population- based study. Int J Emerg Ment Health 2011;13(1):11-26. 41. Reid CE, Brauer M, Johnston FH, Jerrett M, Balmes JR, Elliott CT. Critical Review of Health Impacts of Wildfire Smoke Exposure. Environ Health Perspect 2016;124(9):1334-43. 42. Matear D. The Fort McMurray, Alberta wildfires: Emergency and recovery management of healthcare services. J Bus Contin Emer Plan 2017;11(2):128- 50. 43. Liu Y, Goodrick S, Heilman W. Wildland fire emissions, carbon, and climate: Wildfire–climate interactions. Forest Ecology and Management 2014;317:80- 96. 44. Barn PK, Elliott CT, Allen RW, Kosatsky T, Rideout K, Henderson SB. Portable air cleaners should be at the forefront of the public health response to landscape fire smoke. Environ Health 2016;15(1):116. 45. Maguet S. Public Health Responses to Wildfire Smoke Events. BC Center for Disease Control; 2018. 46. Achakulwisut P, Brauer M, Hystad P, Anenberg SC. Global, national, and urban burdens of paediatric asthma incidence attributable to ambient NO2 pollution: estimates from global datasets. Lancet Planet Health 2019;3(4):e166-e78. 47. Besser LM, Dannenberg AL. Walking to public transit: steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. Am J Prev Med 2005;29(4):273-80. 48. United Kingdom Department of Transport. Value for Money Assessment for Cycling Grants. 2014. 49. Woodcock J, Tainio M, Cheshire J, O’Brien O, Goodman A. Health effects of the London bicycle sharing system: health impact modelling study. BMJ 2014;348:g425. 50. Maizlish N, Woodcock J, Co S, Ostro B, Fanai A, Fairley D. Health cobenefits and transportation-related reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the San Francisco Bay area. Am J Public Health 2013;103(4):703-9. 51. Willett W, Rockstrom J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019. 52. Zussman R. Legislation introduced to require all new cars sold in B.C. to be zero-emission by 2040. Global News Online. 2019. Available from: https:// globalnews.ca/news/5152429/legislation-introduced-electric-cars/2019. 53. Thompson N. More Canadians take pride in symbols of the country’s present than its past: survey. 2019. 54. Eckelman MJ, Sherman JD, MacNeill AJ. Life cycle environmental emissions and health damages from the Canadian healthcare system: An economic- environmental-epidemiological analysis. PLoS Med 2018;15(7):e1002623. 55. National Health System Sustainable Development Unit. Reducing the use of natural resources in health and social care 2018 report. 2018. 56. Parkes M, Poland B, Allison A, Cole DC, Culbert I, Gislason MK, et al. In press-Preparing for the future of public health: Ecological determinants of health and the call for an eco-social approach to public health education. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2019. DOI: 10.17269/s41997-019-00263-8. References Organisations and acknowledgements The concept of this brief was developed by the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change. This brief was written by Courtney Howard, MD; Chris Buse, PhD; Caren Rose, PhD; Andrea MacNeill, MD, MSc; and Margot Parkes, MBChB, MAS, PhD. Review was provided by Owen Adams, PhD; Ian Culbert; and Sandy Buchman, MD. Thanks to Sarah Henderson, PhD; Peter Barry, PhD; Brian Wiens, PhD; Robin Edger, LLB, LLM; Jeff Eyamie, and Ashlee Cunsolo, PhD for their assistance. Contributions and review on behalf of the Lancet Countdown were provided by Jess Beagley and Nick Watts, MBBS. THE LANCET COUNTDOWN The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change is an international, multi-disciplinary collaboration that exists to monitor the links between public health and climate change. It brings together 35 academic institutions and UN agencies from every continent, drawing on the expertise of climate scientists, engineers, economists, political scientists, public health professionals, and doctors. Each year, the Lancet Countdown publishes an annual assessment of the state of climate change and human health, seeking to provide decision-makers with access to high-quality evidence-based policy guidance. For the full 2019 assessment, visit www.lancet countdown.org/2019-report . THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION The Canadian Medical Association (CMA), formed in Quebec City in 1867, has led some of Canada’s most important health policy changes. As we look to the future, the CMA will focus on advocating for a healthy population and a vibrant profession. THE CANADIAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION The Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) is a national, independent, non-governmental organization that advances public health education, research, policy and practice in Canada and around the world through the Canadian Journal of Public Health, position statements, discussion documents and other resources.
Documents
Less detail

Clinical guideline for homeless and vulnerably housed people, and people with lived homelessness experience

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14165
Date
2019-10-17
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Date
2019-10-17
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Homeless and vulnerably housed populations are heterogeneous and continue to grow in numbers in urban and rural settings as forces of urbanization collide with gentrification and austerity policies.2 Collectively, they face dangerous living conditions and marginalization within health care systems.3 However, providers can improve the health of people who are homeless or vulnerably housed, most powerfully by following evidence-based initial steps, and working with communities and adopting anti-oppressive practices.1,4,5 Broadly speaking, “homelessness” encompasses all individuals without stable, permanent and acceptable housing, or lacking the immediate prospect, means and ability of acquiring it.6 Under such conditions, individuals and families face intersecting social, mental and physical health risks that significantly increase morbidity and mortality.7,8 For example, people who are homeless and vulnerably housed experience a significantly higher prevalence of trauma, mental health conditions and substance use disorders than the general population.7,9 Canadian research reports that people who experience homelessness face life expectancies as low as 42 years for men and 52 years for women.7 A generation ago, homeless Canadians were largely middleaged, single men in large urban settings.10 Today, the epidemiology has shifted to include higher proportions of women, youth, Indigenous people (Box 1), immigrants, older adults and people from rural communities.13,14 For example, family homelessness (and therefore homelessness among dependent children and youth) is a substantial, yet hidden, part of the crisis.15 In 2014, of the estimated 235 000 homeless people in Canada, 27.3% were women, 18.7% were youth, 6% were recent immigrants or migrants, and a growing number were veterans and seniors.10 Practice navigators, peer-support workers and primary care providers are well placed to identify social causes of poor health and provide orientation to patient medical homes.16,17 A patient’s medical home is “a family practice defined by its patients as the place they feel most comfortable presenting and discussing their personal and family health and medical concerns.”18 Medical care is “readily accessible, centred on the patients’ needs, provided throughout every stage of life, and seamlessly integrated with other services in the health care system and the community” (https://patientsmedicalhome.ca). Primary care providers are also well positioned to mobilize health promotion, disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment, and rehabilitation services.19 GUIDELINE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS CPD Clinical guideline for homeless and vulnerably housed people, and people with lived homelessness experience Kevin Pottie MD MClSc, Claire E. Kendall MD PhD, Tim Aubry PhD, Olivia Magwood MPH, Anne Andermann MD DPhil, Ginetta Salvalaggio MD MSc, David Ponka MDCM MSc, Gary Bloch MD, Vanessa Brcic MD, Eric Agbata MPH MSc, Kednapa Thavorn PhD, Terry Hannigan, Andrew Bond MD, Susan Crouse MD, Ritika Goel MD, Esther Shoemaker PhD, Jean Zhuo Jing Wang BHSc, Sebastian Mott MSW, Harneel Kaur BHSc, Christine Mathew MSc, Syeda Shanza Hashmi BA, Ammar Saad, Thomas Piggott MD, Neil Arya MD, Nicole Kozloff MD, Michaela Beder MD, Dale Guenter MD MPH, Wendy Muckle BScN MHA, Stephen Hwang MD, Vicky Stergiopoulos MD, Peter Tugwell MD n Cite as: CMAJ 2020 March 9;192:E240-54. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.190777 CMAJ Podcasts: author interview at https://soundcloud.com/cmajpodcasts/190777-guide See related article at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.200199 KEY POINTS
Clinical assessment and care of homeless and vulnerably housed populations should include tailoring approaches to a person’s gender, age, Indigenous heritage, ethnicity and history of trauma; and advocacy for comprehensive primary health care.
As initial steps in the care of homeless and vulnerably housed populations, permanent supportive housing is strongly recommended, and income assistance is also recommended.
Case-management interventions, with access to psychiatric support, are recommended as an initial step to support primary care and to address existing mental health, substance use and other morbidities.
Harm-reduction interventions, such as supervised consumption facilities, and access to pharmacologic agents for opioid use disorder, such as opioid agonist treatment, are recommended for people who use substances. GUIDELINE CMAJ
MARCH 9, 2020
VOLUME 192
ISSUE 10 E241 However, the social and health resources available to homeless and vulnerably housed people may vary based on geographic setting, municipal resources, housing coordination, and patients’ mental health and substance use–related care needs. In addition, many physical and mental health disorders remain undiagnosed or inconsistently treated because of missed opportunities for care, patient mistrust of the health care system or limited access to health services.3 Homeless and vulnerably housed people can benefit from timely and effective health, addiction and social interventions. Our guideline provides initial steps for practice, policy and future research, and is intended to build collaboration among clinicians, public health providers and allied health providers. Values such as trauma-informed and patient-centred care, and dignity are needed to foster trust and develop sustainable therapeutic relationships with homeless and vulnerably housed people.20,21 Scope The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to inform providers and community organizations of the initial priority steps and effective interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed people. The guideline addresses upstream social and health needs (i.e., housing), as well as downstream health-related consequences of inadequate housing. The target audiences are health providers, policymakers, public health practitioners and researchers. Our guideline does not aim to address all conditions associated with homelessness, nor does it aim to discuss in depth the many etiologies of homelessness, such as childhood trauma, the housing market, or the root causes of low social assistance rates and economic inequality. Rather, this guideline aims to reframe providers’ approach toward upstream interventions that can prevent, treat and work toward ending the morbidity and mortality associated with homelessness. A parallel set of Indigenous-specific clinical guidelines is currently being developed by an independent, Indigenous-led team.22 This process recognizes the distinct rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to develop and strengthen their own economies, social and political institutions; the direct links between historic and ongoing colonial policies and Indigenous homelessness; and the need for Indigenous leadership and participation in research that is about Indigenous Peoples. Recommendations The steering committee and guideline panel members developed and approved recommendations to improve social and health outcomes for homeless and vulnerably housed people. The order of these recommendations highlights priority steps for homeless health care. We list a summary of the recommendations in Table 1 and we present our list of good practice statements in Table 2. These good practice statements are based on indirect evidence and support the delivery of the recommendations. The methods used to develop the recommendations are described later in this document. A summary of how to use this guideline is available in Box 2. Permanent supportive housing
Identify homelessness or housing vulnerability and willingness to consider housing interventions.
Ensure access of homeless or vulnerably housed individuals to local housing coordinator or case manager (i.e., call 211 or via a social worker) for immediate link to permanent supportive housing and/or coordinated access system (moderate certainty, strong recommendation). Evidence summary Our systematic review (Tim Aubry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) identified 14 trials on permanent supportive housing (PSH).30–43 Several trials across Canada and the United States showed that PSH initiatives house participants more rapidly compared with usual services (73 v. 220 d; adjusted absolute difference 146.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 118.0 to 174.9);30 increase the number of people who maintain stable housing at 2 years (pooled odds ratio [OR] 3.58, 95% CI 2.36 to 5.43);30,40 and significantly increase the percentage of days spent stably housed.41 No trials showed a significant improvement in mental health symptoms compared with standard care.30,31,33,34,41,42 Two studies found that the mental health of PSH participants did not improve as much as that of usual care participants (e.g., mean difference –0.49, 95% CI –0.85 to –0.12).30,31 The At Home/Chez Soi trial showed small improvements in quality of life for high-needs (adjusted standardized mean difference 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.24)30 and moderate-needs (mean difference 4.37, 95% CI 1.60 to 7.14) homeless participants in patients receiving PSH.41 Youth receiving PSH saw larger improvements in their quality of life during the first 6 months (mean difference 9.30, 95% CI 1.35 to 17.24), which diminished over time (mean difference 7.29, 95% CI –1.61 to 16.18).44 No trials showed a significant improvement in substance use compared with standard care.30,33,41–43 Most trials reported no effect of PSH on acute care outcomes (e.g., number of emergency department visits and percentage of participants admitted to hospital).30,41 However, 2 trials suggest that PSH participants had lower rates of hospital admission (rate reductions of 29%, 95% CI 10 to 44) and time in hospital (e.g., mean difference –31, 95% CI –48 to –14).34,38,45 One trial found no effect of PSH on job tenure, hours of work per week or hourly wage compared with standard care.46 Participants receiving PSH may have increased odds of employment, but this depends on the severity of participant needs.46 One trial found no effect on income outcomes.46 Box 1: Indigenous homelessness Indigenous homelessness is a term used to describe First Nations, Métis and Inuit individuals, families or communities who lack stable, permanent and appropriate housing, or the immediate prospects, means or ability to acquire such housing. However, this term must be interpreted through an Indigenous lens to understand the factors contributing to this condition. These factors include individuals, families and communities isolated from their relationships to land, water, place, family, kin, each other, animals, cultures, languages and identities as well as the legacy of colonialism and genocide.11 It is estimated that urban Indigenous people are 8 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general population.11,12 GUIDELINE E242 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 The certainty of the evidence was rated moderate, because blinding of participants and personnel was not feasible in any of the trials we examined as a result of the nature of the intervention. Furthermore, several trials did not employ allocation concealment or blinding of outcome-assessment procedures, which could introduce high risks of detection and performance biases. Income assistance
Identify income insecurity.
Assist individuals with income insecurity to identify incomesupport resources and access income (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary We identified 10 trials on income-assistance interventions, including rental assistance,47–56 financial empowerment,47 social enterprise interventions,48 individual placement and support,48,54 and compensated work therapy.52 Our systematic review showed the benefit that income-assistance interventions have on housing stability (Gary Bloch, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., and Vanessa Brcic, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC: unpublished data, 2020). Rental assistance increased the likelihood of being stably housed (OR 4.60, 95% CI 3.10 to 6.83).56 Rental assistance combined with case management increased the number of days in stable housing per 90-day period compared with case management alone (mean Table 1: Summary of evidence-based recommendations Recommendations and clinical considerations Grade rating* Recommendation 1: A homeless or vulnerably housed person Moderate certainty
Ensure access for homeless or vulnerably housed individuals to local housing coordinator or case manager (i.e., call 211 or via a social worker) for immediate link to permanent supportive housing and coordinated access system. Clinical considerations: Many jurisdictions will provide alternative housing services for specific marginalized populations, for example, Indigenous people, women and families, youth, those who identify as LGBTQ2+, those with disabilities, refugees and migrants. Strong recommendation Recommendation 2: A homeless or vulnerably housed person with experience of poverty, income instability or living in a low-income household Low certainty
Assist individuals with income insecurity to identify income-support resources and access income. Clinical considerations: Consult poverty screening tools when needed (e.g., https://cep.health/clinical-products /poverty-a-clinical-tool-for-primary-care-providers). Conditional recommendation Recommendation 3: A homeless or vulnerably housed person with multiple comorbid or complex health needs (including mental illness and/or substance use) Low certainty
Identify history of severe mental illness, such as psychotic or mood and anxiety disorders, associated with substantial disability, substance use, or multiple/complex health needs.
Ensure access to local community mental health programs, psychiatric services for assessment, and linkage to intensive case management, assertive community treatment or critical time intervention where available. Clinical considerations: Call 211 or consult primary care providers, social workers or case managers familiar with local access points and less intensive community mental health programs. Conditional recommendation Recommendation 4: A homeless or vulnerably housed person currently using opioids Very low certainty
Identify opioid use disorder.
Ensure access within primary care or via an addiction specialist to opioid agonist therapy (OAT), potentially in collaboration with a public health or community health centre for linkage to pharmacologic interventions. Clinical considerations: Encourage all patients taking opioid medication to have a naloxone kit. Though barriers to prescribing methadone and buprenorphine remain, be aware of new regulations that aim to facilitate OAT access and options in your jurisdiction, in particular for buprenorphine. Conditional recommendation Recommendation 5: A homeless or vulnerably housed person with substance use disorder Very low certainty
Identify, during history or physical examination, problematic substance use, including alcohol or other drugs.
Identify the most appropriate approach, or refer to local addiction and harm-reduction/prevention services (e.g., supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs) via appropriate local resources such as public health or community health centre or local community services centre. Clinical considerations: In case of active opioid use disorder, facilitate patient access to OAT. Patients should be made aware of supervised consumption facility locations (Appendix 1, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/suppl/ doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1). Conditional recommendation Note: LGBTQ2+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning and two-spirited. *See Box 2 for definitions. †211 is a special abbreviated telephone number reserved in Canada and the United States as an easy-to-remember 3-digit telephone number meant to provide information and referrals to health, human and social service organizations. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E243 difference 8.58, p < 0.004).55 Compensated work therapy was found to reduce the odds of homelessness (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3).52 No income interventions showed an effect on mental health outcomes.47,52,55,56 The impact of these interventions on substance use outcomes were mixed. Provision of housing vouchers did not affect substance use over 3 years;55 however, compensated work therapy showed immediate reductions in drug (reduction: –44.7%, standard error [SE] 12.8%; p = 0.001) and alcohol use problems (–45.4%, SE 9.4%; p = 0.001), as well as the number of substance use–related physical symptoms (–64.4%, SE 8.0%; p = 0.001).52 These differences, however, tended to decline with time. No significant effects were found on overall quality-of-life, finances, health and social relations scores. Provision of housing vouchers resulted in higher family-relations score and satisfaction, and quality of housing compared with standard care.55 One trial reported that rental assistance was associated with reduced emergency department visits and time spent in hospital, but this reduction was not significantly different than in the comparator group.56 Individual placement and support was found to improve employment rates only when there was high fidelity to the model (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.16).54 Financial-empowerment education and provision of housing vouchers had no effect on employment outcomes.47,55 Financial-empowerment education and individual placement and support had no effect on hourly wages.47,54 Provision of housing vouchers had no effect on monthly income.55 The certainty of the evidence was rated low because several trials introduced high risk of detection and performance bias. Furthermore, 1 trial reported low consent rates of 47% and a 1:4 sampling ratio that further limited statistical power.52 As well, participants in the control group wanting to enter income-assistance programs after completing the study had incentives to underreport symptoms, which introduced high risk for measurement bias. Case management
Identify history of severe mental illness, such as psychotic or mood and anxiety disorders, associated with substantial disability, substance use disorders, or multiple or complex health needs.
Ensure access to local community mental health programs, psychiatric services for assessment and linkage to intensive case management, assertive community treatment or critical time intervention where available (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary Our systematic review examined the effectiveness of standard case management, as well as specific intensive casemanagement interventions, such as assertive community treatment, intensive case management and critical time intervention among homeless and vulnerably housed populations and corresponding level of need (David Ponka, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020). We included a total of 56 citations, of which 10 trials reported on standard case management,51,57–65 8 trials on assertive community treatment,66–73 16 trials on intensive case management74–89 and 5 trials on critical time intervention.90–94 Box 2: How to use and understand this GRADE guideline (www.gradeworkinggroup.org) This guideline supplies providers with evidence for decisions concerning interventions to improve health and social outcomes for people who are homeless or vulnerably housed. This guideline is not meant to replace clinical judgment. Statements about clinical considerations, values and preferences are integral parts of the recommendations meant to facilitate interpretation and implementation of the guideline. Recommendations in this guideline are categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as strong or conditional recommendations. Strong recommendations indicate that all or almost all fully informed patients would choose the recommended course of action, and indicate to clinicians that the recommendation is appropriate for all or almost all individuals. Strong recommendations represent candidates for quality-of-care criteria or performance indicators. Conditional recommendations indicate that most informed patients would choose the suggested course of action, but an appreciable minority would not. With conditional recommendations, clinicians should recognize that different choices will be appropriate for individual patients, and they should help patients arrive at a decision consistent with their values and preferences. Conditional recommendations should not be used as a basis for standards of practice (other than to mandate shared decision-making). Good practice statements represent common-sense practice, are supported by indirect evidence and are associated with assumed large net benefit. Clinical considerations provide practical suggestions to support implementation of the GRADE recommendation. GRADE certainty ratings High: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate: further research is likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low: any estimate of the effect is very uncertain. Table 2: Good practice statements to support delivery of care Good practice statement Indirect evidence (reference) 1. Homeless and vulnerably housed populations should receive trauma-informed and personcentred care. 23–26 2. Homeless and vulnerably housed populations should be linked to comprehensive primary care to facilitate the management of multiple health and social needs. 27 3. Providers should collaborate with public health and community organizations to ensure programs are accessible and resources appropriate to meet local patient needs. 28,29 GUIDELINE E244 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 Of 10 trials on standard case management, 10 evaluated housing stability. Only 3 reported significant decreases in homelessness,57,62,63 an effect that diminished over time in 1 trial of a time-limited residential case management in which participants in all groups accessed substantial levels of services.57 A program tailored to women reduced the odds of depression at 3 months (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.99), but did not show improvements in the women’s overall mental health status (mean difference 4.50, 95% CI –0.98 to 9.98).64 One trial reported higher levels of hostility (p < 0.001) and depression symptoms (p < 0.05) among female participants receiving nurse-led standard case management compared with those receiving standard care.60 Few studies reported on substance use, quality of life, employment or income outcomes. Findings of assertive community treatment on housingstability, quality-of-life and hospital-admission outcomes are mixed. Two trials found that participants receiving the treatment reported fewer days homeless (p < 0.01)71 and more days in community housing (p = 0.006),70 whereas 2 trials reported no effect on episodes of homelessness or number of days homeless.66,73 Further, these interventions showed an added benefit in reducing the number of participants admitted to hospital (mean difference –8.6, p < 0.05) and with visits to the emergency department (mean difference –1.2, p = 0.009).67 Most trials of assertive community treatment reported no significant differences in mental health outcomes, including psychiatric symptoms, substance use, or income-related outcomes between the treatment and control groups. Intensive case management reduced the number of days homeless (pooled standardized mean difference –0.22, 95% CI –0.40 to –0.03), but not the number of days spent in stable housing.78,80,89 In most studies, there was no major improvement in psychological symptoms between the treatment and control groups. However, 1 trial reported significantly greater reductions in anxiety, depression and thought disturbances after 24 months (mean difference change from baseline –0.32, p = 0.007), as well as improved life satisfaction (mean difference 1.23, p = 0.001) using intensive case management.86 One trial reported no significant difference in quality of life.83 Findings on substance use were mixed. Six of the 10 trials reported that intensive case management was associated with improvements in substance use behaviours.74,78,82,84,87,88 Participants receiving intensive case management reported fewer visits to the emergency department (mean difference 19%, p < 0.05) but did not have shorter hospital stays compared with control groups.85 Intensive case management had no effect on the number of days of employment, or on income received from employment; however, income received by participants through public assistance increased (e.g., mean difference 89, 95% CI 8 to 170).78,85 Critical time intervention was beneficial in reducing the number of homeless nights (mean difference –591, p < 0.001) and the odds of homelessness (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90) during the final 18 weeks of follow-up.91 Participants receiving the treatment were rehoused sooner than those receiving standard care,95 but did not spend more days rehoused.90 Adults receiving critical time intervention showed significant improvements in psychological symptoms (mean difference –0.14, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.01).90 However, findings for children’s mental health were mixed: children aged 1.5–5 years showed improvements in internalizing (ß coefficient –3.65, 95% CI –5.61 to –1.68) and externalizing behaviours (ß coefficient –3.12, 95% CI –5.37 to –0.86), whereas changes for children aged 6–10 years and 11–16 years were not significant.93 There were no significant effects of critical time intervention on substance-use,90 quality-of-life90,92 or income-related outcomes.96 Two trials reported mixed findings on hospital admission outcomes; in 1 study, allocation to critical time intervention was associated with reduced odds of hospital admission (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.96) and total number of nights in hospital (p < 0.05) in the final 18 weeks of the trial.97 However, another study reported a greater total number of nights in hospital for the treatment group compared with usual care (1171 v. 912).98 The certainty of the evidence was rated low because several trials introduced high risk of detection and performance bias. Opioid agonist therapy
Ensure access to opioid agonist therapy in primary care or by referral to an addiction specialist, potentially in collaboration with public health or community health centre for linkage to pharmacologic interventions (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary We conducted a review of systematic reviews on pharmalogic interventions for opioid use disorder.99 Twenty-four reviews, which included 352 unique primary studies, reported on pharmacologic interventions for opioid use disorder among general populations.100–123 We expanded our inclusion criteria to general populations, aware that most studies among “general populations” had a large representation of homeless populations in their samples. We did not identify any substantial reason to believe that the mechanisms of action of our interventions of interest would differ between homeless populations who use substances and the general population of people who use substances. Reviews on pharmacologic interventions reported on the use of methadone, buprenorphine, diacetylmorphine (heroin), levo-a-acetylmethadol, slow-release oral morphine and hydromorphone for treatment of opioid use disorder. We found pooled all-cause mortality rates of 36.1 and 11.3 per 1000 person years for participants out of and in methadone maintenance therapy, respectively (rate ratio 3.20, 95% CI 2.65 to 3.86), and mortality rates of 9.5 per 1000 person years for those not receiving buprenorphine maintenance therapy compared with 4.3 per 1000 person years among those receiving the therapy (rate ratio 2.20, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.61).116 Overdose-specific mortality rates were similarly affected, with pooled overdose mortality rates of 12.7 and 2.6 per 1000 person years for participants out of and in methadone maintenance therapy, and rates of 4.6 and 1.4 per 1000 person years out of and in buprenorphine maintenance therapy.116 Compared with nonpharmacologic approaches, methadone maintenance therapy had no significant GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E245 effect on mortality (relative risk 0.48, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.39).110 With respect to morbidity, pharmacologic interventions for opioid use disorder reduced the risk of hepatitis C virus (HCV) acquisition (risk ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.63)112 and HIV infection.103 Adverse events were reported for all agents.100,109,119,122 Treatment with methadone and buprenorphine was associated with reduced illicit opioid use (standardized mean difference –1.17, 95% CI –1.85 to –0.49).109 Availability of buprenorphine treatment expanded access to treatment for patients unlikely to enrol in methadone clinics and facilitated earlier access for recent initiates to opioid use.117 The relative superiority of one pharmacologic agent over another on retention outcomes remains unclear; however, use of methadone was found to show better benefits than nonpharmacologic interventions for retention (risk ratio 4.44, 95% CI 3.26 to 6.04).110 The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, primarily because of inconsistency, high risk of bias and evidence from nonrandomized studies. Harm-reduction interventions
Identify problematic substance use, including alcohol or other drugs.
Identify the most appropriate approach or refer to local addiction and harm reduction/prevention services (e.g., supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs) via appropriate local resources, such as public health or community health centre or les centres locaux de services communautaires (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary We conducted a review of systematic reviews on supervised consumption facilities and managed alcohol programs.99 Two systematic reviews, which included 90 unique observational studies and 1 qualitative meta-synthesis reported on supervised consumption facilities.124–126 For managed alcohol programs, 1 Cochrane review had no included studies,127 and 2 greyliterature reviews reported on 51 studies.128,129 Establishment of supervised consumption facilities was associated with a 35% decrease in the number of fatal opioid overdoses within 500 m of the facility (from 253.8 to 165.1 deaths per 100 000 person years, p = 0.048), compared with 9% in the rest of the city (Vancouver).124 There were 336 reported opioid overdose reversals in 90 different individuals within the Vancouver facility over a 4-year period (2004–2008).125 Similar protective effects were reported in Australia and Germany. Observational studies conducted in Vancouver and Sydney showed that regular use of supervised consumption facilities was associated with decreased syringe sharing (adjusted OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82), syringe reuse (adjusted OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.01) and public-space injection (adjusted OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.87).125 These facilities mediated access to ancillary services (e.g., food and shelter) and fostered access to broader health support.125,126 Attendance at supervised consumption facilities was associated with an increase in referrals to an addiction treatment centre and initiation of methadone maintenance therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 1.57, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.40).125 Evidence on supervised consumption facilities was rated very low to low, as all available evidence originated from nonrandomized studies. There was a lack of high-quality evidence for managed alcohol programs. Few studies reported on deaths among clients of these programs.128 The effects of managed alcohol programs on hepatic function are mixed, with some studies reporting improvement in hepatic laboratory markers over time, and others showing increases in alcohol-related hepatic damage;129 however, this may have occurred regardless of entry into such a program. This evidence suggested that managed alcohol programs result in stabilized alcohol consumption and can facilitate engagement with medical and social services.128 Clients experienced significantly fewer social, health, safety and legal harms related to alcohol consumption.129 Individuals participating in these programs had fewer hospital admissions and a 93% reduction in emergency service contacts.128 The programs also promoted improved or stabilized mental health128 and medication adherence.129 Cost effectiveness and resource implications Permanent supportive housing We found 19 studies assessing the cost and net cost of housing interventions.30,41,45,130–145 In some studies, permanent supportive housing interventions were associated with increased cost to the payers, and the costs of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical and social services as a result of the intervention.30,41,131–134,142 Six studies showed that these interventions saved payers money.135,137,139,141,144,145 Four of these studies, however, employed a pre–post design.135,139,141,145 Moreover, 1 cost-utility analysis of PSH suggested that the provision of housing services was associated with increased costs and increased quality-adjusted life years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$62 493 per quality-adjusted life year.136 Compared with usual care, PSH was found to be more costly to society (net cost Can$7868, 95% CI $4409 to $11 405).138 Income assistance Two studies55,146 focused on the cost effectiveness of incomeassistance interventions. Rental assistance with clients receiving case-management intervention had greater annual costs compared with usual care or groups receiving only case management.55 For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$58 (95% CI $4 to $111) from the perspective of the payer, US$50 (95% CI –$17 to $117) from the perspective of the health care system and US$45 (95% CI –$19 to $108) from the societal perspective. The benefit gained from temporary financial assistance was found to outweigh its costs with a net savings of US$20 548.146 Case management Twelve publications provided evidence on cost and costeffectiveness of case-management interventions.44,55,67,69,73,75,88,96,147–150 Findings of these studies were mixed; the total cost incurred by clients of standard case management was higher than that of clients receiving usual or standard care61,88 and assertive GUIDELINE E246 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 community treatment,67,147 but lower compared with a US clinical case-management program that included housing vouchers and intensive case management.55 Cost-effectiveness studies using a societal perspective showed that standard case management was not cost effective compared with assertive community treatment for people with serious mental disorders or those with a concurrent substance-use disorder, as it was more expensive.67 For intensive case management, the cost of supporting housing with this program could be partially offset by reductions in the use of emergency shelters and temporary residences.41 Intensive case management is more likely to be cost effective when all costs and benefits to society are considered.41 A pre–post study showed that providing this program to high-need users of emergency departments resulted in a net hospital cost savings of US$132 726.150 Assertive community treatment interventions were associated with lower costs compared with usual care.66,67,73,148,149 We identified only 1 study on the cost effectiveness of critical time intervention that reported comparable costs (US$52 574 v. US$51 749) of the treatment compared with the usual services provided to men with severe mental illness.96 Interventions for substance use We identified 2 systematic reviews that reported findings from 6 studies in Vancouver on the cost effectiveness of supervised consumption facilities;124,125 5 of these 6 studies found the facilities to be cost effective. After consideration of facility operating costs, supervised consumption facilities saved up to Can$6 million from averted overdose deaths and incident HIV cases. Similarly, Can$1.8 million was saved annually from the prevention of incident HCV infection. Clinical considerations Providers can, in partnership with directly affected communities, employ a range of navigation and advocacy tools to address the root causes of homelessness, which include poverty caused by inadequate access to social assistance, precarious work, insufficient access to quality child care, social norms that allow the propagation of violence in homes and communities, inadequate supports for patients and families living with disabilities or going through life transitions, and insufficient and poor-quality housing stock.151 In addition, providers should tailor their approach to the patient’s needs and demographics, taking into account access to services, personal preferences and other illnesses.152 Providers should also recognize the social and human value of accepting homeless and vulnerably housed people into their clinical practices. The following sections provide additional evidence for underserved and marginalized populations. Women A scoping review of the literature on interventions for homeless women (Christine Mathew, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) yielded 4 systematic reviews153–156 and 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)36,60,92,95,157–161 that focused specifically on homeless and vulnerably housed women. Findings showed that PSH was effective in reducing the risk of intimate partner violence and improving psychological symptoms.158 For women with children experiencing homelessness, priority access to permanent housing subsidies can reduce child separations and foster care placements, allowing women to maintain the integrity of their family unit.158 As well, Housing First programs for families, critical time interventions during times of crisis, and therapeutic communities are associated with lower levels of psychological distress, increased self-esteem and improved quality of life for women and their families.92,155 A gender-based analysis highlighted the importance of safety, service accessibility and empowerment among homeless women. We suggest that providers focus on patient safety, empowerment among women who have faced genderbased violence, and improve access to resources, including income, child care and other social support services. Youth A systematic review on youth-specific interventions reported findings from 4 systematic reviews and 18 RCTs.162 Permanent supportive housing improved housing stability. As well, individual cognitive behavioural therapy has been shown to result in significant improvements in depression scores, and family-based therapies are also promising, resulting in reductions in youth substance use through restoring the family dynamic. Findings on motivational interviewing, skill building and case-management interventions were inconsistent, with some trials showing a positive impact and others not identifying significant benefits. Refugee and migrant populations A qualitative systematic review on homeless migrants (Harneel Kaur, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) identified 17 qualitative articles that focused on the experiences of homeless migrants.163–179 Findings indicated that discrimination, limited language proficiency and severed social networks negatively affected homeless migrants’ sense of belonging and access to social services, such as housing. However, employment opportunities provided a sense of independence and improved social integration. Methods Composition of participating groups In preparation for the guideline, we formed the Homeless Health Research Network (https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/ projects/homeless-health-guidelines), composed of clinicians, academics, and governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. The Homeless Health Guideline Steering Committee (K.P. [chair], C.K., T.A., A.A., G.S., G.B., D.P., E.A., V.B., V.S. and P.T.) was assembled to coordinate guideline development. Expert representation was sought from eastern and western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the Prairie provinces for membership on the steering committee. In addition, 5 people with lived experience of homelessness (herein referred to as “community scholars”180) were recruited to participate in the guideline-development activities. A management committee (K.P., C.K. and P.T.) oversaw the participating groups and monitored competing interests. The steering committee decided to develop a single guideline publication informed by a series of 8 systematic reviews. The GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E247 steering committee assembled expert working groups to operationalize each review. Each working group consisted of clinical topic experts and community scholars who were responsible for providing contextual expertise. The steering committee also assembled a technical team, which provided technical expertise in the conduct and presentation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Finally, the steering committee assembled the guideline panel, which had the responsibility to provide external review of the evidence and drafted recommendations. The panel was composed of 17 individuals, including physicians, primary care providers, internists, psychiatrists, public health professionals, people with lived experience of homelessness, medical students and medical residents. Panel members had no financial or intellectual conflicts of interest. A full membership list of the individual teams’ composition is available in Appendix 2, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1. Selection of priority topics We used a 3-step modified Delphi consensus method (Esther Shoemaker, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) to select priority health conditions for marginalized populations experiencing homelessness or vulnerable housing. Briefly, between May and June 2017, we developed and conducted a survey (in French and English), in which we asked 84 expert providers and 76 people with lived homelessness experience to rank and prioritize an initial list of needs and populations. We specifically asked participants, while answering the Delphi survey, to keep in mind 3 priority-setting criteria when considering the unique challenges of implementing health care for homeless or vulnerably housed people: value added (i.e., the opportunity for a unique and relevant contribution), reduction of unfair and preventable health inequities, and decrease in burden of illness (i.e., the number of people who may have a disease or condition).181 The initial top 4 priority needs identified were as follows: facilitating access to housing, providing mental health and addiction care, delivering care coordination and case management, and facilitating access to adequate income. The priority marginalized populations identified included Indigenous people; women and families; youth; people with acquired brain injury, or intellectual or physical disabilities; and refugees and other migrants (Esther Shoemaker, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020). Each working group then scoped the literature using Google Scholar and PubMed to determine a list of interventions and terms relating to each of the priority-need categories. Each working group came to consensus on the final list of interventions to be included (Table 3). Guideline development We followed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for the development of this clinical guideline, including the identification of clinical questions, systematic reviews of the best available evidence, Table 3: Descriptions of priority-need interventions Intervention Description Permanent supportive housing
Long-term housing in the community with no set preconditions for access. Housing may be paired with the provision of individualized supportive services that are tailored to participants’ needs and choices, including assertive community treatment and intensive case management.
This guideline groups the Housing First model (a homeless assistance approach that prioritizes providing housing) with permanent supportive housing. Income assistance
Benefits and programs that improve socioeconomic status. This may include assistance that directly increases income and programs that help with cost reduction of basic living necessities.
This guideline also groups employment programs (e.g., individual placement and support, and compensated work therapy) in this category. Case management
Standard case management allows for the provision of an array of social, health care and other services with the goal of helping the client maintain good health and social relationships.
Intensive case management offers the support of a case manager who brokers access to an array of services. Case-management support can be available for up to 12 hours per day, 7 days a week, and each case manager often has a caseload of 15–20 service users.
Assertive community treatment offers team-based care to individuals with severe and persistent mental illness by a multidisciplinary group of health care workers in the community. This team should be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Critical time intervention supports continuity of care for service users during times of transition. Case management is administered by a critical time intervention worker and is a time-limited service, usually lasting 6–9 months. Pharmacologic interventions for substance use disorder
Pharmacologic interventions for opioid use disorder, including methadone, buprenorphine, diacetylmorphine, levo-a-acetylmethadol and naltrexone.
Pharmacologic agents for reversal of opioid overdose: opioid antagonist administered intravenously or intranasally (e.g., naloxone). Harm reduction for substance use disorders
Supervised consumption facilities: facilities (stand-alone, co-located or pop-up) where people who use substances can consume preobtained substances under supervision.
Managed alcohol programs: shelter, medical assistance, social services and the provision of regulated alcohol to support residents with severe alcohol use disorder. GUIDELINE E248 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 assessment of the certainty of the evidence and development of recommendations.182 We conducted a series of systematic reviews to answer the following clinical question: Should PSH, income assistance, case management, pharmacologic agents for opioid use, and/or harm-reduction interventions be considered for people with lived experience of homelessness? Systematic reviews for each intervention were driven by a logic model. A detailed description of the methods used to compile evidence summaries for each recommendation, including search terms, can be found in Appendix 3, available at www.cmaj.ca/ lookup/suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1. We sought evidence on questions considering population, interventions and comparisons according to published a priori protocols.183–186 We used relevant terms and structured search strategies in 9 bibliographic databases for RCTs and quasi-experimental studies. The technical team reviewed titles, abstracts and full texts of identified citations, selected evidence for inclusion and compiled evidence reviews, including cost-effectiveness and resource-use data, for consideration by the guideline panel. The technical team collected and synthesized data on the following a priori outcomes: housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospital admission, employment and income. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses with random effects and assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Where pooling of results was not appropriate, we synthesized results narratively. In addition to the intervention and cost-effectiveness reviews, the technical team conducted 3 systematic reviews to collect contextual and population-specific evidence for the populations prioritized through our Delphi process (women, youth, refugees and migrants) (Christine Mathew, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020; Harneel Kaur, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020).162 Additionally, we conducted 1 qualitative literature review to capture patient values and preferences, focused on the experiences of people who are homeless in engaging with our selected interventions.20 Drafting of recommendations The steering committee hosted a 2-day knowledge-sharing event, termed the “Homeless Health Summit,” on Nov. 25–26, 2018. Attendees included expert working group members, community scholars, technical team members, and other governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. Findings from all intervention reviews were presented and discussed according to the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework.187 After the meeting, the steering committee drafted GRADE recommendations (Box 2) through an iterative consensus process. All steering-committee members participated in multiple rounds of review and revision of the drafted clinical recommendations. Guideline panel review We used the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework to facilitate the development of recommendations187–189 (Appendix 4, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1). We used GRADEpro and the Panel Voice software to obtain input from the guideline panel.190 Panellists provided input on the wording and strength of the draft recommendations. They also provided considerations for clinical implementation. We required endorsement of recommendations by 60% of panel members for acceptance of a recommendation. After review by the guideline panel, the steering committee reviewed the final recommendations before sign-off. Good practice statements We developed a limited number of good practice statements to support the delivery of the initial evidence-based recommendations. A good practice statement characteristically represents situations in which a large and compelling body of indirect evidence strongly supports the net benefit of the recommended action, which is necessary for health care practice.191–193 Guideline-development groups consider making good practice statements when they have high confidence that indirect evidence supports net benefit, there is a clear and explicit rationale connecting the indirect evidence, and it would be an onerous and unproductive exercise and thus a poor use of the group’s limited resources to collect this evidence. The steering committee came to a consensus on 3 good practice statements based on indirect evidence. Identification of implementation considerations We completed a mixed-methods study to identify determinants of implementation across Canada for the guideline (Olivia Magwood, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020). Briefly, the study included a survey of 88 stakeholders and semistructured interviews with people with lived experience of homelessness. The GRADE Feasibility, Acceptability, Cost (affordability) and Equity (FACE) survey collected data on guideline priority, feasibility, acceptability, cost, equity and intent to implement. We used a framework analysis and a series of meetings (Ottawa, Ont., Jan. 13, 2020; Hamilton, Ont., Aug. 16, 2019; Gatineau, Que., July 18, 2019) with relevant stakeholders in the field of homeless health to analyze our implementation data. Management of competing interests Competing interests were assessed using a detailed form adapted from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Disclosure Form for Potential Conflicts of Interest194 and the Elsevier sample coauthor agreement form for a scientific project, contingencies and communication.195 These forms were collected at the start of the guideline activities for the steering committee, guideline panel and community scholars. All authors submitted an updated form in June 2019 and before publication. The management committee iteratively reviewed these statements and interviewed participants for any clarifications and concerns. A priori, the management committee had agreed that major competing interests would lead to dismissal. There were no competing interests declared. Implementation Our mixed-methods study (Olivia Magwood, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) looking at guideline priority, feasibility, acceptability, cost, equity and intent to implement, identified the following concerns regarding implementation of this guideline. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E249 Stakeholders highlighted the importance of increasing primary care providers’ knowledge of the process of applying to PSH programs and informing their patients about the resources available in the community. The major concerns regarding feasibility arose around the limited availability of existing services, such as housing, as well as administrative and human resources concerns. For example, not all primary care providers work in a team-based comprehensive care model and have access to a social worker or care coordinator who can help link the patient to existing services. Furthermore, wait lists for PSH are frequently long. Despite this, all stakeholders agreed that access to PSH was a priority and is a feasible recommendation. Allied health practitioners and physicians do not always agree with their new role in this area. Some feedback suggested pushback from family physicians who have limited time with patients and less experience exploring social determinants of health, such as housing or income. The initial steps outlined in this guideline would come at an opportunity cost for them. Stigma attached to the condition of homelessness was recognized as an important barrier to care for homeless populations. Many stakeholders recognized that successful implementation of these recommendations may require moderate costs to increase the housing supply, income supports and human resources. However, supervised consumption facilities, with their range of benefits, were perceived as cost-saving. Many interventions have the potential to increase health equity, if available and accessible in a local context. Many stakeholders highlighted opportunities to increase knowledge of the initial steps and advocate on a systematic level to increase availability of services. Suggested performance measures We developed a set of performance measures to accompany this guidleline for consideration by providers and policy-makers:
The proportion of adults who are assessed for homelessness or vulnerable housing over 1 year.
The proportion of eligible adults who are considered for income assistance over 1 year.
The proportion of eligible adults using opioids who are offered opioid agonist therapy over 1 year. Updates The Homeless Health Research Network will be responsible for updating this guideline every 5 years. Other guidelines This guideline complements other published guidelines. This current guideline aims to support the upcoming Indigenousspecific guidelines that recognize the importance of Indigenous leadership and methodology that will recognize distinct underlying causes of Indigenous homelessness (Jesse Thistle, York University, Toronto, Ont.: personal communication, 2020). The World Health Organization has developed guidelines to promote healthy housing standards to save lives, prevent disease and increase quality of life.196 Other guidelines specific to opioid use disorder exist,197,198 including 1 for “treatment-refractory” patients.199 In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health Care and Excellence has published guidelines for outpatient treatment of schizophrenia and has published multimorbidity guidelines (www.nice.org.uk/guidance). The National Health Care for the Homeless Council in the US has adapted best practices to support front-line workers caring for homeless populations.200 How is this guideline different? This guideline distills initial steps and evidence-based approaches, to both homeless and vulnerably housed people, with the assistance of patients and other stakeholders. It also introduces a new clinical lens with upstream interventions that provide a social and health foundation for community integration. Its initial steps support the vision of the Centre for Homelessness Impact in the UK, which envisions a society where the experience of homelessness, in instances where it cannot be prevented, is only ever rare, brief and nonrecurrent.201 Finally, we hope that our stakeholder engagement inspires and equips future students, health providers and the public health community to implement the initial step recommendations. Gaps in knowledge Evidence-based policy initiatives will need to address the accelerating health and economic disparities between homeless and general housed populations. As primary care expands its medical home models,27 there will be a research opportunity for more traumainformed care202 to support the evidence-based interventions in this guideline. Indeed, clinical research can refine how providers use the initial steps protocol: housing, income, case management and addiction. With improved living conditions, care coordination and continuity of care, research and practice can shift to treatable conditions, such as HIV and HCV infection, substance use disorder, mental illness and tuberculosis.203 Medical educators will also need to develop new training tools to support the delivery of interventions. Curricula and training that support the delivery of interventions, such as traumainformed and patient-centred care, will also be needed.12 Many of the recommended interventions in this guideline rely on collaboration of community providers, housing coordinators and case management. Interdisciplinary primary care research and maintenance of linkages to primary care will benefit from new homeless health clinic networks. Monitoring transitions in care and housing availability will be an important research goal for Canada’s National Housing Strategy and the associated Reaching Home program. Conclusion Homelessness has become a health emergency. Initial steps in addressing this crisis proposed in this guideline include strongly recommending PSH as an urgent intervention. The guideline also recognizes the trauma, disability, mental illness and stigma GUIDELINE E250 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 facing people with lived homelessness experience and thus recommends initial steps of income assistance, intensive case management for mental illness, and harm-reduction and addictiontreatment interventions, including access to opioid agonist therapy and supervised consumption facilities. The successful implementation of this guideline will depend on a focus on the initial recommendations, trust, patient safety and an ongoing collaboration between primary health care, mental health providers, public health, people with lived experience and broader community organizations, including those beyond the health care field. References 1. Frankish CJ, Hwang SW, Quantz D. Homelessness and health in Canada: research lessons and priorities. Can J Public Health 2005;96(Suppl 2):S23-9. 2. 31 days of promoting a better urban future: Report 2018. Nairobi (Kenya): UN Habitat, United Nations Human Settlement Programme; 2018. Available: https://oldweb.unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Final-short-version -UN-Habitat-Urban-October-Report.pdf (accessed 2019 Apr. 1). 3. Wen CK, Hudak PL, Hwang SW. Homeless people’s perceptions of welcomeness and unwelcomeness in healthcare encounters. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:1011-7. 4. Coltman L, Gapka S, Harriott D, et al. Understanding community integration in a housing-first approach: Toronto At Home/Chez Soi community-based research. Intersectionalities 2015;4:39-50. 5. Hwang SW, Burns T. Health interventions for people who are homeless. Lancet 2014;384:1541-7. 6. Canadian definition of homelessness. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness; 2012. Available: www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/ attachments/Definition of Homelessness.pdf (accessed 2019 Apr. 1). 7. Hwang SW, Wilkins R, Tjepkema M, et al. Mortality among residents of shelters, rooming houses, and hotels in Canada: 11 year follow-up study. BMJ 2009;339: b4036. 8. Nordentoft M, Wandall-Holm N. 10 year follow up study of mortality among users of hostels for homeless people in Copenhagen. BMJ 2003;327:81. 9. Fazel S, Geddes JR, Kushel M. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. Lancet 2014;384:1529-40. 10. Gaetz S, Dej E, Richter T, et al. The state of homelessness in Canada 2016. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press; 2016. 11. Thistle J. Indigenous definition of homelessness in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press; 2017. 12. Belanger YD, Awosoga O, Head GW. Homelessness, urban Aboriginal people, and the need for a national enumeration. Aboriginal Policy Studies 2013;2: 4-33. 13. Taylor M. How is rural homelessness different from urban homelessness? Toronto: The Canadian Observatory on Homelessness/Homeless Hub; 2018. Available: www.homelesshub.ca/blog/how-rural-homelessness-different -urban-homelessness (accessed 2019 Feb. 6). 14. Rodrigue S. Hidden homelessness in Canada. Cat no 75-006-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2016. 15. Gulliver-Garcia T. Putting an end to child & family homelessness in Canada. Toronto: Raising the Roof; 2016. 16. Andermann A.; CLEAR Collaboration. Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals. CMAJ 2016; 188:E474-83. 17. Jackson GL, Powers BJ, Chatterjee R, et al. The patient-centered medical home: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:169-78. 18. A new vision for Canada: family practice — the patient’s medical home 2019. Mississauga (ON): The College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2019. 19. Declaration of Alma-Ata. Proceedings of the International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata; 1978 Sept. 6–12. Geneva: World Health Organization. 20. Magwood O, Leki VY, Kpade V, et al. Common trust and personal safety issues: A systematic review on the acceptability of health and social interventions for persons with lived experience of homelessness. PLoS One 2019;14:e0226306. 21. Luchenski S, Maguire N, Aldridge RW, et al. What works in inclusion health: overview of effective interventions for marginalised and excluded populations. Lancet 2018;391:266-80. 22. Thistle JA, Laliberte N. Pekiwewin (Coming Home): Clinical practice guidelines for health and social service providers working with Indigenous people experiencing homelessness. Verbal concurrent session presented at the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness Conference, 2019 Nov. 4; Edmonton. 23. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ 1995;152:1423-33. 24. Racine N, Killam T, Madigan S. Trauma-informed care as a universal precaution: beyond the adverse childhood experiences questionnaire. JAMA Pediatr 2019 Nov. 4 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3866. 25. Reeves E. A synthesis of the literature on trauma-informed care. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2015;36:698-709. 26. Hopper E, Bassuk E, Olivet J. Shelter from the storm: trauma-informed care in homelessness services settings. Open Health Serv Policy J 2009;2:131-51. 27. A new vision for Canada: family practice — The patient’s medical home. Mississauga (ON): College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2019. Available: www. cfpc.ca/A_Vision_for_Canada (accessed 2019 Dec. 2). 28. Valaitis RK, O’Mara L, Wong ST, et al. Strengthening primary health care through primary care and public health collaboration: the influence of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2018;19:378-91. 29. Akhtar-DaneshN, Valaitis R, O’Mara L, et al. Viewpoints about collaboration between primary care and public health in Canada.BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:311. 30. Aubry T, Goering P, Veldhuizen S, et al. A multiple-city RCT of housing first with assertive community treatment for homeless Canadians with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2016;67:275-81. 31. Cherner RA, Aubry T, Sylvestre J, et al. Housing first for adults with problematic substance use. J Dual Diagn 2017;13:219-29. 32. Goldfinger SM, Schutt RK, Tolomiczenko GS, et al. Housing placement and subsequent days homeless among formerly homeless adults with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 1999;50:674-9. 33. Hwang SW, Gogosis E, Chambers C, et al. Health status, quality of life, residential stability, substance use, and health care utilization among adults applying to a supportive housing program. J Urban Health 2011;88:1076-90. 34. Lipton FR, Nutt S, Sabatini A. Housing the homeless mentally ill: a longitudinal study of a treatment approach. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1988;39:40-5. 35. Martinez TE, Burt MR. Impact of permanent supportive housing on the use of acute care health services by homeless adults. Psychiatr Serv 2006;57:992-9. 36. McHugo GJ, Bebout RR, Harris M, et al. A randomized controlled trial of integrated versus parallel housing services for homeless adults with severe mental illness. Schizophr Bull 2004;30:969-82. 37. Rich AR, Clark C. Gender differences in response to homelessness services. Eval Program Plann 2005;28:69-81. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.05.003. 38. Sadowski LS, Kee RA, VanderWeele TJ, et al. Effect of a housing and case management program on emergency department visits and hospitalizations among chronically ill homeless adults: a randomized trial. JAMA 2009;301:1771-8. 39. Siegel CE, Samuels J, Tang D-I, et al. Tenant outcomes in supported housing and community residences in New York City. Psychiatr Serv 2006;57:982-91. 40. Stefancic A, Tsemberis S. Housing First for long-term shelter dwellers with psychiatric disabilities in a suburban county: a four-year study of housing access and retention. J Prim Prev 2007;28:265-79. 41. Stergiopoulos V, Hwang SW, Gozdzik A, et al.; At Home/Chez Soi Investigators. Effect of scattered-site housing using rent supplements and intensive case management on housing stability among homeless adults with mental illness: a randomized trial. JAMA 2015;313:905-15. 42. Tsemberis S, Gulcur L, Nakae M. Housing First, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. Am J Public Health 2004;94:651-6. 43. Young MS, Clark C, Moore K, et al. Comparing two service delivery models for homeless individuals with complex behavioral health needs: preliminary data from two SAMHSA treatment for homeless studies. J Dual Diagn 2009;5: 287-304. 44. Kozloff N, Adair CE, Palma Lazgare LI, et al. “Housing First” for homeless youth with mental illness. Pediatrics 2016;138:e20161514. 45. Gulcur L, Stefancic A, Shinn M, et al. Housing, hospitalization, and cost outcomes for homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities participating in continuum of care and housing first programmes. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 2003;13:171-86. doi: 10.1002/casp.723. 46. Poremski D, Stergiopoulos V, Braithwaite E, et al. Effects of Housing First on employment and income of homeless individuals: results of a randomized trial. Psychiatr Serv 2016;67:603-9. 47. Booshehri LG, Dugan J, Patel F, et al. Trauma-informed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): a randomized controlled trial with a twogeneration impact. J Child Fam Stud 2018;27:1594-604. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E251 48. Ferguson KM. Employment outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of two employment interventions with homeless youth. J Soc Social Work Res 2018;9:1-21. 49. Forchuk C, MacClure SK, Van Beers M, et al. Developing and testing an intervention to prevent homelessness among individuals discharged from psychiatric wards to shelters and “No Fixed Address”. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2008;15:569-75. 50. Gubits D, Shinn M, Wood M, et al. What interventions work best for families who experience homelessness? Impact estimates from the family options study. J Policy Anal Manage 2018;37:735-66. 51. Hurlburt MS, Hough RL, Wood PA. Effects of substance abuse on housing stability of homeless mentally Ill persons in supported housing. Psychiatr Serv 1996;47:731-6. 52. Kashner TM, Rosenheck R, Campinell AB, et al. Impact of work therapy on health status among homeless, substance-dependent veterans: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002;59:938-44. 53. Pankratz C, Nelson G, Morrison M. A quasi-experimental evaluation of rent assistance for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. J Community Psychol 2017;45:1065-79. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21911. 54. Poremski D, Distasio J, Hwang SW, et al. Employment and income of people who experience mental illness and homelessness in a large Canadian sample. Can J Psychiatry 2015;60:379-85. 55. Rosenheck R, Kasprow W, Frisman L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of supported housing for homeless persons with mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60:940-51. 56. Wolitski RJ, Kidder DP, Pals SL, et al.; Housing and Health Study Team. Randomized trial of the effects of housing assistance on the health and risk behaviors of homeless and unstably housed people living with HIV. AIDS Behav 2010;14:493-503. 57. Conrad KJ, Hultman CI, Pope AR, et al. Case managed residential care for homeless addicted veterans. Results of a true experiment. Med Care 1998; 36:40-53. 58. Graham-Jones S, Reilly S, Gaulton E. Tackling the needs of the homeless: a controlled trial of health advocacy. Health Soc Care Community 2004;12:221-32. 59. Lapham SC, Hall M, Skipper BJ. Homelessness and substance use among alcohol abusers following participation in project H&ART. J Addict Dis 1995;14:41-55. 60. Nyamathi A, Flaskerud JH, Leake B, et al. Evaluating the impact of peer, nurse case-managed, and standard HIV risk-reduction programs on psychosocial and health-promoting behavioral outcomes among homeless women. Res Nurs Health 2001;24:410-22. 61. Nyamathi AM, Zhang S, Salem BE, et al. A randomized clinical trial of tailored interventions for health promotion and recidivism reduction among homeless parolees: outcomes and cost analysis. J Exp Criminol 2016;12:49-74. 62. Sosin MR, Bruni M, Reidy M. Paths and impacts in the progressive independence model: a homelessness and substance abuse intervention in Chicago. J Addict Dis 1995;14:1-20. 63. Towe VL, Wiewel EW, Zhong Y, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a rapid rehousing intervention for homeless persons living with HIV/AIDS: impact on housing and HIV medical outcomes. AIDS Behav 2019;23:2315-25. 64. Upshur C, Weinreb L, Bharel M, et al. A randomized control trial of a chronic care intervention for homeless women with alcohol use problems. J Subst Abuse Treat 2015;51:19-29. 65. Weinreb L, Upshur CC, Fletcher-Blake D, et al. Managing depression among homeless mothers: pilot testing an adapted collaborative care intervention. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2016;18. 66. Clarke GN, Herinckx HA, Kinney RF, et al. Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized trial of two ACT programs vs. usual care. Ment Health Serv Res 2000;2:155-64. 67. Essock SM, Frisman LK, Kontos NJ. Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment teams. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1998;68:179-90. 68. Essock SM, Mueser KT, Drake RE, et al. Comparison of ACT and standard case management for delivering integrated treatment for co-occurring disorders. Psychiatr Serv 2006;57:185-96. 69. Fletcher TD, Cunningham JL, Calsyn RJ, et al. Evaluation of treatment programs for dual disorder individuals: modeling longitudinal and mediation effects. Adm Policy Ment Health 2008;35:319-36. 70. Lehman AF, Dixon LB, Kernan E, et al. A randomized trial of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997;54:1038-43. 71. Morse GA, Calsyn RJ, Allen G, et al. Experimental comparison of the effects of three treatment programs for homeless mentally ill people. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1992;43:1005-10. 72. Morse GA, Calsyn RJ, Klinkenberg WD, et al. An experimental comparison of three types of case management for homeless mentally ill persons. Psychiatr Serv 1997;48:497-503. 73. Morse GA, Calsyn RJ, Klinkenberg WD, et al. Treating homeless clients with severe mental illness and substance use disorders: costs and outcomes. Community Ment Health J 2006;42:377-404. 74. Braucht GN, Reichardt CS, Geissler LJ, et al. Effective services for homeless substance abusers. J Addict Dis 1995;14:87-109. 75. Burnam MA, Morton SC, McGlynn EA, et al. An experimental evaluation of residential and nonresidential treatment for dually diagnosed homeless adults. J Addict Dis 1995;14:111-34. 76. Cauce AM, Morgan CJ, Wagner V, et al. Effectiveness of intensive case management for homeless adolescents: rof a 3-month follow-up. J Emot Behav Disord 1994;2:219-27. 77. Clark C, Rich AR. Outcomes of homeless adults with mental illness in a housing program and in case management only. Psychiatr Serv 2003;54:78-83. 78. Cox GB, Walker RD, Freng SA, et al. Outcome of a controlled trial of the effectiveness of intensive case management for chronic public inebriates. J Stud Alcohol 1998;59:523-32. 79. Felton CJ, Stastny P, Shern DL, et al. Consumers as peer specialists on intensive case management teams: impact on client outcomes. Psychiatr Serv 1995; 46:1037-44. 80. Grace M, Gill PR. Improving outcomes for unemployed and homeless young people: findings of the YP4 clinical controlled trial of joined up case management. Aust Soc Work 2014;67:419-37. 81. Korr WS, Joseph A. Housing the homeless mentally ill: Findings from Chicago. J Soc Serv Res 1996;21:53-68. 82. Malte CA, Cox K, Saxon AJ. Providing intensive addiction/housing case management to homeless veterans enrolled in addictions treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Psychol Addict Behav 2017;31:231-41. 83. Marshall M, Lockwood A, Gath D. Social services case-management for longterm mental disorders: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1995;345:409-12. 84. Orwin RG, Sonnefeld LJ, Garrison-Mogren R, et al. Pitfalls in evaluating the effectiveness of case management programs for homeless persons: lessons from the NIAAA Community Demonstration Program. Eval Rev 1994;18: 153-207. 85. Rosenblum A, Nuttbrock L, McQuistion H, et al. Medical outreach to homeless substance users in New York City: preliminary results. Subst Use Misuse 2002; 37:1269-73. 86. Shern DL, Tsemberis S, Anthony W, et al. Serving street-dwelling individuals with psychiatric disabilities: outcomes of a psychiatric rehabilitation clinical trial. Am J Public Health 2000;90:1873-8. 87. Stahler GJ, Shipley TF Jr, Bartelt D, et al. Evaluating alternative treatments for homeless substance-abusing men: outcomes and predictors of success. J Addict Dis 1996;14:151-67. 88. Shumway M, Boccellari A, O’Brien K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of clinical case management for ED frequent users: results of a randomized trial. Am J Emerg Med 2008;26:155-64. 89. Toro PA, Passero Rabideau JM, Bellavia CW, et al. Evaluating an intervention for homeless persons: results of a field experiment. J Consult Clin Psychol 1997;65:476-84. 90. de Vet R, Beijersbergen MD, Jonker IE, et al. Critical time intervention for homeless people making the transition to community living: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Community Psychol 2017;60:175-86. 91. Herman DB, Conover S, Gorroochurn P, et al. Randomized trial of critical time intervention to prevent homelessness after hospital discharge. Psychiatr Serv 2011;62:713-9. 92. Lako DAM, Beijersbergen MD, Jonker IE, et al. The effectiveness of critical time intervention for abused women leaving women’s shelters: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Public Health 2018;63:513-23. 93. Shinn M, Samuels J, Fischer SN, et al. Longitudinal impact of a family critical time intervention on children in high-risk families experiencing homelessness: a randomized trial. Am J Community Psychol 2015;56:205-16. 94. Susser E, Valencia E, Conover S, et al. Preventing recurrent homelessness among mentally ill men: a“ critical time” intervention after discharge from a shelter. Am J Public Health 1997;87:256-62. 95. Samuels J, Fowler PJ, Ault-Brutus A, et al. Time-limited case management for homeless mothers with mental health problems: effects on maternal mental health. J Soc Social Work Res 2015;6:515-39. 96. Jones K, Colson PW, Holter MC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of critical time intervention to reduce homelessness among persons with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2003;54:884-90. GUIDELINE E252 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 97. Tomita A, Herman DB. The impact of critical time intervention in reducing psychiatric rehospitalization after hospital discharge. Psychiatr Serv 2012;63: 935-7. 98. Jones K, Colson P, Valencia E, et al. A preliminary cost effectiveness analysis of an intervention to reduce homelessness among the mentally ill. Psychiatr Q 1994;65:243-56. 99. Magwood O, Salvalaggio G, Beder M, et al. The effectiveness of substance use interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed persons: a systematic review of systematic reviews on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs, and pharmacological agents for opioid use disorder. PLoS ONE 15(1):e0227298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227298. 100. Bahji A, Bajaj N. Opioids on trial: a systematic review of interventions for the treatment and prevention of opioid overdose. Can J Addict 2018;9:26-33. 101. Clark N, Lintzeris N, Gijsbers A, et al. LAAM maintenance vs methadone maintenance for heroin dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(2):CD002210. 102. Ferri M, Davoli M, Perucci CA. Heroin maintenance treatment for chronic heroin-dependent individuals: a Cochrane systematic review of effectiveness. J Subst Abuse Treat 2006;30:63-72. 103. Gowing L, Farrell MF, Bornemann R, et al. Oral substitution treatment of injecting opioid users for prevention of HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(8):CD004145. 104. Jones HE, Heil SH, Baewert A, et al. Buprenorphine treatment of opioiddependent pregnant women: a comprehensive review. Addiction 2012; 107(Suppl 1):5-27. 105. Karki P, Shrestha R, Huedo-Medina TB, et al. The impact of methadone maintenance treatment on HIV risk behaviors among high-risk injection drug users: a systematic review. Evid Based Med Public Health 2016;2:pii: e1229. 106. Kirchmayer U, Davoli M, Verster AD, et al. A systematic review on the efficacy of naltrexone maintenance treatment in opioid dependence. Addiction 2002;97: 1241-9. 107. Larney S, Gowing L, Mattick RP, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of naltrexone implants for the treatment of opioid dependence. Drug Alcohol Rev 2014;33:115-28. 108. Lobmaier P, Kornør H, Kunøe N, et al. Sustained-release naltrexone for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(2):CD006140. 109. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, et al. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(2):CD002207. 110. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, et al. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(3):CD002209. 111. Minozzi S, Amato L, Vecchi S, et al. Oral naltrexone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(4):CD001333. 112. Platt L, Minozzi S, Reed J, et al. Needle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy for preventing hepatitis C transmission in people who inject drugs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;9:CD012021. 113. Roozen HG, de Waart R, van der Windt DAWM, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of naltrexone in the maintenance treatment of opioid and alcohol dependence. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2006;16:311-23. 114. Saulle R, Vecchi S, Gowing L. Supervised dosing with a long-acting opioid medication in the management of opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;4:CD011983. 115. Simoens S, Matheson C, Bond C, et al. The effectiveness of community maintenance with methadone or buprenorphine for treating opiate dependence. Br J Gen Pract 2005;55:139-46. 116. Sordo L, Barrio G, Bravo MJ, et al. Mortality risk during and after opioid substitution treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMJ 2017;357:j1550. 117. Helm S, Trescot AM, Colson J, et al. Opioid antagonists, partial agonists, and agonists/antagonists: the role of office-based detoxification. Pain Physician 2008;11:225-35. 118. Strang J, Groshkova T, Uchtenhagen A, et al. Heroin on trial: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of diamorphine-prescribing as treatment for refractory heroin addiction. Br J Psychiatry 2015;207:5-14. 119. Thomas CP, Fullerton CA, Kim M, et al. Medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv 2014;65:158-70. 120. Weinmann S, Kunstmann W, Rheinberger P. Methadone substitution — a scientific review in the context of out-patient therapy in Germany [article in German]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2004;98:673-82. 121. Wilder C, Lewis D, Winhusen T. Medication assisted treatment discontinuation in pregnant and postpartum women with opioid use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015;149:225-31. 122. Klimas J, Gorfinkel L, Giacomuzzi SM, et al. Slow release oral morphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid use disorder. BMJ Open 2019;9: e025799. 123. Maglione MA, Raaen L, Chen C, et al. Effects of medication assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder on functional outcomes: a systematic review. J Subst Abuse Treat 2018;89:28-51. 124. Kennedy MC, Karamouzian M, Kerr T. Public health and public order outcomes associated with supervised drug consumption facilities: a systematic review. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2017;14:161-83. 125. Potier C, Laprévote V, Dubois-Arber F, et al. Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014;145:48-68. 126. McNeil R, Small W. ‘Safer environment interventions’: a qualitative synthesis of the experiences and perceptions of people who inject drugs. Soc Sci Med 2014;106:151-8. 127. Muckle W, Muckle J, Welch V, et al. Managed alcohol as a harm reduction intervention for alcohol addiction in populations at high risk for substance abuse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD006747. 128. Ezard N, Dolan K, Baldry E, et al. Feasibility of a Managed Alcohol Program (MAP) for Sydney’s homeless. Canberra (AU): Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education; 2015. 129. Nielsen E, Novotna G, Berenyi R, et al. Harm reduction interventions for chronic and severe alcohol use among populations experiencing homelessness: a literature review. Regina: University of Regina, Carmichael Outreach Inc.; 2018. 130. Basu A, Kee R, Buchanan D, et al. Comparative cost analysis of housing and case management program for chronically ill homeless adults compared to usual care. Health Serv Res 2012;47:523-43. 131. Culhane DP, Metraux S, Hadley T. Public service reductions associated with placement of homeless persons with severe mental illness in supportive housing. Hous Policy Debate 2002;13:107-63. 132. Dickey B, Latimer E, Powers K, et al. Housing costs for adults who are mentally ill and formerly homeless. J Ment Health Adm 1997;24:291-305. 133. Gilmer TP, Manning WG, Ettner SL. A cost analysis of San Diego County’s REACH program for homeless persons. Psychiatr Serv 2009;60:445-50. 134. Gilmer TP, Stefancic A, Ettner SL, et al. Effect of full-service partnerships on homelessness, use and costs of mental health services, and quality of life among adults with serious mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2010;67:645-52. 135. Hunter S, Harvey M, Briscombe B, et al. Evaluation of housing for health permanent supportive housing program. Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; 2017. 136. Holtgrave DR, Wolitski RJ, Pals SL, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the housing and health intervention for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV. AIDS Behav 2013;17:1626-31. 137. Larimer ME, Malone DK, Garner MD, et al. Health care and public service use and costs before and after provision of housing for chronically homeless persons with severe alcohol problems. JAMA 2009;301:1349-57. 138. Latimer EA, Rabouin D, Cao Z, et al.; At Home/Chez Soi Investigators. Costeffectiveness of Housing First intervention with intensive case management compared with treatment as usual for homeless adults with mental illness: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2:e199782. 139. Lenz-Rashid S. Supportive housing program for homeless families: Foster care outcomes and best practices. Child Youth Serv Rev 2017;79:558-63. 140. Lim S, Gao Q, Stazesky E, et al. Impact of a New York City supportive housing program on Medicaid expenditure patterns among people with serious mental illness and chronic homelessness. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:15. 141. McLaughlin TC. Using common themes: cost-effectiveness of permanent supported housing for people with mental illness. Res Soc Work Pract 2010;21: 404-11. 142. Mares AS, Rosenheck RA. A comparison of treatment outcomes among chronically homelessness adults receiving comprehensive housing and health care services versus usual local care. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011;38:459-75. 143. Pauley T, Gargaro J, Falode A, et al. Evaluation of an integrated cluster care and supportive housing model for unstably housed persons using the shelter system. Prof Case Manag 2016;21:34-42. 144. Schinka JA, Francis E, Hughes P, et al. Comparative outcomes and costs of inpatient care and supportive housing for substance-dependent veterans. Psychiatr Serv 1998;49:946-50. 145. Srebnik D, Connor T, Sylla L. A pilot study of the impact of housing firstsupported housing for intensive users of medical hospitalization and sobering services. Am J Public Health 2013;103:316-21. 146. Evans WN, Sullivan JX, Wallskog M. The impact of homelessness prevention programs on homelessness. Science 2016;353:694-9. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E253 147. Clark RE, Teague GB, Ricketts SK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment versus standard case management for persons with cooccurring severe mental illness and substance use disorders. Health Serv Res 1998;33:1285-308. 148. Lehman AF, Dixon L, Hoch JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Br J Psychiatry 1999;174:346-52. 149. Wolff N, Helminiak TW, Morse GA, et al. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of three approaches to case management for homeless mentally ill clients. Am J Psychiatry 1997;154:341-8. 150. Okin RL, Boccellari A, Azocar F, et al. The effects of clinical case management on hospital service use among ED frequent users. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:603-8. 151. Hwang SW. Homelessness in health. CMAJ 2001;164:229-33. 152. National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). Patient experience in adult NHS services: improving the experience of care for people using adult NHS services — patient experience in generic terms. NICE Clinical Guidelines No 138. London (UK): Royal College of Physicians; 2012. Available: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ books/NBK115230 (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 153. Jonker IE, Sijbrandij M, Van Luijtelaar MJA, et al. The effectiveness of interventions during and after residence in women’s shelters: a meta-analysis. Eur J Public Health 2015;25:15-9. 154. Rivas C, Ramsay J, Sadowski L, et al. Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(12):CD005043. 155. Speirs V, Johnson M, Jirojwong S. A systematic review of interventions for homeless women. J Clin Nurs 2013;22:1080-93. 156. Wathen CN, MacMillan HL. Interventions for violence against women: scientific review. JAMA 2003;289:589-600. 157. Constantino R, Kim Y, Crane PA. Effects of a social support intervention on health outcomes in residents of a domestic violence shelter: a pilot study. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2005;26:575-90. 158. Gubits D, Shinn M, Wood M, et al. Family options study: 3-year impacts of housing and services interventions for homeless families. 2016. doi: 10.2139/ ssrn.3055295. 159. Milby JB, Schumacher JE, Wallace D, et al. To house or not to house: the effects of providing housing to homeless substance abusers in treatment. Am J Public Health 2005;95:1259-65. 160. Nyamathi AM, Leake B, Flaskerud J, et al. Outcomes of specialized and traditional AIDS counseling programs for impoverished women of color. Res Nurs Health 1993;16:11-21. 161. Nyamathi A, Flaskerud J, Keenan C, et al. Effectiveness of a specialized vs. traditional AIDS education program attended by homeless and drug-addicted women alone or with supportive persons. AIDS Educ Prev 1998;10:433-46. 162. Wang JZ, Mott S, Magwood O, et al. The impact of interventions for youth experiencing homelessness on housing, mental health, substance use, and family cohesion: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2019;19:1528. 163. Couch J. ‘My life just went zig zag’: refugee young people and homelessness. Youth Stud Aust 2011;30:22-32. 164. Couch J. ‘Neither here nor there’: refugee young people and homelessness in Australia. Child Youth Serv Rev 2017;74:1-7. 165. Couch J. On their own: perceptions of services by homeless young refugees. Dev Pract 2012;(31):19-28. 166. D’Addario S, Hiebert D, Sherrell K. Restricted access: The role of social capital in mitigating absolute homelessness among immigrants and refugees in the GVRD. Refuge 2007;24:107-15. 167. Dwyer P, Brown D. Accommodating “others”?: housing dispersed, forced migrants in the UK. J Soc Welf Fam Law 2008;30:203-18. 168. Flatau P, Smith J, Carson G, et al. The housing and homelessness journeys of refugees in Australia. AHURI Final Rep No 256. Melbourne (AU): Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited; 2015. 169. Hulín M, Hulínová VA, Martinkovic M, et al. Housing among persons of international protection in the Slovak Republic. Rajagiri J Soc Dev 2013;5. 170. Idemudia ES, Williams JK, Wyatt GE. Migration challenges among Zimbabwean refugees before, during and post arrival in South Africa. J Inj Violence Res 2013;5:17-27. 171. Im H. A social ecology of stress and coping among homeless refugee families. Vol. 73, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy; 2012:355. Available: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc9&NEWS= N&AN=2012-99130-061 (accessed 2019 Sept. 1). Login required to access content. 172. Kissoon P. From persecution to destitution: a snapshot of asylum seekers’ housing and settlement experiences in Canada and the United Kingdom. J Immigr Refug Stud 2010;8:4-31. 173. Kissoon P. An uncertain home: refugee protection, illegal immigration status, and their effects on migrants’ housing stability in Vancouver and Toronto. Can Issues 2010;64-7. 174. Mostowska M. Migration and homelessness: the social networks of homeless Poles in Oslo. J Ethn Migr Stud 2013;39:1125-40. 175. Mostowska M. Homelessness abroad: “place utility” in the narratives of the Polish homeless in Brussels. Int Migr 2014;52:118-29. 176. Paradis E, Novac S, Sarty M, et al. Homelessness and housing among status immigrant, non-status migrant, and Canadian-born Families in Toronto. Can Issues 2010. 177. Sherrell K, D’Addario S, Hiebert D. On the outside looking in: the precarious housing situations of successful refugee claimants in the GVRD. Refuge 2007;24:64-75. 178. Sjollema SD, Hordyk S, Walsh CA, et al. Found poetry: finding home — a qualitative study of homeless immigrant women. J Poetry Ther 2012;25:205-17. 179. Walsh CA, Hanley J, Ives N, et al. Exploring the experiences of newcomer women with insecure housing in Montréal Canada. J Int Migr Integr 2016;17: 887-904. 180. Kendall CE, Shoemaker ES, Crowe L, et al. Engagement of people with lived experience in primary care research: living with HIV Innovation Team Community Scholar Program. Can Fam Physician 2017;63:730-1. 181. Swinkels H, Pottie K, Tugwell P, et al.; Canadian Collaboration for Immigrant and Refugee Health (CCIRH). Development of guidelines for recently arrived immigrants and refugees to Canada: Delphi consensus on selecting preventable and treatable conditions. CMAJ 2011;183:E928-32. 182. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction — GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64: 383-94. 183. Pottie K, Mathew CM, Mendonca O, et al. PROTOCOL: A comprehensive review of prioritized interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness. Campbell Syst Rev 2019;15:e1048. 184. Magwood O, Gebremeskel A, Ymele Leki V, et al. Protocol 1: The experiences of homeless and vulnerably housed persons around health and social services. A protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies. Cochrane Methods Equity; 2018. Available: https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/sites/methods.cochrane. org.equity/files/public/uploads/protocol-_the_experiences_of_homeless_and_ vulnerably_housed_persons_around_health_and_social_services.pdf (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 185. Kpade V, Magwood O, Salvalaggio G, et al. Protocol 3: Harm reduction and pharmacotherapeutic interventions for persons with substance use disorders: a protocol for a systematic review of reviews. Cochrane Methods Equity; 2018. 186. Wang J, Mott S, Mathew C, et al. Protocol: Impact of interventions for homeless youth: a narrative review using health, social, Gender, and equity outcomes. Cochrane Methods Equity; 2018. Available: https://methods.cochrane.org/ equity/sites/methods.cochrane.org.equity/files/public/uploads/youth_narrative _review_protocol.pdf (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 187. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 2016;353:i2089. 188. Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ 2016;353:i2016. 189. Schünemann HJ, Mustafa R, Brozek J, et al.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Guidelines: 16. GRADE evidence to decision frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;76:89-98. 190. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [software]. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University; 2015 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available: https://gradepro.org (accessed 2019 Feb. 1). 191. Tugwell P, Knottnerus JA. When does a good practice statement not justify an evidence based guideline? J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:477-9. 192. Guyatt GH, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, et al. Guideline panels should seldom make good practice statements: guidance from the GRADE Working Group. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;80:3-7. 193. Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ, Djulbegovic B, et al. Guideline panels should not GRADE good practice statements. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:597-600. 194. Drazen JM, de Leeuw PW, Laine C, et al. Toward more uniform conflict disclosures: the updated ICMJE conflict of interest reporting form. JAMA 2010;304:212-3. GUIDELINE E254 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 195. Primack RB, Cigliano JA, Parsons ECM, et al. Coauthors gone bad; how to avoid publishing conflict and a proposed agreement for co-author teams [editorial]. Biol Conserv 2014;176:277-80. 196. WHO housing and health guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. 197. Korownyk C, Perry D, Ton J, et al. Managing opioid use disorder in primary care: PEER simplified guideline. Can Fam Physician 2019;65:321-30. 198. Bruneau J, Ahamad K, Goyer M-È, et al.; CIHR Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse. Management of opioid use disorders: a national clinical practice guideline. CMAJ 2018;190:E247-57. 199. Fairbairn N, Ross J, Trew M, et al. Injectable opioid agonist treatment for opioid use disorder: a national clinical guideline. CMAJ 2019;191:E1049-56. 200. Montauk SL. The homeless in America: adapting your practice. Am Fam Physician 2006;74:1132-8. 201. Teixeira L, Russell D, Hobbs T. The SHARE framework: a smarter way to end homelessness. London (UK): Centre for Homelessness Impact; 2018; Available: www. homelesshub.ca/resource/share-framework-smarter-way-end-homelessness (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 202. Purkey E, Patel R, Phillips SP. Trauma-informed care: better care for everyone. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:170-2. 203. Homelessness & health: What’s the connection [fact sheet]. Nashville (TN): National Health Care for the Homeless Council; 2011. Available: https://nhchc.org/wp-content /uploads/2019/08/Hln_health_factsheet_Jan10-1.pdf (accessed 2019 June 1). Competing interests: Gary Bloch is a founding member, former board member and currently a clinician with Inner City Health Associates (ICHA), a group of physicians working with individuals experiencing homelessness in Toronto, which provided funding for the development of this guideline. He did not receive payment for work on the guideline and did not participate in any ICHA board decision-making relevant to this project. Ritika Goel, Michaela Beder and Stephen Hwang also receive payment for clinical services from ICHA, and did not receive payment for any aspect of the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared. This article has been peer reviewed. Affiliations: C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre (Pottie, d Wendy Muckle led the Homeless Health Summit. Esther Shoemaker led the Delphi consensus. Olivia Magwood led the reviews on lived experiences and substance use, Tim Aubry led the review on housing, Gary Bloch and Vanessa Brcic led the review on income, David Ponka and Eric Agbata led the review on case management, Jean Zhuo Jing Wang and Sebastian Mott led the homeless youth review, Harneel Kaur led the homeless migrant review, Christine Mathew and Anne Andermann led the homeless women review, Syeda Shanza Hashmi and Ammar Saad led medical student engagement and competency review, Thomas Piggott co-led the GRADE Assessment with Olivia Magwood and Kevin Pottie, Michaela Beder and Nicole Kozloff contributed substantially to the substance use review, and Neil Arya and Stephen Hwang provided critical policy information. All of the named authors engaged in the writing and review, gave final approval of the version of the guideline to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Funding: This guideline was supported by a peer-reviewed grant from the Inner City Health Associates, and supplemental project grants from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Employment Social Development Canada, Canadian Medical Association and Champlain Local Integrated Health Network. Personnel from collaborating agencies provided nonbinding feedback during the preparation of systematic reviews and the guideline. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review or final approval of the guideline. Final decisions regarding the protocol and issues that arose during the guideline-development process were solely the responsibility of the guideline steering committee. Acknowledgements: The authors thank everyone who participated in the development of this guideline, including community scholars, technical team leads, guideline panel members and working group members. Endorsements: Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Public Health Association, Canadian Federation of Medical Students, The College of Family Physicians of Canada, Public Health Physicians of Canada, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, The Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, Canadian Nurses Association Disclaimer: The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the funding agencies. Correspondence to: Kevin Pottie, kpottie@uottawa.ca
Documents
Less detail

Caring in a Crisis: The Ethical Obligations of Physicians and Society During a Pandemic

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9109
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2008-02-23
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2008-02-23
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Inherent in all health care professional Codes of Ethics is the duty to provide care to patients and to relieve suffering whenever possible. However, this duty does not exist in a vacuum, and depends on the provision of goods and services referred to as reciprocal obligations, which must be provided by governments, health care institutions and other relevant bodies and agencies. The obligation of government and society to physicians can be seen as comparable to the obligations of physicians to their patients. The recent experience of Canadian physicians during the SARS epidemic in Toronto has heightened the sensitivities of the medical profession to several issues that arose during the course of dealing with that illness. Many of the lessons learned (and the unanswered questions that arose) also apply to the looming threat of an avian flu (or other) pandemic. Canadian physicians may be in a relatively unique position to consider these issues given their experience and insight. The intent of this working paper is to highlight the ethical issues of greatest concern to practicing Canadian physicians which must be considered during a pandemic. In order to address these issues before they arise, the CMA presents this paper for consideration by individual physicians, physician organizations, governments, policy makers and interested bodies and stakeholders. Although many of the principles and concepts could readily be applied to other health care workers, the focus of this paper will be on physicians. Policies regarding physicians in training, including medical students and residents, should be clarified in advance by the relevant bodies involved in their oversight and training. Issues of concern would include the responsibilities of trainees to provide care during a pandemic and the potential effect of such an outbreak on their education and training. A. Physician obligations during a pandemic The professional obligations of physicians are well spelled out in the CMA Code of Ethics and other documents and publications and are not the main focus of this paper. However, they will be reviewed and discussed as follows. Several important principles of medical ethics will be of particular relevance in considering this issue. Physicians have an obligation to be beneficent to their patients and to consider what is in the patient's best interest. According to the first paragraph of the CMA Code of Ethics (2004), "Consider first the well-being of the patient". Traditionally, physicians have also respected the principle of altruism, whereby they set aside concern for their own health and well-being in order to serve their patients. While this has often manifested itself primarily as long hours away from home and family, and a benign neglect of personal health issues, at times more drastic sacrifices have been required. During previous pandemics, many physicians have served selflessly in the public interest, often at great risk to their own well-being. The principle of justice requires physicians to consider what is owed to whom and why, including what resources are needed, and how these resources would best be employed during a pandemic. These resources might include physician services but could also include access to vaccines and medications, as well as access to equipment such as ventilators or to a bed in the intensive care unit. According to paragraph 43 of the CMA Code of Ethics, physicians have an obligation to "Recognize the responsibility of physicians to promote equitable access to health care resources". In addition, physicians can reasonably be expected to participate in the process of planning for a pandemic or other medical disaster. According to paragraph 42 of the CMA Code of Ethics, physicians should "Recognize the profession's responsibility to society in matters relating to public health, health education, environmental protection, legislation affecting the health and well-being of the community and the need for testimony at judicial proceedings". This responsibility could reasonably be seen to apply both to individual physicians as well as the various bodies and organizations that represent them. Physicians also have an ethical obligation to recognize their limitations and the extent of the services they are able to provide. During a pandemic, physicians may be asked to assume roles or responsibilities with which they are not comfortable, nor prepared. Paragraph 15 of the CMA Code of Ethics reminds physicians to "Recognize your limitations and, when indicated, recommend or seek additional opinions or services". However, physicians have moral rights as well as obligations. The concept of personal autonomy allows physicians some discretion in determining where, how and when they will practice medicine. They also have an obligation to safeguard their own health. As stated in paragraph 10 of the CMA Code of Ethics, physicians should "Promote and maintain your own health and well-being". The SARS epidemic has served to reopen the ethical debate. Health care practitioners have been forced to reconsider their obligations during a pandemic, including whether they must provide care to all those in need regardless of the level of personal risk. As well, they have been re-examining the obligation of governments and others to provide reciprocal services to physicians, and the relationship between these obligations. B. Reciprocal obligations towards physicians While there has been much debate historically (and especially more recently) about the ethical obligations of physicians towards their patients and society in general, the consideration of reciprocal obligations towards physicians is a relatively recent phenomenon. During the SARS epidemic, a large number of Canadian physicians unselfishly volunteered to assist their colleagues in trying to bring the epidemic under control. They did so, in many cases, in spite of significant personal risk, and with very little information about the nature of the illness, particularly early in the course of the outbreak. Retrospective analysis has cast significant doubt and concern on the amount of support and assistance provided to physicians during the crisis. Communication and infrastructure support was poor at best. Equipment was often lacking and not always up to standard when it was available. Psychological support and counselling was not readily available at the point of care, nor was financial compensation for those who missed work due to illness or quarantine. Although the Ontario government did provide retrospective compensation for many physicians whose practices were affected by the outbreak, the issue was addressed late, and not at all in some cases. It is clear that Canadian physicians have learned greatly from this experience. The likelihood of individuals again volunteering "blindly" has been reduced to the point where it may never happen again. There are expectations that certain conditions and obligations will be met in order to optimize patient care and outcomes and to protect health care workers and their families. Because physicians and other health care providers will be expected to put themselves directly in harm's way, and to bear a disproportionate burden of the personal hardships associated with a pandemic, the argument has been made that society has a reciprocal obligation to support and compensate these individuals. According to the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics report We stand on guard for thee, "(The substantive value of) reciprocity requires that society support those who face a disproportionate burden in protecting the public good, and take steps to minimize burdens as much as possible. Measures to protect the public good are likely to impose a disproportionate burden on health care workers, patients and their families." Therefore, in order to provide adequate care for patients, the reciprocal obligation to physicians requires providing some or all of the following: Prior to a pandemic - Physicians and the organizations that represent them should be more involved in planning and decision making at the local, national and international levels. In turn, physicians and the organizations that represent them have an obligation to participate as well. - Physicians should be made aware of a clear plan for resource utilization, including: - how physicians will be relieved of duties after a certain time; - clearly defined roles and expectations, especially for those practicing outside of their area of expertise; - vaccination/treatment plans - will physicians (and their families) have preferential access based on the need to keep caregivers healthy and on the job; - triage plans, including how the triage model might be altered and plans to inform the public of such. - Physicians should have access to the best equipment needed and should be able to undergo extra training in its use if required. - Politicians and leaders should provide reassurances that satisfy physicians that they will not be "conscripted" by legislation. During a pandemic - Physicians should have access to up-to-date, real time information. - Physicians should be kept informed about developments in Canada and globally. - Communication channels should be opened with other countries (e.g. Canada should participate in WHO initiatives to identify the threats before they arrive on our doorstep). - Resources should be provided for backup and relief of physicians and health care workers. - Arrangements should be made for timely provision of necessary equipment in an ongoing fashion. - Physicians should be compensated for lost clinical earnings and to cover expenses such as lost wages, lost group earnings, overhead, medical care, medications, rehabilitative therapy and other relevant expenses in case of quarantine, clinic cancellations or illness (recognizing that determining exactly when or where an infection was acquired may be difficult). - Families should receive financial compensation in the case of a physician family member who dies as a result of providing care during a pandemic. - In the event that physicians may be called upon in a pandemic to practice outside of their area of expertise or outside their jurisdiction, they should to contact their professional liability protection provider for information on their eligibility for protection in these circumstances. - Interprovincial or national licensing programs should be developed to provide physicians with back-up and relief and ensure experts can move from place to place in a timely fashion without undue burden. - Psychological and emotional counselling and support should be provided in a timely fashion for physicians, their staff and family members. - Accommodation (i.e. a place to stay) should be provided for physicians who have to travel to another locale to provide care; or who don't want to go home and put their family at risk, when this is applicable, i.e. the epidemiology of the infectious disease causing the pandemic indicates substantially greater risk of acquiring infection in the health care setting than in the community. - Billing and compensation arrangements should ensure physicians are properly compensated for the services they are providing, including those who may not have an active billing number in the province where the services are being provided. After a pandemic - Physicians should receive assistance in restarting their practice (replacing staff, restocking overhead, communicating with patients, and any other costs related to restarting the practice). - Physicians should receive ongoing psychological support and counselling as required. C. How are physician obligations and reciprocal obligations related? Beyond a simple statement of the various obligations, it is clear that there must be some link between these different obligations. This is particularly important since there is now some time to plan for the next pandemic and to ensure that reciprocal obligations can be met prior to its onset. Physicians have always provided care in emergency situations without questioning what they are owed. According to paragraph 18 of the CMA Code of Ethics, physicians should "Provide whatever appropriate assistance you can to any person with an urgent need for medical care". However, in situations where obligations can be anticipated and met in advance, it is reasonable to expect that they will be addressed. Whereas a physician who encounters an emergency situation at the site of a car crash will act without concern for personal gain or motivation, a physician caring for the same patient in an emergency department will rightly expect the availability of proper equipment and personnel. In order to ensure proper patient care and physician safety, and to ensure physicians are able to meet their professional obligations and standards, the reciprocal obligations outlined above should be addressed by the appropriate body or organization. Conclusion If patient and physician well-being is not optimized by clarifying the obligations of physicians and society prior to the next pandemic, in spite of available time and resources necessary to do so, there are many who would call into question the ethical duty of physicians to provide care. However, the CMA believes that, in the very best and most honourable traditions of the medical profession, its members will provide care and compassion to those in need. We call on governments and society to assist us in optimizing this care for all Canadians.
Documents
Less detail

Tobacco Control (Update 2008)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9133
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2008-05-27
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2008-05-27
Replaces
Tobacco Control (2001)
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Tobacco Control (Update 2008) Tobacco is an addictive and hazardous product, and the number one cause of preventable disease and death in Canada. Canada's physicians, who see the devastating effects of tobacco use every day in their practices, have been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada. The CMA issued its first public warning concerning the hazards of tobacco in 1954 and has continued ever since to advocate for the strongest possible measures to control its use. It is estimated that over 37,000 deaths each year are attributable to tobacco use. Tobacco imposes a heavy burden on society in the form of hospital care, disability, absenteeism and loss of productivity. Health Canada estimates that tobacco costs this country $17 billion annually of which $4.4 billion constitutes direct health care costs. Since 2001, Canada's smoking rate has fallen from 25% to below 20%; the decline has been particularly dramatic among young people. The drop is attributed mainly to a comprehensive tobacco control strategy that employs a variety of different interventions, including high prices and taxes, bans on smoking in public places, restrictions on advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, and social marketing programs to de-normalize tobacco use and the tobacco industry. While Canada is to be congratulated on its success to date, it needs to maintain an environment that encourages Canadians to remain tobacco free, if it is to sustain and improve upon these rates. To ensure such an environment, the CMA believes that all governments in Canada should continue to implement a comprehensive, coordinated and effective tobacco control strategy which should include the following elements: Legislation and regulation The CMA supports strong comprehensive tobacco control legislation, enacted and enforced by all levels of government. Many strong laws and regulations have already been enacted; but some areas remain to be addressed. The CMA recommends that Canadian governments enact the following measures to strengthen tobacco control: Advertising and promotion: The CMA supports a total comprehensive ban on all advertising and promotion of tobacco. In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that such a ban is constitutional. Canada currently permits a limited amount of tobacco promotion, and must enact a comprehensive ban if it wishes to comply with the terms of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), to which it is a signatory. In order to make the current promotion restrictions complete, Canada should enact: - a ban on the sale of non-tobacco products displaying tobacco brand names, logos or colours; - a nationwide ban on the display of tobacco products at point of sale, as has been implemented in some provinces; - a ban on all tobacco-brand marketing associated with the sponsorship of sports, cultural and other events. In addition, the CMA recommends that the tobacco industry be prohibited from using contests or similar events as promotional activities; and - restrictions on cross-border advertising of tobacco products. Tobacco manufacturers make frequent use of subtle marketing messages to render smoking attractive and glamorous to young people. The CMA supports educational and public relations initiatives aimed at countering these messages. For example, movie classification systems should restrict access by children and youth to films that portray tobacco use and tobacco product placement. Descriptors and packaging: The CMA supports a ban on the use of misleading terms such as "light" and "mild" to describe tobacco products with low tar content. There is no evidence that low-tar cigarettes reduce the health risk to smokers. The CMA also calls for an end to brand extensions, such as colours, numbers and code words, which are being used to replace descriptors such as "light". One way to negate the risk of misleading labelling is to require that tobacco products be sold in plain packages - a measure that Canada was among the first countries to consider in the 1980s. These packages should display prominent, simple and powerful health warnings, such as the graphic pictorial warnings pioneered by Canada, as well as quit tips and information on product content and health risks. There should also be a minimum package size for all tobacco products, to guard against the use of small-size "kiddie packs" for single sales of cigars or cigarillos. Access: The CMA recommends that existing regulations involving the sale of tobacco to minors be strictly enforced, with substantial fines for violators. Restrictions on buying tobacco products should be enacted for Canadians of all ages. In addition to supporting existing bans on cigarette vending machines and self-service displays, the CMA recommends tightening the licensing system to limit the number of outlets where tobacco products can be purchased. The more restricted is tobacco availability, the easier it is to regulate. Product regulation: The CMA congratulates the Government of Canada on requiring that tobacco products be modified to reduce their risk of starting fires. In addition, the CMA recommends that the federal government set ceilings on the content of toxic ingredients such as tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide in tobacco products, and lower these ceilings progressively. The federal government should exercise its legislative power to regulate the content of tobacco products, for example, by banning flavourings such as menthol and clove. The CMA recommends that any new products or product changes made by the tobacco industry be studied and evaluated by an independent research body, prior to being approved for marketing. Financial disincentives: Price controls are one of the most effective means of discouraging smoking, particularly among young people; a 10% rise in cigarette prices has been associated with a 4% decrease in tobacco use by teenagers. The CMA supports high prices and taxes on tobacco products, and recommends that governments progressively raise taxes as a disincentive to use. All taxes collected from tobacco products should be allocated to providing health care for Canadians, including programs to discourage smoking. Sale of contraband tobacco has become a major problem in recent years. To discourage the smuggling of lower-cost cigarettes, the CMA recommends that the federal government work with other countries to ensure that tobacco prices are harmonized across national borders. In addition, all levels of government should take the strongest possible measures to control the sale and distribution of contraband tobacco, on their own and in cooperation with other affected jurisdictions. Sustainable programs: Effective implementation of a comprehensive tobacco control program requires an ongoing commitment by all levels of government. The CMA calls on governments to commit to sustained, well-funded and comprehensive programs to reduce tobacco use, combining policy interventions with educational and social-marketing interventions including mass media campaigns. These programs should reflect current best practices, and be evaluated regularly for effectiveness and impact. Support for global tobacco control: Effective tobacco control measures such as those described above are required not only in Canada; but worldwide, particularly in developing countries, where multinational tobacco companies are promoting their products aggressively to make up for loss of revenue in their Western markets. Canada was one of the first countries to ratify the WHO's FCTC; the CMA commends the Government of Canada for showing this leadership and hopes it will continue to do so by implementing all elements of the FCTC in Canada, and providing financial support for implementation globally. Reduction of tobacco use in high-risk populations The tobacco strategy recommended above involves population-based tools, which have demonstrated their effectiveness in addressing an epidemic that touches every Canadian to some extent. These should be augmented with tools to reach "high-risk" or "hard-to-reach" populations, such as: Young people: Most current smokers in Canada started smoking before the age of 17, many before the age of 12. Chewing tobacco is becoming increasingly popular among young people, adding to the already considerable risk that they will become predisposed to cigarette use. Young people are particularly vulnerable to peer pressure, and to tobacco industry marketing tactics. The CMA supports continued health promotion and social marketing programs aimed at addressing the reasons why young people use tobacco, preventing them from starting to use tobacco and encouraging them to quit, and raising their awareness of tobacco industry marketing tactics so that they can recognize and counteract them. These programs should be continuously available in schools and should begin in the earliest primary grades. The CMA also recommends to provincial/territorial and municipal governments that tobacco use be banned, both outdoors and indoors, on all school properties and post-secondary campuses. Aboriginal peoples: Tobacco has ceremonial significance among First Nations peoples; the harm associated with tobacco arises not from its ceremonial use but from its daily, repeated abuse. It is estimated that almost 60% of Aboriginal people smoke. Tobacco control policies such as bans on smoking in public places and on sales to minors, may be poorly implemented on reserves. The CMA recommends that governments work with Aboriginal leaders in developing meaningful, well-funded programs to discourage tobacco use on reserves, and in implementing policies that raise the level of tobacco control on First Nations' communities to FCTC standards. Other populations at risk. Some populations, such as pregnant women, may be at particularly high health risk from tobacco use. Other populations, for example people on low incomes, have higher smoking rates than the overall Canadian population and may not have received the full benefit of existing tobacco control programs. Interventions should be created specifically for these target groups, to augment rather than replace programs designed for the overall population. They should address the concerns of target groups in a culturally relevant manner and should be designed with their input. Control of environmental tobacco smoke Second-hand or environmental tobacco smoke is an established health hazard, particularly for children, pregnant women and people with respiratory problems. Nearly all provinces and territories, and the federal government, have enacted legislation banning smoking in public places and workplaces. The CMA has always supported this move; in 2003, we committed to holding annual meetings only in jurisdictions where legislation ensured a 100% ban on smoking in indoor public places. The CMA encourages all smokers to restrict their smoking to areas where it will not jeopardize the health of others, and particularly encourages Canadians to keep their homes and cars smoke-free. All jurisdictions should work toward banning smoking in cars when children are present, and in other locations, such as day care centres, in which second-hand smoke may constitute a hazard to non-smokers. Accountability of the tobacco industry Internal industry documents have revealed that tobacco manufacturers knew for many years about the dangerous and addictive nature of their products but consistently suppressed this knowledge, and misinformed the public, when promoting them. The CMA recommends that the federal government initiate a transparent review of the practices of the tobacco industry and closely monitor its activities. The CMA also encourages initiatives aimed at bringing the industry's duplicitous activities to the attention of the public. The tobacco industry has taken a number of steps to promote itself as a good corporate citizen, and the CMA urges Canadians to be aware of such self-serving moves. Since 2004, the CMA has urged the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to divest itself of its tobacco holdings. Recently, the tobacco industry has made a bid for legitimacy in the research field by establishing partnerships with academic centres or sponsoring research activities. The CMA opposes the involvement and/or sponsorship of the tobacco industry in education and research at universities, colleges and medical research institutions and recommends that all Canadian medical schools adopt policies banning donations and/or grants from the tobacco industry. The CMA advocates eliminating the Canadian tobacco-growing and tobacco-manufacturing industries and deplores the domestic manufacture of tobacco products for export. The CMA supports stringent reporting requirements on the tobacco industry concerning all aspects of manufacturing, distribution and sale; this information should be made available to the public regularly. The CMA also supports in principle efforts to hold the tobacco industry legally accountable for the health care costs attributable to tobacco use. Any settlements from such lawsuits should be used specifically for health care (including tobacco-control programs) and not diverted to any other purposes. Helping patients become smoke-free The CMA believes that the health care sector should act decisively to prevent and reduce tobacco use. Smoking should not be permitted in health care facilities. Pharmacies should refrain from selling tobacco products, and those provinces and territories which have not banned sales of tobacco products in pharmacies and other health care facilities are urged to do so. Smoking is prohibited at the CMA and at all its official and social functions. The association has a long-standing policy of refusing to accept advertising from tobacco companies for any of its publications and refusing to purchase or hold tobacco-product stocks in investment portfolios for its members. The CMA recommends that those few physicians who still smoke become non-smokers. Physicians should refrain from stocking magazines that carry tobacco advertising and refuse to invest in tobacco-industry stocks. Helping patients become tobacco-free is one of the most important services a health professional can offer; even a brief counselling session with a health care provider on the dangers of smoking and the importance of quitting is a cost-effective method of tobacco control. Physicians and other health professionals can discourage tobacco use by practising systematic clinical tobacco interventions, which may include: - routinely counselling children and youth against starting to smoke or chew tobacco; - taking advantage of "teachable moments," such as pregnancy or respiratory illness, to empathetically motivate smokers to quit; - asking each patient about current smoking status and readiness to change; and - offering personalized care, which may include setting a target quit date and offering behavioural counselling and pharmacotherapy. The CMA recommends that clinical tobacco intervention be recognized as an essential part of medical care and a core medical service. Pharmacotherapy has been established as an effective therapy for smoking cessation and should be made affordable for patients who require it. The CMA has taken an active role in developing and disseminating tobacco-control resources for physicians, their office staff and their patients. In 2001, the CMA and eight other health professional associations released a joint statement affirming the vital role of health professionals in counselling patients against tobacco use. The CMA will continue to build on these recommendations and its previous activity, working with other stakeholders toward the goal of a tobacco-free Canada.
Documents
Less detail

32 records – page 1 of 4.