How Big is the Issue?
Leisure Time Physical Activity, Durham Region and Ontario, 2003 to 2009, 12 years old+ 100 90
Durham Ontario
80 inactive in leisure time
70
active in leisure time
60 % 50
How Big is the Issue? The percentage of Durham Region residents who were physically active in 2009 was 29% (±6%). This was similar to the rates in 2003 and 2005 at 32% (±3%), respectively. The rate in 2007-08 of 26% (±3%) was significantly lower than previous years but similar to the most recent 2009 rate. Ontario’s rates were comparatively stable over the same time period with no significant differences.
30 20
In 2009, about one-half (48% ±6%) of Durham Region residents were physically inactive. This was similar to Ontario’s rate. There were no significant differences in the rates for Durham Region or Ontario since 2003. Notes: Estimates are weighted using the final CCHS sampling weight.
100 45 48
90
10
80
0
70 60 2003 %
42 47
48 50
48 49 Durham 32 Ontario
27
32 28
26 26
29 27
inactive in leisure time
2005
2007-08
2009
2003
active in leisure time
2005
2007-08
2009
50 40
Leisure 30 Time Physical Activity, Durham Region and Ontario, 2003 to 48 50 48 49 45 48 42 47 2009, 12 years old+ 20 32 27
10
100
In 2009, about one-quarter (23% ±5%) of Durham Region residents were moderately active. The rates were generally stable over the same time period, and similar to Ontario (results not shown in figure). %
Leisure Time Physical Activity, Durham Region and Ontario, 2003 to 2009, 12 years old+
40
90
32
28
26 26
29 27
2007-08
2009
0 2003
2005
2007-08 Durham 2009
2003
2005
Ontario
80
Who is Physically Inactive during Leisure Time?
70
inactive in leisure time
active in leisure time 60Sex¶: In Ontario, females were more likely to be physically inactive during leisure time: 53% 50compared to 45% in males. ¶ 40Age : Ontarians aged 65+ were more likely to be physically inactive during leisure time: 59% compared to 48% in those aged 12-64. 30 Marital Status: In Durham Region, residents who were separated/widowed/divorced were more 48 50 48 49 45 48 42 47 inactive: 70% (±10%) compared to 46% (±8%) in married residents and 20likely to be physically 32 27 to 32 29 27 the 28 pattern Ontario. 42%* (±16%) in those who were single. This was similar 26 in26 10 Education: Residents with lower educational attainment were more likely to be physically 0 inactive during leisure time: 69% (±13%) compared to 38% (±9%) in those with higher 2003 2005 2007-08 2003pattern 2005 2007-08 2009 educational attainment group in2009 Durham Region. This was similar in Ontario.
Income: In Durham Region, residents in the lower income category were more likely to be
physically inactive during leisure time: 60% (±9%) compared to 39% (±9%) in residents in the higher income category. This was similar to the pattern in Ontario.
Error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals (CI) around the percentage. The true or actual percentage falls within the range of values, 95 out of 100 times.
Urban/Rural: In Durham Region, residents in urban areas were more likely to be physically inactive: 51% (±7%) compared to 23%* (±11%) in rural areas. This pattern was similar in Ontario.
*Interpret the estimate with caution as the coefficient of variation (CV) is between 16.6% and 33.3%, inclusive.
Presence of Children: In Ontario, households with children were more likely to be physically inactive during leisure time: 55% compared to 48% in households without children.
NR Unreliable and not releasable as the CV is > 33.3%.
¶
Differences were not significant in Durham Region.
Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, Statistics Canada, Share File, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Work Hours¶: Ontarians working 31-40 hours per week were more likely to be physically inactive: 53% compared to 47% in those working over 40 hours and 44% in those working under 30 hours. Body Mass Index: In Durham Region, overweight/obese residents were more likely to be physically inactive during leisure time: 56% (±8%) compared to 40% (±11%) in residents in the normal weight category. This was similar to the pattern in Ontario. Co-morbidities: In Durham Region, residents with heart disease were more likely to be physically inactive: 77% (±14%) compared to 47% (±7%) in those with no heart disease; residents with fair to poor mental health were more likely to be physically inactive: 73% (±14%) compared to 47% (±7%) in those with excellent to good mental health. These patterns were similar in Ontario.
Aug 2011R
Question: The leisure time physical activity module from the CCHS consists of a series of 53 questions that are derived into a variable to indicate whether respondents are active, moderately active, or inactive based on the average daily energy expended during leisure time activities by the respondents in the past three months. Data Analysis: Data were analyzed using PASW Statistics 18.0 Complex Samples. For leisure time physical activity, using 3 or more kilocalories per kilogram of body weight per day is considered as ‘active’; using 1.5 to 3 kilocalories per kilogram of body weight per day is considered as ‘moderately active’; using less than 1.5 kilocalories per kilogram of body weight per day is considered as ‘inactive’. For all variables, response options of 'Refusal’, 'Don't Know', 'Not Stated' and ‘Not Applicable’ were excluded from the analysis. CCHS 2009 dataset was used for the ‘Who is Physically Inactive during Leisure Time?’ analysis. The differences seen in the Ontario estimates were statistically significant, unless otherwise reported, based on error bars that did not overlap or differences in proportions with a p-values < 0.05. The 95% confidence intervals for Ontario estimates were small (sample size was 20,053) and were not shown in text. The 95% confidence intervals for Durham Region estimates were shown in text because of the small sample size (sample size was 729) and higher variability of the estimates. Age was grouped into two categories: ‘12-64 years’ and ‘65+ years’. Marital status (aged 25+) was collapsed into three categories: ‘Married/Common-Law’, ‘Separated/Widowed/Divorced’ and ‘Single’. Education (aged 25 to 64) was grouped into two categories: ‘Lower educational attainment group’ by combining ‘Less than secondary’ and ‘Secondary graduates’, and ‘Higher educational attainment group’ by combining ‘Other postsecondary’ and ‘Post-secondary graduates’. Income was collapsed into two equal groups using a derived variable of the distribution of total household income-health region level. Mental health was grouped into two categories: ‘Excellent to good’ and ‘Fair to poor’. Work hours, a derived variable that indicated the total number of hours the respondents worked per week in the week prior to the interview (residents aged less than 15 or more than 75 years old, or who did not work in the week prior to the interview were excluded), were collapsed into three categories: ‘Less than 31 hours’, ’31 to 40 hours’, ‘More than 40 hours’. Presence of children (aged 25 to 64) was grouped into two categories: ‘Households with children’ and ‘Households without children’. A household with children was defined as a household with members who were younger than 5 years old, and who were the child, grandchild, child-in-law, niece or nephew of another household member. BMI (aged 18+) was collapsed into three categories: ‘Underweight’, ‘Normal weight’ and ‘Overweight/Obese’ by combing ‘Overweight’, ‘Obese-Class 1’, ‘Obese-Class 2’ and ‘Obese-Class 3’. Urban/Rural identified whether the respondents lived in an urban or rural area. Urban areas were those continuously built-up areas having a population concentration of 1,000 or more and a population density of 400 or more per square kilometer based on current census population counts. The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) is a cross-sectional survey that collects information related to health status, health care utilization and health determinants for the Canadian population. It surveys a large sample of respondents and is designed to provide reliable estimates at the health region level. Since 2007, data is collected on an ongoing basis with annual releases, rather than every two years as was the case prior to 2007. The CCHS data is collected from persons aged 12 and over living in private dwellings, excluding individuals living on Indian Reserves and on Crown Lands, institutional residents, full-time members of the Canadian Forces, and residents of certain remote regions. Interviews are conducted using computer assisted interviewing, either in person or over the telephone. For more information on the CCHS visit http://www.statcan.gc.ca.
Durham Ontario
80 inactive in leisure time
70
active in leisure time
60 % 50
How Big is the Issue? The percentage of Durham Region residents who were physically active in 2009 was 29% (±6%). This was similar to the rates in 2003 and 2005 at 32% (±3%), respectively. The rate in 2007-08 of 26% (±3%) was significantly lower than previous years but similar to the most recent 2009 rate. Ontario’s rates were comparatively stable over the same time period with no significant differences.
30 20
In 2009, about one-half (48% ±6%) of Durham Region residents were physically inactive. This was similar to Ontario’s rate. There were no significant differences in the rates for Durham Region or Ontario since 2003. Notes: Estimates are weighted using the final CCHS sampling weight.
100 45 48
90
10
80
0
70 60 2003 %
42 47
48 50
48 49 Durham 32 Ontario
27
32 28
26 26
29 27
inactive in leisure time
2005
2007-08
2009
2003
active in leisure time
2005
2007-08
2009
50 40
Leisure 30 Time Physical Activity, Durham Region and Ontario, 2003 to 48 50 48 49 45 48 42 47 2009, 12 years old+ 20 32 27
10
100
In 2009, about one-quarter (23% ±5%) of Durham Region residents were moderately active. The rates were generally stable over the same time period, and similar to Ontario (results not shown in figure). %
Leisure Time Physical Activity, Durham Region and Ontario, 2003 to 2009, 12 years old+
40
90
32
28
26 26
29 27
2007-08
2009
0 2003
2005
2007-08 Durham 2009
2003
2005
Ontario
80
Who is Physically Inactive during Leisure Time?
70
inactive in leisure time
active in leisure time 60Sex¶: In Ontario, females were more likely to be physically inactive during leisure time: 53% 50compared to 45% in males. ¶ 40Age : Ontarians aged 65+ were more likely to be physically inactive during leisure time: 59% compared to 48% in those aged 12-64. 30 Marital Status: In Durham Region, residents who were separated/widowed/divorced were more 48 50 48 49 45 48 42 47 inactive: 70% (±10%) compared to 46% (±8%) in married residents and 20likely to be physically 32 27 to 32 29 27 the 28 pattern Ontario. 42%* (±16%) in those who were single. This was similar 26 in26 10 Education: Residents with lower educational attainment were more likely to be physically 0 inactive during leisure time: 69% (±13%) compared to 38% (±9%) in those with higher 2003 2005 2007-08 2003pattern 2005 2007-08 2009 educational attainment group in2009 Durham Region. This was similar in Ontario.
Income: In Durham Region, residents in the lower income category were more likely to be
physically inactive during leisure time: 60% (±9%) compared to 39% (±9%) in residents in the higher income category. This was similar to the pattern in Ontario.
Error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals (CI) around the percentage. The true or actual percentage falls within the range of values, 95 out of 100 times.
Urban/Rural: In Durham Region, residents in urban areas were more likely to be physically inactive: 51% (±7%) compared to 23%* (±11%) in rural areas. This pattern was similar in Ontario.
*Interpret the estimate with caution as the coefficient of variation (CV) is between 16.6% and 33.3%, inclusive.
Presence of Children: In Ontario, households with children were more likely to be physically inactive during leisure time: 55% compared to 48% in households without children.
NR Unreliable and not releasable as the CV is > 33.3%.
¶
Differences were not significant in Durham Region.
Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, Statistics Canada, Share File, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Work Hours¶: Ontarians working 31-40 hours per week were more likely to be physically inactive: 53% compared to 47% in those working over 40 hours and 44% in those working under 30 hours. Body Mass Index: In Durham Region, overweight/obese residents were more likely to be physically inactive during leisure time: 56% (±8%) compared to 40% (±11%) in residents in the normal weight category. This was similar to the pattern in Ontario. Co-morbidities: In Durham Region, residents with heart disease were more likely to be physically inactive: 77% (±14%) compared to 47% (±7%) in those with no heart disease; residents with fair to poor mental health were more likely to be physically inactive: 73% (±14%) compared to 47% (±7%) in those with excellent to good mental health. These patterns were similar in Ontario.
Aug 2011R
Question: The leisure time physical activity module from the CCHS consists of a series of 53 questions that are derived into a variable to indicate whether respondents are active, moderately active, or inactive based on the average daily energy expended during leisure time activities by the respondents in the past three months. Data Analysis: Data were analyzed using PASW Statistics 18.0 Complex Samples. For leisure time physical activity, using 3 or more kilocalories per kilogram of body weight per day is considered as ‘active’; using 1.5 to 3 kilocalories per kilogram of body weight per day is considered as ‘moderately active’; using less than 1.5 kilocalories per kilogram of body weight per day is considered as ‘inactive’. For all variables, response options of 'Refusal’, 'Don't Know', 'Not Stated' and ‘Not Applicable’ were excluded from the analysis. CCHS 2009 dataset was used for the ‘Who is Physically Inactive during Leisure Time?’ analysis. The differences seen in the Ontario estimates were statistically significant, unless otherwise reported, based on error bars that did not overlap or differences in proportions with a p-values < 0.05. The 95% confidence intervals for Ontario estimates were small (sample size was 20,053) and were not shown in text. The 95% confidence intervals for Durham Region estimates were shown in text because of the small sample size (sample size was 729) and higher variability of the estimates. Age was grouped into two categories: ‘12-64 years’ and ‘65+ years’. Marital status (aged 25+) was collapsed into three categories: ‘Married/Common-Law’, ‘Separated/Widowed/Divorced’ and ‘Single’. Education (aged 25 to 64) was grouped into two categories: ‘Lower educational attainment group’ by combining ‘Less than secondary’ and ‘Secondary graduates’, and ‘Higher educational attainment group’ by combining ‘Other postsecondary’ and ‘Post-secondary graduates’. Income was collapsed into two equal groups using a derived variable of the distribution of total household income-health region level. Mental health was grouped into two categories: ‘Excellent to good’ and ‘Fair to poor’. Work hours, a derived variable that indicated the total number of hours the respondents worked per week in the week prior to the interview (residents aged less than 15 or more than 75 years old, or who did not work in the week prior to the interview were excluded), were collapsed into three categories: ‘Less than 31 hours’, ’31 to 40 hours’, ‘More than 40 hours’. Presence of children (aged 25 to 64) was grouped into two categories: ‘Households with children’ and ‘Households without children’. A household with children was defined as a household with members who were younger than 5 years old, and who were the child, grandchild, child-in-law, niece or nephew of another household member. BMI (aged 18+) was collapsed into three categories: ‘Underweight’, ‘Normal weight’ and ‘Overweight/Obese’ by combing ‘Overweight’, ‘Obese-Class 1’, ‘Obese-Class 2’ and ‘Obese-Class 3’. Urban/Rural identified whether the respondents lived in an urban or rural area. Urban areas were those continuously built-up areas having a population concentration of 1,000 or more and a population density of 400 or more per square kilometer based on current census population counts. The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) is a cross-sectional survey that collects information related to health status, health care utilization and health determinants for the Canadian population. It surveys a large sample of respondents and is designed to provide reliable estimates at the health region level. Since 2007, data is collected on an ongoing basis with annual releases, rather than every two years as was the case prior to 2007. The CCHS data is collected from persons aged 12 and over living in private dwellings, excluding individuals living on Indian Reserves and on Crown Lands, institutional residents, full-time members of the Canadian Forces, and residents of certain remote regions. Interviews are conducted using computer assisted interviewing, either in person or over the telephone. For more information on the CCHS visit http://www.statcan.gc.ca.
