Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


48 records – page 1 of 5.

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

National Dementia Strategy

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10858
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC13-39
The Canadian Medical Association will revise its proposed framework for a National Dementia Strategy to include education on the assessment and management of pain prior to the initiation of anti-psychotic therapy.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC13-39
The Canadian Medical Association will revise its proposed framework for a National Dementia Strategy to include education on the assessment and management of pain prior to the initiation of anti-psychotic therapy.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association will revise its proposed framework for a National Dementia Strategy to include education on the assessment and management of pain prior to the initiation of anti-psychotic therapy.
Less detail

Employment and mental illness

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10866
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC13-59
The Canadian Medical Association supports programs and services that help people with mental illness find and maintain employment.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC13-59
The Canadian Medical Association supports programs and services that help people with mental illness find and maintain employment.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association supports programs and services that help people with mental illness find and maintain employment.
Less detail

Urban planning and population health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10868
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC13-54
The Canadian Medical Association supports integration of the concepts of population health and impact assessment into urban planning and design.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC13-54
The Canadian Medical Association supports integration of the concepts of population health and impact assessment into urban planning and design.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association supports integration of the concepts of population health and impact assessment into urban planning and design.
Less detail
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC13-82
The Canadian Medical Association supports the creation of provincial/territorial councils on eye health.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC13-82
The Canadian Medical Association supports the creation of provincial/territorial councils on eye health.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association supports the creation of provincial/territorial councils on eye health.
Less detail

Canadian military personnel

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10906
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC13-87
The Canadian Medical Association supports the right of family members of Canadian military personnel and retiring/releasing military members and their families to have continuous access to local physicians as they relocate to new military bases and communities across Canada.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-08-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC13-87
The Canadian Medical Association supports the right of family members of Canadian military personnel and retiring/releasing military members and their families to have continuous access to local physicians as they relocate to new military bases and communities across Canada.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association supports the right of family members of Canadian military personnel and retiring/releasing military members and their families to have continuous access to local physicians as they relocate to new military bases and communities across Canada.
Less detail

Consensus Guideline for Health Professionals Working with First Nations, Inuit and Metis

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10741
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2013-03-02
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
BD13-05-132
The Canadian Medical Association endorses the Consensus Guideline for Health Professionals Working with First Nations, Inuit and Metis developed by the SOGC outlined in Appendix A to BD 13-99.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2013-03-02
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
BD13-05-132
The Canadian Medical Association endorses the Consensus Guideline for Health Professionals Working with First Nations, Inuit and Metis developed by the SOGC outlined in Appendix A to BD 13-99.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association endorses the Consensus Guideline for Health Professionals Working with First Nations, Inuit and Metis developed by the SOGC outlined in Appendix A to BD 13-99.
Less detail

Better health, better care and better value

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

CMA Letter to the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30: Clean Air Act

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy8714
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2007-02-28
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2007-02-28
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to participate in the review of the Clean Air Act, Bill C- 30. The CMA, first founded in 1867, currently represents more than 64,000 physicians across the country. Our mission includes advocating for the highest standard of health and health care for all Canadians and we are committed to activities that will result in healthy public policy. The Environment: A Key Determinant of Health The physical environment is a key determinant of a population's health and the medical profession is concerned about environmental conditions that contribute to declining health in individuals and the population as a whole. Physicians have been part of an early warning system of scientists and other health professionals calling attention to the effects on human health of poor air quality because we see the impact in our practice and in our communities. There is strong evidence that air pollution is the most harmful environmental problem in Canada in terms of human health effects. We know from the smog health studies undertaken by the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), Health Canada and others, about the public health crisis created by polluted air in many parts of Canada. And it is a crisis. A study by the federal government estimated that 5,900 premature deaths occur annually in eight large Canadian cities. This is a conservative estimate as the study focused on the short-term impact of smog pollutants using time-series studies. This study was never extrapolated to the whole Canadian population, but we know that only approximately one third of the Canadian population, mainly residents of large, urban areas, were included in the analysis.1 The OMA Illness Costs of Air Pollution study estimated that there were 5,800 premature deaths due to air pollution in Ontario alone in 2005, and examined both short-term and long-term health impacts. The OMA projected that the annual figure will grow to 10,000 premature deaths by 2026 unless effective steps are taken to reduce smog.2 In addition to premature deaths, the OMA estimated that there were 16,000 hospital admissions and 60,000 emergency room visits in Ontario in 2005 because of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses associated with air pollution exposure. During that same year, the OMA also estimated that there were 29 million minor illness days, defined as days where individuals either suffered from asthma symptoms or had to restrict their activities. Most of the people affected by these so-called minor illness days are children. In British Columbia, the Provincial Officer for Health published a conservative estimate in 2004 that air pollution in B.C. is causing between 140 and 400 premature deaths, 700 to 2,100 hospital stays, and between 900 and 2,750 emergency room visits each year.3 The direct and indirect costs of air pollution on the health of Canadians are estimated to be in the billions of dollars. According to the Ontario Medical Association, in 2005, air pollution costs in Ontario were estimated at: - $374 million in lost productivity and work time; - $507 million in direct health care costs; - $537 million in pain and suffering due to non-fatal illness; and - $6.4 billion in loss due to premature death.4 In Canada the environment is currently considered to be the most important issue facing society. In a recent poll by the Strategic Counsel for the Globe & Mail/CTV5 a majority of respondents ranked the impact of toxic chemicals, air and water pollution and global warming as life threatening. The environment, while a major concern today for the general public, has been of concern to physicians for some time. CMA, Health and the Environment In 1991 the CMA, released a policy paper Health, the Environment and Sustainable Development6 that clearly linked health and the environment. Building on the 1987 Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future) that tied sustainable development to the environment and the economy, the CMA inserted health into this pair of interactions and stated that "continued environmental degradation will increase hazard to human health." The paper concluded with a number of recommendations for governments, the health sector, and physicians in support of environmentally sustainable development. The CMA has continued to give attention to environmental issues urging the government, prior to Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, to commit to choosing a climate change strategy that satisfies Canada's international commitments while maximizing the clean air co-benefits and smog-reduction potential of any greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. In 2002, the CMA also recommended that the federal Environment and Health Ministers commit their departments to improved health-based reporting by regularly updating the health effects information for pollutants of concern. Clean Air Act: A Physicians Perspective Doctors understand the concept that success from an intervention can be nuanced. In the case of disease, physicians know and accept that there are benefits of treatment even if a patient cannot be cured. Sometimes we just reduce their symptoms, or slow their rate of decline. But when treating the natural environment, so critical to human health, we suggest that you cannot accept a palliative solution. We must aim for cure. We must commit to measures of success in terms of real improvement in health. It is through this lens that the CMA urges that you view the Clean Air Act to ensure that it is health-relevant. The CMA would like to commend this government for acknowledging the impact of the physical environment on human health and we are encouraged that the Act recognizes the intimate connection between greenhouse gas reductions and improved air quality. Air pollution does not respect provincial borders therefore it is very important to establish national objectives and Canada wide standards that are strong and consistent across the country. To be health relevant national air quality objectives must result in air quality improvements. To this end, regardless of whether they are called objectives or standards, national air quality targets must protect the health of all Canadians and must be binding. Voluntary air quality guidelines guarantee no health benefit. The federal government must ensure that there is a regulatory framework in place to ensure that the standards are mandatory across the country. The annual reporting to Parliament on the attainment of the national air quality objectives and the effectiveness of measures to attain the objectives, as outlined in the Act, is very important. Transparency in reporting is essential to the integrity of any program, but is integral to the determination of health benefit. The International Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment report released on February 2, 2007, concluded that global warming is unequivocal and that human activity is the main driver, asserting with near certainty - more than 90 percent confidence - that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming since 1950. Its Third Assessment report: Climate Change 2001: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability noted that global climate change will have a wide range of impacts on human health. "Overall, negative health impacts are expected to outweigh positive health impacts. Some health impacts would result from changes in the frequencies and intensities of extremes of heat and cold and of floods and droughts. Other health impacts would result from the impacts of climate change on ecological and social systems and would include changes in infectious disease occurrence, local food production and nutritional adequacy, and concentrations of local air pollutants and aeroallergens, as well as various health consequences of population displacement and economic disruption."7 Given the indisputable impact of greenhouse gas increases on climate change and its connection to human health, it is critical to ensure that Canada is moving quickly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Air Act and the subsequent notice of intent sets out short, medium and long term targets and timelines for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The target setting approach proposed in the Act, based on emission intensity in the short and medium term is not health relevant. To be health relevant, targets should be presented in the context of overall emissions, i.e., emissions reductions minus emissions increases. An emission reduction from a particular source is only health-relevant if we can guarantee that there is not a corresponding emissions increase at another source nearby, because it is the absolute exposure that an individual experiences that affects the risk of an adverse health effect. Just as slowing the progression of a disease can never be considered a cure, attempting only to limit the growth of those emissions cannot result in true success by any measure. It is not until 2050 that the government has committed to achieving an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of between 45 - 65% of 2003 levels. Based on the emission intensity targets in the Clean Air Act, emissions and air pollution levels will, in fact, continue to rise as will the health consequences. In order to protect the health of Canadians the government needs to set policies, with targets and timelines that maximize absolute reductions in greenhouse gases, which are consistent with the scale and urgency of the challenge. To ensure that prescribed policies result in the intended environment and health outcomes, short and medium-term targets for absolute emission reductions would benchmark progress and allow for mid-course corrections, if they were needed. With respect to indoor air quality, physicians have long been proponents of initiatives to reduce exposure to contaminants such as second-hand tobacco smoke. The CMA is concerned about the impact on human health of exposure to high levels of radon and the associated increased risk of lung cancer. The intention to develop measures to address indoor air quality through a national radon strategy is a positive step. It is important that our patients are made aware of such threats in their homes, and also that they are presented with a way to reduce their exposure. Environmentally related illness is essentially the combined result of exposure and vulnerability. We are vulnerable because we are human beings; each human being has different physical strengths and weaknesses. Some vulnerabilities to environmental influences are genetic, and some the results of pre-existing disease. There is not much that government can do about this part of the equation. Our exposure, on the other hand is related to the air we breathe, water we drink and food we eat. This is where the federal government is critical, and where the measures of success will be the most important. Proxy measures for the health outcomes that matter must be relevant from a health perspective. Health-based success can only be measured by quantifiable reductions in the exposure levels of contaminants in our air as well as in our water and soil. Clean air is absolutely fundamental to a healthy population - without it all else is irrelevant. Actions to curb air pollution must be taken in all sectors and levels of society in a concerted, non-partisan effort with the health of the population and the planet as our yardstick of success. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act. We look forward to working with you to improve the Clean Air Act and ensure that the measure of its success will benefit the health of Canadians. Sincerely Colin J. McMillan, MD, CM, FRCPC, FACP President 1 S. Judek, B. Jessiman, D. Stieb, and R. Vet. 2005. Estimated Number of Excess Deaths in Canada Due to Air Pollution". Health Canada and Environment Canada. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/ nr-cp/2005/2005_32bk2_e.html#top 2 Ontario Medical Association. 2005. The Illness Costs of Air Pollution: 2005-2026 Health and Economic Damage Estimates. Toronto: OMA. 3 B.C. Provincial Health Officer. 2004. Every Breath You Take: Air Quality in British Columbia, A Public Health Perspective. 2003 Annual Report. Victoria: Ministry of Health Services. 4 Ontario Medical Association , 2005 5 GLOBE/CTV POLL Climate concerns now top security and health One in four label environmental issues as most important, The Globe and Mail, Fri 26 Jan 2007, Page: A1, Section: National News , Byline: Brian Laghi 6 Health, the Environment and Sustainable Development, Canadian Medical Association , 1991 7 WMO Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001, IPPC Third Assessment Report: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, accessed Feb 7, 2007 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/348.htm
Documents
Less detail

Canada’s child and youth health charter

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10327
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2007-05-29
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2007-05-29
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
CHILD AND YOUTH HEALTH IN CANADA THEIR CHARTER — OUR CHALLENGE “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way it treats its children.” Nelson Mandela “One generation plants the trees; another gets the shade.” Chinese Proverb Children and youth have always been a priority for the doctors of Canada — the Child and Youth Health Initiative of the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the College of Family Physicians of Canada is evidence of that. We three organizations joined together in November 2006 to launch the Child and Youth Health Initiative. In September 2004, Canada’s first ministers committed to “improving the health status of Canadians through a collaborative process.” This led to an agreement on health goals for Canada. The first of them is “Our children reach their full potential, growing up happy, healthy, confident and secure.” At the international level, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out the wider rights of all children and young people, including the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. We now owe it to our children and youth to develop tangible health goals and targets. From the outset of the partnership, we were acutely aware that only a broad societal coalition could achieve the overarching goal of excellence in child and youth health in Canada. Making the health of children and youth a national priority requires a coalition of child and youth health champions, including governments, parents, health providers, businesses, schools, teachers and communities. To start that process, we created Canada’s Child and Youth Health Charter. An action framework was then developed called Canada’s Child and Youth Health Challenge because a charter alone will not deliver on the vision of the children and youth of Canada being among the healthiest in the world. Together, we believe they will help to build a coalition of child and youth health champions because they give the people who can make a difference in children and youth health a rallying point. The credibility and success of the Charter and the Challenge require broad, inclusive consultation and a commitment to child and youth health from society at large. The Child and Youth Health Summit, held April 25-26, 2007, was about consultation and commitment to making a difference to the health and well-being of children and youth. This document contains Canada’s Child and Youth Health Charter, which was one of the focuses of the summit. Canada’s Child and Youth Health Challenge and Canada’s Child and Youth Health Declaration, are the other components of our commitment and promise to take action for the children of Canada. These documents can be found at www.ourchildren.ca. Canada’s Child and Youth Health Charter In 2005, Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments created pan-Canadian health goals. The first of them is “Canada is a country where: Our children reach their full potential, growing up happy, healthy, confident and secure.” To reach their potential, children and youth need to grow up in a place where they can thrive — spiritually, emotionally, mentally, physically and intellectually — and get high-quality health care when they need it. That place must have three fundamental elements: a safe and secure environment; good health and development; and a full range of health resources available to all. Children and youth of distinct populations in Canada, including First Nations, Inuit and Métis, must be offered equal opportunities as other Canadian children and youth through culturally relevant resources. Canada must become: 1. A place with a safe and secure environment: a) Clean water, air and soil; b) Protection from injury, exploitation and discrimination; and c) Healthy family, homes and communities. 2. A place where children and youth can have good health and development: a) Prenatal and maternal care for the best possible health at birth; b) Nutrition for proper growth, development and long-term health; c) Early learning opportunities and high-quality care, at home and in the community; d) Opportunities and encouragement for physical activity; e) High-quality primary and secondary education; f) Affordable and available post-secondary education; and g) A commitment to social well-being and mental health. 3. A place where a full range of health resources is available: a) Basic health care including immunization, drugs and dental health; b) Mental health care and early help programs for children and youth; c) Timely access to specialty diagnostic and health services; d) Measurement and tracking the health of children and youth; e) Research that focuses on the needs of children and youth; and f) Uninterrupted care as youth move to adult health services and between acute, chronic and community care, as well as between jurisdictions. NOTES 1. The principles of this charter apply to all children and youth in Canada regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, language, gender, physical ability, mental ability, cultural history, or life experience. 2. Principles enshrined in all the goal statements include: a. Universality: The charter applies equally to all children and youth residing in Canada and covers all children and youth from 0-18 years of age. b. Without financial burden: All children and youth in Canada should have access to required health care, health services and drugs regardless of ability to pay. c. Barrier-free access: All children and youth, regardless of ability or circumstance should have appropriate access to optimal health care and health services. d. Measurement and monitoring: Appropriate resources will be available for adequate ongoing collection of data on issues that affect child and youth health and development. e. Safe and secure communities: Communities in Canada must create an environment for children and youth to grow that is safe and secure. 3. The purpose of this charter is to facilitate development of specific goals, objectives, actions and advocacy that will measurably improve child and youth health throughout Canada. 4. Success will be identified as simple, measurable, achievable, and timely goals and objectives for each of the 16 statements in this charter. 5. The initial draft of this charter has been developed by Canada’s physicians focusing on what they can best do to improve child and youth health; however, the support and participation of all individuals and groups interested in child and youth health is encouraged and desired. 6. The primary audience for actions and advocacy arising from this charter will be governments, agencies or individuals who, by virtue of legislation, regulation or policy have the ability to effect change for children and youth. 7. This charter is not a legal document; it represents a commitment by champions of child and youth health in Canada to the health and well-being of all children and youth in Canada. Charter Endorsers The following organizations have endorsed the Child and Youth Health Charter, as of October 9, 2007. Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada Breakfast for Learning Canadian Association of Paediatric Health Centres Canadian Child and Youth Health Coalition Canadian Healthcare Association Canadian Institute of Child Health Canadian Medical Association Canadian Paediatric Society Canadian Pharmacists Association Canadian Psychological Association Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development Centre for Science in the Public Interest College of Family Physicians of Canada Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children's Rights Muttart Foundation National Alliance for Children and Youth National Anti-Poverty Organization Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association Paediatric Chairs of Canada Safe Kids Canada, The National Injury Prevention Program of The Hospital for Sick Children Silken's ActiveKids Movement and Silken and Company Productions The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Documents
Less detail

48 records – page 1 of 5.