Health Profile 2011 - Fraser Health

Health Profile 2011 

A look at the health of Fraser Health residents 

Prepared by: 

Health & Business Analytics, Population Health Analysis Team 

& 

The Office of the Medical Health Officer 

December 2011

ii 

[This page was left blank intentionally]

Reproduction permitted if not for commercial redistribution. 

“The Fraser Health Authority” (FH) authorizes the use and reproduction of this 

publication for purposes other than commercial redistribution. In consideration of this 

authorization, the user agrees that for any modified reproduction of this publication all 

FRASER HEALTH copyright notices shall be removed, however, FRASER HEALTH shall 

be acknowledged as the author of the source publication. Reproduction or storage of 

this publication in any form by any means for the purpose of commercial redistribution 

is strictly prohibited. 

The contents of this report may be reproduced in entirety or in part, as long as the 

intended use is not for commercial purposes and that full acknowledgement is given to 

the report author Health & Business Analytics, Fraser Health Authority and, where 

necessary, the original data source provider. 

How to cite this document: 

Health & Business Analytics, Fraser Health Authority. Health Profile 2011: A Snapshot of 

the Health of Fraser Health residents. Surrey, BC: Fraser Health, 2011. 

How to cite figure or table copied from this report (example): 

BC Stats Socioeconomic Profiles. As reported in Health & Business Analytics, Fraser 

Health Authority. Health Profile 2011: A Snapshot of the Health of Fraser Health 

residents. Surrey, BC: Fraser Health, 2011. 

iii

Healthy Child Development 

Dashboard: Fraser Health Compared to BC 

Current Rate BC Average Comparison Trend Page 

Low birth-weight rate per 1,000 live births 58.6 55.8 ↑ 62 

Exclusive breastfeeding in past 5 years 64.9% 60.6% √ n/a 64 

Early Development Index % children vulnerable Hope * 43% 31% V 70 

Physical Environment 

Motor vehicle use vehicles per person 0.48 0.46 ≈ ↑ 74 

Exposure to second-hand smoke 

in vehicles and/or public places 

Healthy Living 

FN* 18.9% 16.7% V 78 

Tobacco use Ages 12+ FE* 16.6% 16.7% ≈ ↓ 82 

Fruit and vegetable consumption FE* 41.3% 43.8% ≈ V 88 

Leisure-time physical activity FS* 51.4% 59.3% ↓ 90 

Overweight and Obesity FE* 52.0% 44.7% V 92 

Disease Prevention 

Influenza immunization in hospital HCWs 30.5% 39.8% ↓ 102 

Diabetics - Two or more A1C tests/year 49% 50% ≈ ↑ 108 

General Health Status 

Teen birth rate per 1,000 teen females 7.8 10.2 √ ↓ 118 

Self-rated health FE* 52.7% 59.6% ↓ 120 

Self-rated mental health FE* 71.0% 71.0% ≈ V 122 

Morbidity 

Rate of new HIV cases (diagnosed in BC) 

per 100,000 

4.5 6.7 √ ↓ 136 

Diabetes mellitus prevalence 6.2% 5.3% ↑ 142 

Cardiovascular disease prevalence 3.2% 3.0% ≈ – 146 

Mortality 

Infant mortality per 1,000 3.4 3.9 ≈ ↓ 162 

Cancer mortality per 10,000 14.8 14.9 ≈ ↓ 174 

Cardiovascular disease mortality per 10,000 11.1 10.4 ≈ ↓ 175 

Cerebrovascular disease mortality per 10,000 3.4 3.5 ≈ ↓ 176 

Respiratory disease mortality per 10,000 5.6 5.2 ≈ – 177 

Infectious disease mortality per 10,000 1.0 1.0 ≈ ↑ 178 

Favourable to BC average √ Data trend in positive direction ↑ ↓ 

Similar to BC average ≈ Data trend in negative direction ↑ ↓ 

Unfavourable to BC average Data is stable – 

Data trend is variable 

V 

* Where Fraser Health level data was not available for the current rate, data is reported for the worst HSDA or LHA; for HSDAs, FN 

= Fraser North, FS = Fraser South, FE = Fraser East. 

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Table of Contents 

Dashboard: Fraser Health Compared to BC .....................................................................................iv 

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 5 

POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS............................................................................................... 7 

Population Estimates and Projections.............................................................................................. 8 

Population Distribution............................................................................................................ 9 

Current and Projected Population by Age and Sex................................................................... 10 

Predicted Population Growth ................................................................................................. 12 

Child and Youth Population ................................................................................................... 14 

Senior Population ................................................................................................................. 17 

Dependency Ratio ................................................................................................................ 20 

Aboriginal Identity................................................................................................................ 24 

Immigrant Population ........................................................................................................... 26 

HEALTH DETERMINANTS ....................................................................................................... 29 

Social & Economic Environment ................................................................................................... 30 

Home Language................................................................................................................... 30 

Education ............................................................................................................................ 32 

Lone-Parent Families ............................................................................................................ 38 

Individual and Family Income................................................................................................ 40 

Low Income Population ........................................................................................................ 44 

Income Assistance ............................................................................................................... 48 

Unemployment Rate & EI Beneficiaries .................................................................................. 50 

Food Security....................................................................................................................... 52 

Homelessness...................................................................................................................... 56 

Serious Crime Rates ............................................................................................................. 60 

Healthy Child Development.......................................................................................................... 62 

Low Birth-Weight Rate.......................................................................................................... 62 

Breastfeeding ...................................................................................................................... 64 

Children in Government Care ................................................................................................ 68 

Early Childhood Development................................................................................................ 70 

Grades 4 and 7 Foundation Skills Assessment ......................................................................... 72 

Physical Environment .................................................................................................................. 74 

Motor Vehicle Use ................................................................................................................ 74 

Exposure to Second-hand Smoke........................................................................................... 78 

Healthy Living ............................................................................................................................ 82 

Tobacco Use........................................................................................................................ 82 

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption .......................................................................................... 88 

Self-Reported Leisure Time Physical Activity ........................................................................... 90 

Overweight and Obesity: Self-Reported Body Mass Index ........................................................ 92 

Vitamin D Inadequacy .......................................................................................................... 96 

Disease Prevention ..................................................................................................................... 98 

Primary Prevention .................................................................................................................. 98 

School Immunization Coverage ............................................................................................. 98 

Influenza Immunization Coverage........................................................................................ 102 

Secondary Prevention .............................................................................................................106 

Screening Mammography Program (SMP)............................................................................. 106 

Tertiary Prevention.................................................................................................................108 

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) Management.................................................................................... 108 

5

HEALTH STATUS .....................................................................................................................111 

General Health Status .............................................................................................................112 

Life Expectancy at Birth ...................................................................................................... 112 

Live Birth Rates & Related Indicators ................................................................................... 114 

Teen Birth Rate.................................................................................................................. 118 

Self-Rated Health ............................................................................................................... 120 

Self-Rated Mental Health .................................................................................................... 122 

MORBIDITY ..............................................................................................................................124 

Leading Causes of Hospitalization ........................................................................................ 124 

Cancer Incidence – Child & Adult......................................................................................... 130 

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) ................................................................................. 136 

Chronic Disease ................................................................................................................. 140 

Primary Health Care (PHC) Patient Registry – Case Definitions............................................ 140 

a) Diabetes Mellitus (DM) ................................................................................................ 142 

b) Asthma ...................................................................................................................... 144 

c) Cardiovascular Disease and Congestive Heart Failure ..................................................... 146 

d) Depression/Anxiety ..................................................................................................... 150 

e) Hypertension.............................................................................................................. 152 

f) Stroke (Acute Cerebrovascular Syndrome) ..................................................................... 154 

g) Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ............................................................ 156 

h) Osteoarthritis (OA)...................................................................................................... 158 

i) Dementia .................................................................................................................... 160 

MORTALITY ..............................................................................................................................162 

Infant Mortality .................................................................................................................. 162 

All Causes of Death – ASMR ................................................................................................ 168 

Potential Years of Life Lost – PYLL ....................................................................................... 170 

Age-Standardized Mortality Rate, by Natural Cause ............................................................... 172 

Age-Standardized Mortality Rate, by External Cause.............................................................. 180 

6

POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS 

Population Demographics 

Information on population characteristics such as sex, age structure, and growth rate is 

important for planning community services. Population growth and aging are projected to have 

a significant effect on the usage and costs of services. 

7


Population Estimates and Projections 

Definition 

Population estimates and projections are 

developed annually by BC Stats using a 

methodology called P.E.O.P.L.E. (Population 

Extrapolation for Organizational 

Planning with Less Error). Data reported 

are from P.E.O.P.L.E 36. Data sets 

consist of population estimates (1986- 

2010) which incorporate information 

from 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006 

Censuses of Canada, and population 

projections, which contain estimates 

from 1986 to 2010 and projections for 

2011 to 2036. All figures are as of July 

1 st of the year stated; i.e., data periods 

(e.g. 1999/2000) are census year (July 

1 to June 30). For more information, see 

Methodology and Analysis on the BC 

Stats website. 

Population growth is the sum of the 

natural rate of increase (births minus 

deaths) plus net migration (which is the 

difference between movements into the 

region and those out of the region). Net 

migration is a key factor driving growth 

in Fraser Health. 

Population percent increase = 

End of period population - start of period population (100) 

Start of period population 

The dependency ratio represents the 

number of people in “dependent” age 

groups per 100 people in the “independent” 

age group. The “dependent” 

age groups are those generally 

presumed to be too young (aged ≤17) 

or too old (aged 65+) to work; the 

“independent” group are those of typical 

working age, 18 to 64 years. 

Limitations 

Data are produced annually. Discrepancies 

may exist with data presented in 

released or future reports due to ongoing 

amending and updating of data. 

Population projection models are 

sophisticated estimates based on 

previous census data; they are therefore 

only an indication of population growth. 

Projections do not take into account 

unexpected changes in population (e.g., 

natural disasters, economic downfall). 

Data may also not fully reflect current 

population dispersion. Internal migration 

could affect the proportion of 

people living in each LHA while external 

migration could affect the total 

population in the health authority. 

8


POPULATION ESTIMATES & PROJECTIONS 

Population Distribution 

BC Population Distribution by Health Authority, 2011 

VCHA 

1,151,320 

25% 

BC Total = 4,584,102 

FHA 

1,635,340 

36% 

VIHA 

765,849 

17% 

IHA 

741,619 

16% 

NHA 

289,974 

6% 

Fraser Health Population Distribution by LHA, 2011 

FH Total = 1,635,340 

Mission 

43,439 

3% 

Abbotsford 

140,934 

9% 

Chilliwack 

87,905 

5% 

Hope 

8,298 

1% 

Agassiz/ 

Harrison 

9,165 

1% 

Burnaby 

230,749 

14% 

Coquitlam 

224,619 

14% 

South Surrey/ 

White Rock 

87,752 

5% 

Maple Ridge 

96,294 

6% 

New Westminster 

67,817 

4% 

Surrey 

403,249 

24% 

Langley 

134,008 

8% 

Delta 

101,111 

6% 

Source: BC Stats, Service BC, BC Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, P.E.O.P.L.E. 36 Projections. 

9

90+ 

85-89 

80-84 

75-79 

70-74 

65-69 

60-64 

55-59 

50-54 

45-49 

40-44 

35-39 

30-34 

25-29 

20-24 

15-19 

10-14 

5-9 

1-4 



Fraser Health Population Age Distribution, 2011 

500,000 

50% 

400,000 

40% 

Population 

300,000 

200,000 

30% 

20% 

Percent 

100,000 

10% 

0 

≤14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 

Count 271,777 223,149 460,157 449,513 230,744 

% of Total Pop 16.6% 13.6% 28.1% 27.5% 14.1% 

0% 

Projected Change in Fraser Health Population, 2011 to 2031 

50% 

by Age Groups 

40% 

Percent Change 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

-10% 

≤14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 

2011-2021 16.8% -3.5% 24.7% 17.5% 46.2% 

2021-2031 12.7% 14.4% 9.0% 15.3% 40.1% 


11

Predicted Population Growth 

Population Growth Projections, by Health Authority 

2,500,000 

FHA IHA VCHA VIHA NHA 

2,000,000 

Population 

1,500,000 

1,000,000 

500,000 

0 

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 

100% 

Predicted Distribution of BC Population by Health Authority, 2001-2031 

% of BC Population 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 

NHA 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 

VIHA 17% 17% 17% 17% 16% 16% 16% 

VCHA 25% 25% 25% 25% 24% 24% 24% 

IHA 17% 16% 16% 16% 16% 15% 15% 

FHA 34% 35% 36% 37% 38% 39% 39% 

Vital Events & Net Migration Estimates in Fraser Health 

40,000 

Births Deaths Net Migration 

30,000 

Population 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 


12



Projected Change in Population, 

2011 to 2031 

Local Health Area 

Change 

in # of People % 

Burnaby 86,577 37.5% 

New Westminster 25,975 38.3% 

Coquitlam 113,436 50.5% 

Maple Ridge 37,117 38.5% 

Delta 12,392 12.3% 

Langley 86,133 64.3% 

Surrey 181,844 45.1% 

South Surrey/White Rock 25,523 29.1% 

Abbotsford 57,362 40.7% 

Mission 17,656 40.6% 

Chilliwack 30,194 34.3% 

Hope 167 2.0% 

Agassiz/Harrison 1,442 15.7% 

Fraser Health 675,818 41.3% 

Fraser Health Population Growth by Age Groups, 2011 to 2031 

Age 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 

≤14 271,777 290,528 317,406 340,374 357,685 

15-24 223,149 214,163 215,421 228,970 246,510 

25-44 460,157 515,034 573,803 609,890 625,565 

45-64 449,513 495,974 528,072 562,036 608,819 

65+ 230,744 279,685 337,252 403,828 472,579 

85+ 31,163 38,808 44,621 52,378 63,910 

All ages 1,635,340 1,795,384 1,971,954 2,145,098 2,311,158 

Percent Population Change, 2011 to 2031 

Age 2011-2016 2016-2021 2021-2026 2026-2031 

≤14 6.9% 9.3% 7.2% 5.1% 

15-24 -4.0% 0.6% 6.3% 7.7% 

25-44 11.9% 11.4% 6.3% 2.6% 

45-64 10.3% 6.5% 6.4% 8.3% 

65+ 21.2% 20.6% 19.7% 17.0% 

85+ 24.5% 15.0% 17.4% 22.0% 

All ages 9.8% 9.8% 8.8% 7.7% 


13

Child and Youth Population 

Provincial Distribution of Children & Youth (Age ≤16), 2011 

BC Total = 792,545 

VIHA 

118,979 

15% 

NHA 

61,961 

8% 

VCHA 

176,611 

22% 

IHA 

122,286 

15% 

FHA 

312,708 

40% 

25% 

Proportion of Children & Youth (Age ≤16) 

in Health Authority Population, 2011 

20% 

Percent of Population 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

FHA IHA VCHA VIHA NHA BC 

Percent 19.1% 16.5% 15.3% 15.5% 21.4% 17.3% 

Count 312,708 122,286 176,611 118,979 61,961 792,545 

Source: BC Stats, Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services, P.E.O.P.L.E. 36 projections. 

14


CHILD & YOUTH 

Projected Child & Youth Population (Age ≤16) 

25% 

20% 

Percent of Total Population 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 

FH 19.1% 18.9% 18.7% 18.5% 18.4% 18.4% 18.3% 18.3% 18.3% 18.2% 18.2% 

BC 17.3% 17.1% 16.9% 16.8% 16.8% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 

# in FH 312,708 313,925 316,401 320,030 324,666 329,678 335,197 341,059 347,084 352,814 358,806 

350,000 

Number of Children & Youth in Fraser Health, 

by Sex and Age Group, 2011 

300,000 

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

0 

Proportion of Children & Youth (Age ≤16) in LHA Populations, 2011 

Surrey 

Chilliwack 

Abbotsford 

Maple Ridge 

Mission 

Langley 

Agassiz/Harrison 

Fraser Health 

Coquitlam 

Delta 

BC 

Hope 

Burnaby 

South Surrey/White Rock 


21.6%, (87,028) 

21.1%, (18,528) 

20.9%, (29,390) 

20.8%, (20,068) 

20.3%, (8,810) 

19.2%, (25,703) 

19.2%, (1,757) 

19.1%, (312,708) 

18.3%, (41,090) 

18.2%, (18,357) 

17.3%, (792,545) 

17.2%, (1,431) 

16.0%, (36,909) 

15.7%, (13,785) 

14.5%, (9,852) 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

Note: Values in parentheses represent the observed number of deaths in each area. 


16


SENIOR POPULATION 

VIHA 

142,482 

20% 

Senior Population 

Provincial Distribution of Seniors (Age 65+), 2011 

BC Total = 699,363 

NHA 

33,340 

5% 

VCHA 

151,987 

22% 

FHA 

230,744 

33% 

IHA 

140,810 

20% 

25% 

Proportion of Seniors (Age 65+) 

in Health Authority Population, 2011 

20% 


15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 


Percent 14.1% 19.0% 13.2% 18.6% 11.5% 15.3% 

Count 230,744 140,810 151,987 142,482 33,340 699,363 


17

Projected Senior Population (Age 65+) 

25% 

20% 


15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 

FH 14.1% 14.5% 14.8% 15.0% 15.3% 15.6% 15.8% 16.1% 16.4% 16.8% 17.1% 

BC 15.3% 15.7% 16.2% 16.6% 17.0% 17.4% 17.8% 18.2% 18.6% 19.0% 19.4% 

# in FH 230,744 240,432 250,145 259,777 269,821 279,685 289,952 300,665 312,251 324,791 337,252 

250,000 

Number of Seniors in Fraser Health, 

by Sex and Age Group, 2011 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

0 

65-74 75-84 85+ 65+ Total 

Females 65,006 41,068 20,377 126,451 

Males 60,631 32,876 10,786 104,293 

Both 125,637 73,944 31,163 230,744 


18


SENIOR POPULATION 

Proportion of Seniors (Age 65+) in LHA Populations, 2011 


Hope 


Delta 

Chilliwack 

Langley 

BC 


Abbotsford 

Burnaby 

Surrey 


Maple Ridge 

Mission 

Coquitlam 

26.4%, (23,127) 

21.5%, (1,781) 

19.2%, (1,758) 

18.3%, (18,478) 

16.6%, (14,578) 

16.4%, (21,938) 

15.3%, (699,363) 

14.1%, (230,744) 

13.4%, (18,950) 

13.0%, (30,015) 

12.8%, (51,472) 

12.5%, (8,450) 

11.8%, (11,337) 

11.4%, (4,969) 

10.6%, (23,891) 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

Note: Values in parentheses represent the observed number of deaths in each area 


19

Dependency Ratio 

The dependency ratio represents the number of people in “dependent” age groups per 

100 people in the “independent” age group. The “dependent” age groups are those 

generally presumed to be too young (aged ≤17) or too old (aged 65+) to work; the 

“independent” group are those of typical working age, 18–64. Based solely on age 

structure, the dependency ratio does not account for those people in the “dependent” 

age groups who do work or for those in the “independent” age group who do not work. 

With the elimination of mandatory retirement at age 65 in BC as of January 1, 2008, 

increasing numbers of older adults are expected to remain in the workforce. 

Fraser Health Dependency Ratios* by Age Group 

50% 

40% 

Dependency Ratio 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Child (≤17) 37.0% 36.1% 35.6% 35.2% 34.6% 34.3% 33.5% 32.7% 32.2% 31.6% 31.1% 

Senior (65+) 17.9% 18.0% 18.1% 18.3% 18.4% 18.7% 18.8% 18.9% 20.1% 21.3% 21.5% 

* Ratio of children aged ≤17 years to adults aged 18-64 years; Ratio of older adults aged 65-years and older to 

adults aged 18-64 years. 

Source: BC Stats, Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services, P.E.O.P.L.E. 36 projections (prepared by 

Health & Business Analytics) 

20


DEPENDENCY RATIO 

Projected Child & Youth Population (Age ≤17) 

25% 

20% 


15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 

FH 20.4% 20.1% 19.9% 19.7% 19.6% 19.5% 19.4% 19.4% 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 

BC 18.5% 18.3% 18.1% 17.9% 17.8% 17.8% 17.7% 17.7% 17.7% 17.7% 17.7% 

# in FH 333,513 334,875 337,085 340,331 344,637 349,901 355,250 361,166 367,413 373,703 379,663 

25% 

Projected Proportions of Seniors (Age 65+) 

20% 


15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 

FH 14.1% 14.5% 14.8% 15.0% 15.3% 15.6% 15.8% 16.1% 16.4% 16.8% 17.1% 

BC 15.3% 15.7% 16.2% 16.6% 17.0% 17.4% 17.8% 18.2% 18.6% 19.0% 19.4% 

# in FH 230,744 240,432 250,145 259,777 269,821 279,685 289,952 300,665 312,251 324,791 337,252 


21

Child (Age ≤17) Dependency Ratio* in LHA Populations, 2011 

Chilliwack 

Surrey 

Abbotsford 

Maple Ridge 


Mission 

Langley 

Delta 


Hope 


Coquitlam 

BC 

Burnaby 


36.7%, (19,697) 

35.6%, (92,295) 

34.4%, (31,203) 

33.8%, (21,459) 

33.5%, (1,860) 

32.4%, (9,418) 

32.4%, (27,403) 

31.4%, (19,766) 

31.1%, (333,513) 

30.5%, (1,525) 

29.6%, (14,767) 

28.2%, (44,124) 

27.9%, (847,307) 

24.5%, (39,456) 

21.6%, (10,540) 

* Ratio of children aged ≤17 years to adults aged 18-64 years. 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

Seniors (Age 65+) Dependency Ratio in LHA Populations, 2011 


Hope 


Delta 

Chilliwack 

Langley 

BC 


Abbotsford 

Surrey 

Burnaby 

Maple Ridge 


Mission 

Coquitlam 

15.3%, (23,891) 

27.2%, (14,578) 

25.9%, (21,938) 

23.0%, (699,363) 

21.5%, (230,744) 

20.9%, (18,950) 

19.8%, (51,472) 

18.6%, (30,015) 

17.9%, (11,337) 

17.3%, (8,450) 

17.1%, (4,969) 

29.4%, (18,478) 

35.7%, (1,781) 

31.7%, (1,758) 

46.4%, (23,127) 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

** Ratio of older adults aged 65 years and older to adults aged 18-64 years. 

Source: BC Stats, Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services, P.E.O.P.L.E. 36 projections (prepared by Health & 

Business Analytics) 

22


[This page was left blank intentionally] 

23

Aboriginal Identity 

What are we looking at? 

Based on the 2006 Canadian Census, 

Aboriginal identity reports the number of 

people who identified themselves to be 

a registered Indian or a Band member, 

or they claimed Aboriginal ancestry, or 

reported identifying with an Aboriginal 

group – North American Indian (also 

known as First Nations), Inuit, or Métis. 

Defined as an Indian under the Indian 

Act, a registered Indian is someone 

assigned a number registered by the 

Department of Indian Affairs; most are 

members of a Band. There are also First 

Nations people who are not registered 

Indians. These are often persons or 

descendants of persons who lost their 

rights to be registered through disenfranchisement 

or through marriage to 

non-Indians before 1985. There are two 

other Aboriginal groups in Canada; the 

Inuit, or Aboriginal people of Northern 

Canada and the Arctic, and the Métis. 

Why do we care? 

Aboriginal peoples generally have lower 

life expectancy, worse health status, 

and poorer health outcomes than other 

British Columbians. Much of this 

disparity is linked to inequitable socioeconomic 

factors and stems from the 

experiences of Aboriginal peoples after 

colonization. 2 

Compared to other BC residents, 

Aboriginal people tend to have lower 

high school graduation rates, higher 

unemployment rates, and lower wages. 

Aboriginal peoples are more likely to 

experience food insecurity, to be loneparents, 

and to have a disproportionate 

number of children in government care. 

The prevalence of diabetes, heart 

disease, arthritis, and other chronic 

conditions is higher among Aboriginal 

peoples than among non-Aboriginal 

peoples. 2 

• Roughly, 38,105 residents of Fraser 

Health self-identified as Aboriginal on 

the 2006 Census, accounting for 2.7% 

of the total population. Some 15,640 

registered Indians live in the Fraser 

Health area. 

• The distribution of Aboriginal people 

across Fraser Health LHAs shows an 

east-west gradient; eastern LHAs have 

larger proportions of Aboriginal people 

in their population than western LHAs. 

• Surrey LHA has the largest actual 

number of Aboriginal people, followed 

by Chilliwack LHA, which has the 

largest number of registered Indians. 

However, Aboriginal people make up 

only 2.0% of Surrey compared to 

6.6% of Chilliwack. 

Limitations 

Census population data cannot include 

people who do not participate in the 

census (i.e., some young people, some 

Aboriginal reserve populations, and 

often the homeless). 

2 British Columbia, Provincial Health Officer. (2009). 

Pathways to health and healing - 2nd report on the health 

and well-being of Aboriginal people in British Columbia. 

Provincial Health Officer's annual report 2007. Victoria, BC: 

Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. 

24


ABORIGINAL POPULATION 

Aboriginal Population by LHA, 2006 

LHA 

Aboriginal Identity Registered Indian* Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Population 

Burnaby 3,005 1.5% 1,490 0.7% 200,855 

New Westminster 1,835 3.2% 735 1.3% 57,850 

Coquitlam 3,010 1.5% 895 0.5% 195,745 

Maple Ridge 2,480 3.0% 745 0.9% 84,030 

Delta 1,900 2.0% 740 0.8% 96,750 

Langley 3,460 3.0% 1,100 0.9% 116,900 

Surrey 6,830 2.0% 2,190 0.7% 334,430 

South Surrey/White Rock 1,185 1.6% 345 0.5% 76,440 

Abbotsford 3,805 3.1% 1,090 0.9% 122,800 

Mission 2,520 6.5% 960 2.5% 38,560 

Chilliwack 5,045 6.6% 2,850 3.7% 76,415 

Hope 1,315 16.6% 975 12.3% 7,920 

Agassiz/Harrison 1,715 21.6% 1,525 19.2% 7,940 

Fraser Health 38,105 2.7% 15,640 1.1% 1,416,640 

BC 196,070 4.8% 110,550 2.7% 4,074,385 

* Registered Indians are a subset of those with Aboriginal identity. 

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2006. 

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2006; Map prepared by Fraser Health, Health & Business Analytics. 

25

Immigrant Population 


Immigrant population refers to all those 

who were born in another country, but 

have been granted the right to live in 

Canada permanently by immigration 

authorities. Children born in Canada to 

immigrant parents are considered nonimmigrants. 

Based on the 2006 Census, 

recent immigrants are those who came 

to Canada between 2001 and 2006. 

Using data provided by the Immigration 

Services Society of BC, community 

settlement patterns are presented for 

761 Government-Assisted Refugees who 

settled in BC in 2010, including the age 

and sex breakdown for these people. 


New immigrants can face many unique 

challenges, which can often leave them 

at a disadvantage. They may have a 

hard time adapting to life in Canada, 

have no social support network, and 

they can face challenges accessing 

health and social services because of 

language and cultural barriers. They 

may have difficulty finding employment 

and are more likely to have lower 

incomes than Canadian-born citizens 

are. These factors, amongst others, 

can take a toll on one’s well-being and 

contribute to poor health outcomes. 

32.2% in 2006. The majority of Fraser 

Health immigrants arrived in Canada 

in the last 15 years (data not shown). 

• In 2010, more than 80% of government-assisted 

refugees in BC settled in 

the Fraser Health area, particularly in 

the communities of Surrey and 

Burnaby. Recent immigrants and 

refugees in particular face the most 

challenging disadvantages among all 

immigrants. 

• Among Fraser Health LHAs, Burnaby 

and Surrey have the largest proportion 

of immigrants in their populations 

overall, including the largest proportion 

of recent immigrants. Consulting 

with and engaging different ethnic/ 

cultural communities informs and 

enhances service planning and 

program development. 

Distribution of Immigrants in British Columbia, 

by Health Authority, 2006 

n = 1,119,215 

Fraser, 42% 

Vancouver Coastal 

39% 

Northern, 2% 

Interior, 7% 

Vancouver Island 

10% 

• Over 40% of all immigrants in BC live 

in the Fraser Health region, comprising 

one third of the area’s population; the 

proportion of BC’s immigrants that live 

in Fraser Health is increasing. As well, 

the proportion of the Fraser Health 

population who are immigrants has 

increased from 26.6% in 1996 to 

Source: Immigrant Services Society of BC, 2010 

Limitations 

The Canadian census excludes residents 

living in institutions. 

26


IMMIGRANT POPULATION 

Proportion of Immigrants in Health Authority Populations, 2006 

50% 

40% 

% Total Population . 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 


Recent immigrants** 5.9% 0.9% 7.5% 1.4% 0.7% 4.4% 

Long-term immigrants* 26.3% 11.4% 35.7% 15.2% 8.7% 23.1% 

# Recent immigrants 83,795 6,290 76,330 9,465 1,960 177,840 

# Long-term immigrants 372,125 76,400 362,800 106,165 23,860 941,365 

* Long-term immigrants are those who immigrated before 2001; ** recent immigrants are those 

who immigrated between 2001 and 2006. 

Proportion of Immigrants in LHA Populations 

by Period of Immigration, 2006 

Burnaby 

Surrey 

Coquitlam 



Delta 

BC 

Abbotsford 


Maple Ridge 

Langley 

Mission 


Chilliwack 

Hope 

39.9% 10.8% 

32.6% 

8.2% 

28.3% 

6.4% 

26.3% 

5.9% 

24.4% 

7.3% 

24.2% 

3.8% 

23.1% 

4.4% 

21.8% 

4.3% 

21.0% 

3.1% 

15.6% 2.2% 

14.6% 2.6% 

13.1% 1.9% 

14.5% 0.4% 

12.8% 1.0% 

12.9% 0.5% 

Immigrated before 2001 

Immigrated after 2001 


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

% Total Population 

27

Maple Ridge 

1.6% 

Community Settlement Patterns for 

Government-Assisted Refugees, 2010 


5.1% 

n = 761 

Coquitlam 

18.9% 

Port Coquitlam 

1.3% 

Pitt Meadows 

1.2% 

Mission 

0.5% 

Burnaby 

23.5% 

Langley 

0.4% 

Delta 

0.4% 

Unknown 

0.4% 

Other BC 

communities 

13.5% 

Other provinces 

5.3% 

Surrey 

27.9% 

Source: Immigrant Services Society of BC, 2010. 

Age & Sex Breakdown for Government-Assisted Refugees, 

2010 

Age Group 

Female Male Total 

# % # % # % 

< 6 37 10.4% 47 11.6% 84 11.0% 

6-12 55 15.4% 79 19.5% 134 17.6% 

13-18 50 14.0% 58 14.3% 108 14.2% 

19-64 207 58.1% 217 53.6% 424 55.7% 

65+ 7 2.0% 4 1.0% 11 1.4% 

All Ages 356 46.8% 405 53.2% 761 100.0% 

Note: percentages reflect the proportion of females or males in each age group. 

Source: Immigrant Services Society of BC, 2010. 

28

HEALTH DETERMINANTS 

Health Determinants 

Social & Economic Environment 

The social and economic conditions in which people live affect their health. It is well 

documented that different socioeconomic groups experience different health outcomes; those in 

poorer environments are more likely to experience poorer health outcomes. Support from 

friends, families, and communities, higher levels of education and higher income are all 

associated with improved health status and life expectancy. 

Healthy Child Development 

Children are the most valuable resource in our society and yet they are the most vulnerable 

because they are fully dependent on adults and society for their care. They are also the most 

responsive to the world in which they live. Positive environments and experiences keep children 

healthy, and have life-long health, social, and emotional effects. Supporting healthy child 

development can prevent future illness and disease, and in turn may reduce the growing 

burden on the health care system. 

The Physical Environment 

The presence of natural or man-made hazards in our environment can affect our health. 

Contaminants in our air, water, food, and soil at certain levels of exposure can cause a variety of 

health problems, including cancer, respiratory and gastrointestinal illness, birth defects, and other 

illness. How we build the environment around us, workplace and community safety, good 

transportation, well-designed neighbourhoods, and safe housing also contribute to good health. 

Healthy Living 

Personal health practices can affect our health directly, for example, the foods we eat, and 

whether or not we smoke or exercise. Our health behaviours are determined both by the 

choices we make and by the choices available to us. A single parent with a long commute to 

work, for instance, may not have the time or energy to exercise despite the desire to do so. 

Maintaining a healthy body weight for our size contributes to good health. 

Disease Prevention 

Primary prevention describes measures that stop a disease or condition from occurring. 

Examples include better car design to improve collision avoidance and protection of passengers, 

in crashes, pollution controls, food safety, and immunization. Secondary prevention refers 

to measures that prevent further damage when a disease or condition has already occurred; 

for example, screening tests. Tertiary prevention is done in order to minimize the effect of the 

disease and prevent complications for a disease that has already occurred and caused damage; 

examples include diabetic education or cardiac rehabilitation. 

29

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Home Language 


Home language refers to the language 

spoken most often at home by the 

individual at the time of the 2006 

Canadian census. 


This indicator provides information on 

language use. Language barriers affect 

the ability to communicate effectively 

with others who do not speak the same 

language. Language barriers can 

prevent people from accessing health 

care and ineffective translation or 

interpretation services can result in 

missed diagnoses and poorer treatment 

outcomes. Areas where languages other 

than English are commonly spoken at 

home may have lower levels of English 

fluency and/or literacy than other areas. 

Limitations 

Data are expressed as a percentage of 

single responses and multiple responses 

were excluded. 

Data provided on home language does 

not reveal anything about language 

proficiency or the language spoken at 

work, at school, or socially, so it does 

not show overall language habits. 

By itself, home language does not tell us 

anything about English fluency or 

literacy, which have important 

implications for service development, 

communication, and education. 

• Punjabi and Chinese are the most 

common non-English languages in 

Fraser Health, with Surrey, Burnaby, 

and Abbotsford LHAs having larger 

proportions of residents who speak 

these languages than other LHAs. 

Translation and interpretation of 

health services and information should 

be commonly available in these 

languages, particularly in these areas. 

• Translation and interpretation services 

should be accessible as needed in all 

areas of Fraser Health and for all 

common home languages. 

30



Home Language: Most Common Languages Spoken at Home 

Other than English, Fraser Health, 2006 

Punjabi 

6.5% 

Chinese n.o.s.* 

Mandarin 

Korean 

Cantonese 

2.0% 

1.9% 

1.9% 

1.8% 

Tagalog (Pilipino) 

0.7% 

Hindi 

0.6% 

Vietnamese 

0.6% 

Persian (Farsi) 

Spanish 

0.6% 

0.6% 

French = 0.3% 

Other = 3.7% 

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 

* n.o.s. = not otherwise stated 

Percent 

Top Three Home Languages in Fraser Health LHAs, 

Percent of Total Single Responses, 2006 

Burnaby English (62.3%) Chinese (n.o.s. 1 ) (7.3%) Cantonese (6.9%) 

New Westminster English (81.2%) Punjabi (3.2%) Tagalog (1.8%) 

Coquitlam English (78.1%) Korean (3.8%) Cantonese (3.4%) 

Maple Ridge English (93.6%) Punjabi (0.9%) Korean (0.8%) 

Delta English (85.4%) Punjabi (7.0%) Mandarin (1.4%) 

Surrey English (66.7%) Punjabi (18.0%) Hindi (2.0%) 

S.Surrey/W. Rock English (92.6%) Korean (1.5%) Mandarin (1.3%) 

Langley English (93.1%) Korean (1.8%) Mandarin (0.8%) 

Abbotsford English (80.4%) Punjabi (13.8%) Korean (1.0%) 

Mission English (92.5%) Punjabi (4.2%) Korean (0.6%) 

Chilliwack English (96.3%) German (0.8%) Punjabi (0.3%) 

Hope English (95.9%) Korean (1.1%) Czech (0.9%) 

Agassiz/Harrison English (98.2%) German (0.4%) Dutch (0.3%) 

Fraser Health English (78.7%) Punjabi (6.5%) Chinese (n.o.s 1 ) (2.0%) 

Notes: 1 n.o.s. = not otherwise stated 


31

Education 


Six-year Dogwood completion rates 

track the proportion of students who 

graduate from high school with a 

Certificate of Graduation (Dogwood), 

within six years of starting Grade 8. 

Data are reported at the school district 

and provincial levels. 

Census data report the highest level of 

schooling, based on the highest grade 

or year of elementary or secondary 

school attended, or the highest level of 

post secondary schooling completed 

(university or other non-university) for 

the population age 25 years and older. 


Schooling is linked to income, with those 

with less education being more likely to 

have lower incomes. A lack of education 

and poverty are both associated with 

unhealthy lifestyles and poor well-being. 

Lower education levels can also increase 

the likelihood of functional illiteracy, 

making health promotion and access to 

healthcare problematic as illiterate 

people cannot read health literature or 

instructions. 

• Chilliwack school district has the worst 

high school completion rates in Fraser 

Health, with only 69% of students 

graduating from high school within six 

years of starting Grade 8. 

• In general, high school completion 

rates are lower among boys than 

among girls; in 2009/10, Fraser- 

Cascade was the only school district in 

Fraser Health with better rates among 

boys. 

• Aboriginal students have high school 

completion rates far below average. In 

Burnaby, roughly one in every three 

Aboriginal students graduated within 

six years. 

• Students with English as a Second 

Language (ESL) in Chilliwack have 

worse dogwood completion rates than 

their peers in other school districts. 

• Looking at the highest level of 

schooling, one out of every six Fraser 

Health residents 25-years and older 

has not completed high school. 

• There is large variability in proportions 

of educated residents across LHAs, 

with LHAs in the west having more 

educated residents than in the east. 

• In Fraser Health, Coquitlam and South 

Surrey/White Rock LHAs have the 

smallest proportion of residents whose 

highest level of education is below 

high school, but the proportions are 

still higher than that of West Side LHA 

in Vancouver Coastal Health. 

• West Side LHA in Vancouver Coastal 

Health has 25% more of its 25+ 

population with a university degree 

than the best LHA in Fraser Health 

(Burnaby LHA). 

Limitations 

Only formal education is captured; 

people may be self-taught, acquiring 

knowledge and skills through the media, 

libraries, and other resources. 

Census data is not adjusted for the age 

structure of the LHA population. Areas 

with older populations may have a 

higher percentage of people without 

formal education. 

32



Six-Year High School Dogwood Completion Rates 

by School District, 2009/10 

Coquitlam 

Delta 

Abbotsford 

Langley 

Surrey 

Burnaby 

Mission 

BC 

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows 


Fraser-Cascade 

Chilliwack 

70.0% 

69.1% 

77.6% 

74.1% 

82.5% 

82.1% 

80.8% 

80.1% 

79.7% 

88.6% 

86.6% 

85.9% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

Six-Year High School Dogwood Completion Rates, by Sex 

by School District, 2009/10 

Boys Girls 

Coquitlam 

Abbotsford 

Delta 

Burnaby 

Langley 

Surrey 

Mission 

BC 



Chilliwack 


62.1% 

76.4% 

72.0% 

69.2% 

69.1% 

75.2% 

86.9% 

77.9% 

85.6% 

78.9% 

83.2% 

77.4% 

80.1% 

75.0% 

77.3% 

91.4% 

86.1% 

89.9% 

82.4% 

88.3% 

85.1% 

87.0% 

82.6% 

77.0% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

Source: BC Ministry of Education. 

33


for Aboriginal Students, by School District, 2009/10 

Aboriginal Students All Students 

80.1% 

Mission 

63.9% 

88.6% 

Coquitlam 

63.9% 

77.6% 


62.9% 

82.5% 

Langley 

62.5% 

86.6% 

Delta 

62.4% 

85.9% 

Abbotsford 

61.1% 

70.0% 


52.6% 

82.1% 

Surrey 

51.8% 

79.7% 

BC 

50.4% 

69.1% 

Chilliwack 

45.4% 

74.1% 


42.2% 

80.8% 

Burnaby 

30.1% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 


for ESL ‡ Students by School District, 2009/10 

Abbotsford 

Coquitlam 

Delta 


Burnaby 

Surrey 

Langley 

BC 

Mission 


90.4% 

90.4% 

89.9% 

85.4% 

84.8% 

84.7% 

84.6% 

81.5% 

78.2% 

77.1% 

Chilliwack 

67.1% 


* 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

‡ ESL = English as a Second Language; * Data suppressed because there were nine or fewer ESL students. 

Source: BC Ministry of Education. 

34



50% 

Highest Level of Education Achieved (Ages 25+), 

Less than High School*, Census 2006 

40% 

30% 

25.2% 

20% 

16.7% 

20.1% 

13.2% 

15.1% 

16.6% 

10% 

0% 



Less than High School*, by LHA, Census 2006 

Hope 

Abbotsford 


Mission 

Chilliwack 

Surrey 


BC 

Maple Ridge 

Langley 


Burnaby 

Delta 

Coquitlam 


West Side (VCHA) 

4.9% 

25.8% 

23.2% 

22.1% 

21.3% 

20.9% 

20.7% 

16.7% 

16.6% 

15.8% 

15.5% 

14.6% 

14.5% 

13.3% 

11.4% 

10.9% 

Best LHA in BC 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

* No certificate, diploma, or degree. 


35

50% 


with University Bachelor's Degree or Higher, Census 2006 

40% 

33.8% 

30% 

20% 

19.6% 

20.4% 

21.7% 

10% 

12.4% 

11.2% 

0% 



University Bachelor's or Higher Degree by LHA, Census 2006 

West Side (VCHA) 

Burnaby 

Coquitlam 



BC 

Delta 


Surrey 

Langley 

Abbotsford 

Maple Ridge 

Mission 

Hope 

Chilliwack 


29.5% 

25.1% 

24.5% 

23.9% 

21.7% 

21.5% 

19.6% 

16.4% 

15.4% 

14.0% 

12.6% 

10.9% 

10.5% 

10.2% 

9.9% 

55.6% - Best LHA in BC 


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

36




37

Lone-Parent Families 


A lone-parent family refers to a mother 

or a father, with no spouse or commonlaw 

partner present, living in a dwelling 

with one or more children. Here, 

children refer to blood, step- or adopted 

children (regardless of age or marital 

status) who are living in the same 

dwelling as their parent. 

Limitations 

The Canadian census does not include 

institutionalized residents. 


Lone-parent families are more likely to 

have lower incomes than families with 

both parents present, and therefore are 

more likely to have a lower standard of 

living and poorer health status. 

Research also suggests that families 

with single parents often live in 

situations that are associated with an 

increased risk of a number of negative 

social, behavioural, and emotional 

outcomes for children. 

Percent Lone-Parent Families, by Family Head, 2006 

Percent of Census Families 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 


Female head 11.9% 11.3% 12.6% 12.2% 12.2% 12.0% 

Male head 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.3% 4.0% 3.0% 


• Across BC, females head the majority 

of lone-parent families; this is true in 

all of our LHAs. Lone-parent families 

headed by females earn less than do 

those headed by males (see Individual 

and Family Income on page 40). 

• Maple Ridge LHA (22.7%) has the 

largest proportion of lone-parent 

families that are headed by a male 

(data not shown). 

• Lone-parent families may need more 

services and enhanced access than 

others, particularly those with low 

income. 

• Hope and New Westminster LHAs 

have the largest percentages of loneparent 

families in Fraser Health. 

38



Percent of Lone-Parent Families, Fraser Health, 

by Family Head 

15% 

Female head 

Male head 

11.2% 

12.2% 

11.9% 

Percent of Census Families 

10% 

5% 

2.2% 

2.9% 2.9% 

0% 

1996 2001 2006 

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 1996, 2001, and 2006. 

Percent Lone-Parent Families, 2006 

Hope 


Burnaby 

Mission 

Surrey 

Chilliwack 

BC 



Coquitlam 

Maple Ridge 

Abbotsford 

Langley 

Delta 


17.9% (415) 

16.7% (2,605) 

16.6% (9,285) 

16.0% (1,760) 

15.2% (14,375) 

15.2% (3,355) 

15.1% 

14.8% (59,700) 

14.7% (345) 

14.7% (8,215) 

14.5% (3,505) 

14.1% (4,915) 

13.8% (4,630) 

12.8% (3,610) 

11.9% (2,680) 


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

Percent (Count) of Census Families 

39

Individual and Family Income 


Average individual income refers to the 

average total annual income after-tax 

for individuals age 15-years and older 

who reported income on the Census. 

Average family income refers to the 

average combined income for all 

members of an economic family after 

tax. An economic family refers to a 

group of two or more persons who live 

in the same dwelling and are related to 

each other by blood, marriage, 

common-law, or adoption. 

Lone-parent families refer to a male or a 

female lone-parent living with at least 

one child in the same dwelling. 

All income measures in this report are 

based on after-tax income from 2005 as 

reported on the 2006 Census. After-tax 

income is a better measure of spending 

power than total income because it 

accounts for both the reduced spending 

power that results from paying taxes 

and the added spending power that 

might be gained through government 

transfers (such as income assistance). 

• Men earn more on average than 

women earn. 

• Despite having the highest average 

income among LHAs, women in South 

Surrey/White Rock LHA still make less 

than the average income for men in 

Fraser Health overall. 

• Lone-parent families headed by males 

have higher average incomes across 

Fraser Health and BC than those that 

are headed by females. 

• Hope and Agassiz/Harrison LHAs have 

the lowest average incomes in Fraser 

Health. 

Limitations 

Average family income does not account 

for family size or for how income might 

be distributed among family members. 

Census data reports on income for the 

year prior to the Census and excludes 

any who did not participate in the 2006 

Canadian Census. 

For information on low income and lowincome 

cut-offs (LICOs), please see the 

following section on Low Income 

Population on page 44. 


Income is a socioeconomic indicator 

used to study the links between social 

conditions and health. People with 

higher incomes tend to have better 

health status than those with lower 

incomes. 

40



Average 2005 Family Income 

$100,000 

$80,000 

$60,000 

$68,641 

$59,301 

$74,207 

$63,770 

$65,351 

$67,200 

$40,000 

$20,000 

$0 


Average 2005 Family Income, by LHA 


Delta 

Langley 

Coquitlam 

Maple Ridge 


BC 

Surrey 

Abbotsford 


Burnaby 

Mission 

Chilliwack 

Hope 


$85,376 

$78,763 

$73,583 

$72,370 

$69,780 

$68,641 

$67,200 

$65,663 

$65,195 

$65,157 

$63,531 

$61,648 

$60,139 

$51,317 

$49,943 


$0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 

41

Average 2005 Individual Income, Females, by LHA 


Delta 


Coquitlam 

Langley 

Maple Ridge 

BC 


Burnaby 

Surrey 

Abbotsford 

Chilliwack 

Mission 

Hope 


$27,994 

$25,180 

$24,911 

$24,418 

$24,241 

$23,497 

$23,408 

$23,083 

$22,451 

$21,384 

$21,330 

$21,107 

$21,013 

$20,645 

$19,630 

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 

Average 2005 Individual Income, Males, by LHA 


Delta 

Langley 

Maple Ridge 

Coquitlam 

BC 



Chilliwack 

Abbotsford 

Mission 

Burnaby 

Surrey 

Hope 


$38,946 

$38,118 

$36,537 

$36,401 

$34,652 

$34,148 

$34,013 

$32,998 

$32,391 

$32,118 

$30,424 

$30,371 

$27,155 

$26,454 

$46,318 


$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 

42



Average 2005 Income for Lone-Parent Families 

with Female Head 


Langley 

Delta 

Burnaby 

Surrey 


Maple Ridge 

Coquitlam 

BC 


Abbotsford 

Mission 

Chilliwack 


Hope 

$48,679 

$45,055 

$44,807 

$41,430 

$40,632 

$40,531 

$39,885 

$39,542 

$39,031 

$38,331 

$37,866 

$37,190 

$33,407 

$30,545 

$27,580 

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 

Average 2005 Income for Lone-Parent Families 

with Male Head 


Delta 

Langley 

Coquitlam 

Mission 


Surrey 

Maple Ridge 

Burnaby 

BC 

Abbotsford 


Chilliwack 

Hope 


$63,257 

$57,536 

$56,807 

$56,065 

$55,385 

$55,180 

$54,016 

$53,926 

$52,248 

$47,598 

$46,979 

$41,672 

$41,149 

$30,157 

$80,050 


$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 

43


Low income is measured using the 

after-tax Low Income Cut-Offs (LICOs), 

a well-established measure of relative 

poverty and income distribution. The 

1992 Family Expenditure Survey found 

that, on average, Canadian families 

spend 43% of their after-tax income on 

basic necessities (food, shelter, and 

clothing). The low-income population, 

including families and individuals, are 

defined as those whose annual incomes 

fall below the LICO because they spend 

an additional 20% (i.e., more than 

63%) of their income on necessities. 

LICOs are calculated by the household 

size and the population size in the area 

of residence. 3 

The after-tax LICOs take into account 

the reduced daily spending power of 

families and individuals because of 

income taxes paid, which are set by 

government tax law and policies. 

The economic family consists of two or 

more people living together who are 

related by blood, marriage, commonlaw, 

or adoption. 

The “Living Wage” is another way of 

looking at this issue. 4 Different from the 

legislated minimum wage, a living wage 

is based on the real costs of living in a 

particular community and represents the 

hourly wage needed for a household to 

Low Income Population 

meet its basic needs. In 2011, the living 

wage for two working parents in Metro 

Vancouver was calculated at $18.81 per 

hour for each parent, which is almost 

double the minimum wage. Visit A Living 

Wage for Families for more information. 


With less disposable income than the 

average family or individual, people with 

low incomes have a lower standard of 

living. They have less money available 

for other expenses such as health, 

education, transportation, or recreation. 

For example, in 2009, a single income 

earner making minimum wage will have 

a yearly salary (based on 2000 hours) of 

$13,930 ($1,161 per month) after-tax 5 , 

which falls below the LICO and even 

further below the living wage. A man 

under the age of 30 living alone will 

spend nearly 80% of this salary on 

housing and food alone ($648 and 

$269.36 monthly for housing and food, 

respectively). 6 While income assistance 

is available, not all individuals and 

families with low income receive it. In 

several of our communities, about 20% 

of children under age 6 are living in lowincome 

families (pg 47); this has health 

and educational implications for the 

individual and for society, today and into 

the future. 

3 Statistics Canada. (2009). Low income cut-offs: What are 

the LICOs? Retrieved September 1, 2010, from 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/2009002/s2- 

eng.htm 

4 Ivanova, I., Klein, S., First Call BC Child and Youth 

Advocacy Coalition, A Living Wage for Families, & Canadian 

Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC Office. Working for a living 

wage: Making paid work meet basic family needs in Metro 

Vancouver. 2011 update. Canadian Centre for Policy 

Alternatives, BC Office. Retrieved December 1 2011 from 

http://livingwageforfamilies.ca/ 

5 Government of Alberta, Employment and Immigration 

(2009). Alberta minimum wage profile: April 2008 to March 

2009. Retrieved January 28, 2010 from: 

http://employment.alberta.ca. 

6 Dietitians of Canada, BC Region and the Community 

Nutritionists Council of BC (2009). The cost of eating in BC 

2009. Retrieved January 15, 2010 from: 

http://www.dietitians.ca/Secondary-Pages/Public/The-Costof-Eating-in-British-Columbia.aspx 

44



Low income is also often associated with 

poor health status. Low income restricts 

a family’s ability to purchase adequate 

quantities of nutritious foods. People 

with little money to spend on food often 

have to purchase foods that satisfy 

hunger but are not nutritious. 

• Although Vancouver Coastal Health 

has a larger proportion of low-income 

population, Fraser Health has a larger 

number of low-income people and 

families due to its larger population. 

There are an estimated 41,400 lowincome 

families in Fraser Health. Lowincome 

families typically have higher 

health care needs and require special 

consideration during service planning 

for issues such as transportation costs 

or the ability to afford recommended 

interventions like improved nutrition. 

• Proportions of families and individuals 

with low income vary widely among 

Fraser Health LHAs. Burnaby LHA has 

the largest proportion of low-income 

economic families, almost three times 

the proportion in South Surrey/White 

Rock. Burnaby LHA also has the 

largest proportions of low-income 

seniors and low-income families with 

children under age 6. It is important to 

target services in areas with high 

proportions of low-income seniors and 

families with young children. 

• In Fraser Health, 28% of lone-parent 

families headed by females have low 

income compared to 15% of loneparent 

families headed by males. 

Poverty reduction strategies can 

reduce the disparities and negative 

health outcomes that children living in 

low-income families can experience. 

Limitations 

The 2006 Census collected data on 

income earned in 2005, the year before 

the Census. Average family income does 

not take into account family size, or how 

income is shared and distributed among 

each member of the family. Statistics 

Canada clearly and consistently maintains 

that the LICOs are not measures 

of poverty; rather they reflect a 

consistent, well-defined methodology, 

which identifies those who are relatively 

worse-off financially than average. 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Burnaby 


Surrey 

Coquitlam 


BC 

Hope 

Mission 

Maple Ridge 

Abbotsford 


Delta 

Chilliwack 

Langley 


Low Income Population, 2005 

Total* Economic family** Lone-parent family 

FHA 13.2% 14.3% 25.1% 

IHA 9.1% 9.4% 20.4% 

VCHA 19.0% 19.0% 26.6% 

VIHA 9.8% 9.3% 19.2% 

NHA 8.5% 9.1% 21.2% 

BC 13.1% 13.3% 23.3% 

Low Income Population, 2005 

9.5% 

9.3% 

9.0% 

8.8% 

8.0% 

10.6% 

10.5% 

9.6% 

13.2% 

13.1% 

11.9% 

14.7% 

14.0% 

16.3% 

20.6% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

Note: Categories are not exclusive: 

*Total low-income population includes all persons in lowincome 

private households including individuals and all 

family compositions; 

**Low Income Economic families include low income, 

lone-parent families. 

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2006 

45

Low Income Economic Families, 2005 

Burnaby 

Coquitlam 


Surrey 


BC 

Hope 

Maple Ridge 

Abbotsford 

Mission 


Delta 

Chilliwack 

Langley 


12.0% 

11.8% 

11.3% 

10.8% 

9.9% 

8.8% 

8.2% 

8.2% 

8.1% 

7.5% 

7.4% 

6.7% 

6.6% 

5.9% 

17.3% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

Low Income Lone-Parent Economic Families, 2005 


13.6% 

34.4% 

Hope 

* 

33.9% 

Surrey 

Maple Ridge 

Burnaby 

Coquitlam 

18.7% 

18.6% 

17.7% 

14.6% 

30.2% 

30.2% 

29.7% 

29.4% 


* 

29.3% 


Abbotsford 

BC 

Chilliwack 

14.7% 

13.7% 

13.9% 

14.3% 

27.5% 

26.7% 

25.6% 

24.2% 

Mission 

23.0% 

7.4% 

Delta 

21.7% 

Female head 

9.6% 

Langley 

20.5% 

Male head 

10.1% 


6.8% 

15.9% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

Note: *Statistics Canada did not calculate proportions for communities with small numbers (< 50). 


46



Children Under Age 6 Living in Low-Income Families, 2005 

Burnaby 


Hope 

Surrey 



BC 

Coquitlam 

Mission 

Abbotsford 

Chilliwack 

Delta 


Maple Ridge 

Langley 

16.1% 

15.3% 

15.1% 

13.2% 

12.7% 

12.7% 

12.1% 

11.1% 

10.7% 

10.6% 

9.9% 

22.5% 

21.4% 

19.2% 

19.0% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 

Low Income Seniors Age 65+, 2005 

Burnaby 


Coquitlam 

Surrey 

Maple Ridge 


Delta 

Langley 

BC 

Mission 

Abbotsford 

Chilliwack 



Hope 

* 

* 

11.5% 

10.7% 

10.2% 

9.1% 

8.4% 

7.3% 

7.3% 

5.7% 

4.3% 

4.1% 

3.6% 

14.6% 

14.5% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 

Note: * Statistics Canada did not calculate proportions for communities with small numbers (< 50). 


47

Income Assistance 


This indicator reports the proportion of 

people with little or no income who 

receive government transfers. Income 

Assistance (IA) data are shown for 

children ≤14-years of age (previously 

reported for ages ≤18 years) receiving 

income support under BC’s Employment 

& Assistance program; the program 

covers adults and children ages ≤64- 

years along with people on temporary 

assistance and people with disabilities. 

The Guaranteed Income Supplement 

(GIS) is the assistance program for 

seniors (ages 65 and older) payable to 

pensioners with limited or no income 

beyond the Old Age Security plan. 


This is an indicator of poverty. However, 

not everyone with low income receives 

income assistance. 

Low income and poverty are associated 

with lack of adequate food, clothing, 

and shelter, which have significant 

implications for social and physical wellbeing. 

Children and the elderly are 

among society’s most vulnerable and 

are typically the most strongly affected 

by low income and poverty. 

10% 

8% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

10% 

Rock has the smallest proportions on 

both measures. 

• Among IA recipients in Fraser Health 

33% of immigrant recipients are 

children, compared to 27% among 

Canadian-born recipients (not shown). 

Limitations 

Income assistance data are reported for 

September 2010, providing only a snapshot 

of benefit recipients. 

Children (Aged ≤14) Receiving Income Assistance Benefits: 

September 2010 

3.1% 

4.8% 

1.8% 

3.9% 

6.2% 

Source: Ministry of Human Resources compiled and provided 

by BC Stats. 

3.4% 


Seniors 65+ Receiving Maximum GIS, 2010 

8% 

• There is disparity between Fraser 

Health LHAs in terms of the proportion 

of children on income assistance, with 

higher prevalence in the east. 

• Surrey has the largest proportion of 

GIS recipients and the fourth largest 

proportion of children on income 

assistance, while South Surrey/White 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

3.7% 

1.3% 

5.9% 

1.1% 

2.4% 

Source: Ministry of Human Resources compiled and provided 

by BC Stats. 

3.1% 


48



Children (Aged ≤14) Receiving Income Assistance Benefits: 

September 2010 

Hope 

Mission 

Chilliwack 

Surrey 

BC 


Burnaby 


Abbotsford 


Langley 

Coquitlam 

Maple Ridge 

Delta 


0.8% 

1.5% 

4.1% 

3.4% 

3.2% 

3.1% 

3.1% 

2.9% 

2.6% 

2.4% 

2.3% 

2.3% 

5.1% 

4.9% 

8.5% 

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 

Seniors 65+ Receiving Maximum GIS, 2010 

Surrey 

Burnaby 

Coquitlam 



BC 

Delta 

Mission 

Abbotsford 

Hope 

Maple Ridge 

Langley 


Chilliwack 


3.7% 

3.5% 

3.1% 

2.7% 

2.3% 

2.2% 

1.9% 

1.7% 

1.5% 

1.5% 

1.2% 

0.9% 

5.1% 

6.0% 

6.9% 

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 

Source: Ministry of Human Resources compiled and provided by BC Stats. 

49

Unemployment Rate & EI Beneficiaries 


Based on the 2006 Census, the unemployment 

rate is the percentage of 

unemployed people in the labour force 7 

during the week (Saturday to Sunday) 

before Census Day (May 16, 2006). 

Employment insurance (EI) beneficiaries 

are unemployed people receiving 

benefits through the EI program, not 

including people on parental or sick 

leave. Data represent the average of the 

most recent September (2010) and the 

previous June, March, and December. 


When someone loses their job or is not 

able to find work, not only do they lose 

their income, they can also lose their 

personal work relationships, daily 

routines, self-esteem, and sense of 

purpose. Unemployment can negatively 

affect emotional and mental well-being. 

It can also affect an individual’s ability 

to afford housing and enough nutritious 

food, which can affect overall health. 

Limitations 

The unemployment rate excludes people 

not in the labour force (i.e., who have 

never worked or who did not look for 

work in the week prior to Census Day). 

Not all people who are unemployed 

collect benefits; some are not covered 

by the system (e.g., self-employed), 

some are ineligible for benefits (e.g., 

voluntary resignation without justifiable 

cause), some fail to make a claim, and 

others have used all of their benefits. 

12% 

10% 

8% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

Unemployment Rate, Ages 25+ 


1996 9.9% 7.7% 7.6% 8.2% 10.7% 8.4% 

2001 9.1% 5.9% 6.6% 7.4% 11.0% 7.2% 

2006 5.6% 4.5% 4.9% 4.8% 8.1% 5.1% 


• Unemployment is higher in Fraser 

Health than BC overall; rates are 

highest in Hope, Agassiz/Harrison, and 

Burnaby LHAs. 

• Northern Health has the highest 

unemployment rate and largest 

proportion of EI beneficiaries. 

• Vancouver Coastal and Vancouver 

Island have the lowest rates of 

unemployment and the smallest 

proportions of EI beneficiaries. 

7 Statistics Canada defines labour force as all employed and 

unemployed people age 15+; not including institutional 

residents. See the 2006 Census Dictionary for more details. 

% 19-64 Year Olds 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

1% 

0% 

EI Beneficiaries Ages 19 to 64, September 2010* 

2.0% 

2.7% 

1.6% 

1.8% 

3.6% 

* Data represent a four-month average of EI beneficiaries in 

December 2009 and March, June, and September 2010. 

Source: Ministry of Housing and Social Development, 

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and BC 

Stats. Retrieved September 1, 2011 from: 

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/sep/choose.asp 

2.1% 


50



Unemployment Rate by LHA and Sex, Ages 25+, 2006 

Hope 


Burnaby 

Surrey 


Abbotsford 

BC 


Chilliwack 

Coquitlam 

Mission 

Delta 

Maple Ridge 


Langley 


5.1% 

3.8% 

5.5% 

4.4% 

5.5% 

3.5% 

5.4% 

4.7% 

5.3% 

3.7% 

4.9% 

4.3% 

4.8% 

3.0% 

4.6% 

3.5% 

4.0% 

3.3% 

3.9% 

3.1% 

3.6% 

3.1% 

3.4% 

2.2% 

6.9% 

7.6% 

6.7% 

6.5% 

9.1% 

9.3% 

Women 

Men 

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 

EI Beneficiaries as Percent of Population Ages 19 to 64, by LHA, 

September 2010* 

Abbotsford 

Hope 

Surrey 

Mission 

BC 




Maple Ridge 

Chilliwack 


Delta 

Burnaby 

Coquitlam 

Langley 

1.8% 

1.8% 

1.7% 

1.7% 

1.7% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

2.1% 

2.1% 

2.0% 

2.0% 

2.3% 

2.2% 

2.7% 

2.7% 

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 

% 19-64 Year Olds 

*Note: Data represent a four-month average of EI beneficiaries in December 2009 and March, June, and September 

2010. 

Source: Ministry of Housing and Social Development, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and BC 

Stats. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/sep/choose.asp. 

51

Food Security 


Food security measures people’s 

physical and economic access to safe, 

nutritious food. Food insecurity means 

either being worried about or not having 

enough food or quality or variety of 

foods to eat. The data is presented for 

the household, such that a household is 

food insecure if either an adult or a child 

or both experience food insecurity. 

The Canadian Community Health Survey 

sought data at the regional level 

through a series of questions used to 

formulate a food security index; 

summary responses are reported here. 

The BC Health and Wellness Survey 

(BC-HWS) sought to provide data at a 

more local level than previously 

available. The BC-HWS included six 

questions pertaining to respondent food 

security during the 12 months prior to 

survey participation. In 2006, only five 

communities in the Fraser Health region 

were surveyed. 

The sampling method, the questions to 

assess food security and the methods 

for analysis differ in the two surveys. 

Results are therefore not comparable. 


Food security is an integral part of 

healthy eating. A healthy, nutritious diet 

is in turn the basis for chronic disease 

prevention and healthy growth and 

development. When people experience 

food insecurity and do not have access 

to a ready supply of adequate foods, 

their health is compromised regardless 

of the availability of health care 

services. 

Households with lower incomes have 

higher rates of food insecurity, with 

30.2% of British Columbians at the 

lowest income quintile, based on 

household size, experiencing moderate 

or severe food insecurity. 

Where can we improve? 

• Women are more likely to be food 

insecure than men. 

• Of the communities surveyed in the 

BC-HWS, the highest percentage of 

food insecure respondents was in 

Mission; 1 in 5 women in Mission 

were food insecure. 

• In Hope and New Westminster, 40% 

of those who were food insecure 

reported that they did not have 

anywhere to go for help. 

Limitations 

Data are limited to those communities 

selected to participate in the BC-HWS 

2006 pilot study and cannot be 

generalized beyond areas sampled. 

Data from the two surveys cannot be 

compared to one another as they ask 

different questions and have other 

methodological differences. 

52



Response 

Household Food Insecurity, 2007/08 

Percent of Respondents (95% Confidence Interval) 

Food secure 

Food insecure with 

moderate or severe hunger 

Fraser North 94.3% (92.5%-96.1%) 5.7% (3.9%-7.5%) 

Fraser South 94.2% (92.4%-96.0%) 5.8% (4.0%-7.6%) 

Fraser East 95.1% (93.4%-96.7%) 4.9% (3.3%-6.6%) 

BC 92.7% (92.1%-93.3%) 7.3% (6.7%-7.9%) 

Notes: The categories of food security are based on a method used by the United States Department of Agriculture. 

Detailed definitions can be found in the Health Canada report entitled ‘Income-Related Household Food Security in 

Canada’. 8 

Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2007/08. 

Percent of Male and Female Respondents 

Experiencing Food Insecurity* 

25% 

Males 

Females 

Percent of Respondents 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

7.2% 

18.2% 

19.9% 

16.6% 

14.6% 

10.8% 

10.1% 10.3% 10.2% 

9.1% 

5.3% 5.4% 

0% 

Hope Mission Port 

Moody 

South Surrey 

White Rock 

New 

Westminster 

BC 

*Note: Respondents indicating that they either lacked money to have enough food, quality or variety of foods to eat, 

or who worried there might not be enough food are counted herein as respondents experiencing food insecurity. 

Source: BC Stats (2006), Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, and the Provincial Health Services Authority, 'BC 

Health and Wellness Survey.' 

8 Health Canada, Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion Health Products and Food Branch (2007). Income-Related Household 

Food Security in Canada. Retrieved December 15, 2009 from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfbdgpsa/pdf/surveill/income_food_sec-sec_alim-eng.pdf. 

53

Food Insecurity, 2006 

HOPE 

Somewhere To 

Go** 

n = 30 

60% 

Food Secure 

n = 347 

87% 

Food Insecure* 

n = 50 

13% 

Nowhere To Go** 

n = 20 

40% 

Food Secure 

n = 341 

85% 

MISSION 


n = 58 

15% 

Somewhere To 

Go** 

n = 43 

74% 


n = 15 

26% 

Food Secure 

n = 385 

92% 

PORT MOODY 


n = 35 

8% 

Somewhere To 

Go** 

n = 30 

85% 


n = 5 

15% 

54

Food Insecurity, 2006 

SOUTH SURREY/WHITE ROCK 



Food Secure 

n = 377 

93% 


n = 30 

7% 

Somewhere To 

Go** 

n = 21 

70% 


n = 9 

30% 

NEW WESTMINSTER 

Food Secure 

n = 354 

87% 


n = 55 

13% 

Somewhere To 

Go** 

n = 33 

60% 


n = 22 

40% 

Notes: *Food insecure respondents indicated that they either lacked money to have enough food, quality or variety 

of foods to eat, or that they worried there might not be enough food. **Respondents reported whether or not 

they had somewhere to go if they were worried about not having enough food or having poor quality food. 

Source: BC Stats (2006), Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, and the Provincial Health Services Authority, 'BC 

Health and Wellness Survey.' 

55


Homeless people include those with no 

physical shelter (“street”), those in 

temporary emergency shelters, safe 

houses for youth, transition houses for 

women and their children (“sheltered”), 

or those temporarily staying somewhere 

where they do not pay rent (“hidden”). 

24-hour homeless counts are conducted 

periodically in Metro Vancouver and the 

Upper Fraser Valley; this section reports 

on counts done in 2008 and 2011 where 

available. 9,10 Metro Vancouver data for 

2011 was taken from the preliminary 

report as the final report was not ready 

at time of preparing this profile. As 

such, only total counts are shown and 

further analyses and discussion of the 

numbers of homeless people who are 

sheltered or unsheltered will appear in 

the 2012 Health Profile. 


People lose their homes because they 

cannot afford to keep them or because 

they do not have the supports that they 

need to carry them through financial 

downturn or an episode of mental illness 

or addiction. Because mental illness and 

addictions tend to be cyclical yet long- 

9 van Wyk, R., van Wyk, A., & Bullock, N. (2008). We need 

to get a home: Report on homelessness in the upper Fraser 

Valley, March 2008 survey. Abbotsford, BC: Upper Fraser 

Valley Homelessness Survey Steering Committee. 

van Wyk, A. & van Wyk, R. (2011). Homelessness in the 

Fraser Valley: Report on the 2011 Fraser Valley Regional 

District homelessness survey. 

10 Social Planning and Research Council of BC, Eberle 

Planning and Research, Jim Woodward and Associates Inc., 

Graves, J., Huhtala, K., Campbell, K., et al. (2008). Still on 

our streets...results of the 2008 Metro Vancouver homeless 

count. Vancouver, BC: Greater Vancouver Regional Steering 

Committee on Homelessness. 

Metro Vancouver Homeless Count 2011: Preliminary Report. 

Retrieved November 1, 2011 from 

www.metrovancouver.org/planning/homelessness. 

Homelessness 

term, people may have difficulty maintaining 

long-term employment. In 

addition, alternate funding sources, 

including rent banks where available, 

may not be adequate to allow for permanent 

housing. 

A person without a home faces an 

increased risk of illness and death and 

meets barriers to social, economic, and 

health services. 

A growing number of people are 

homeless for longer than a year. They 

use large amounts of health care and 

other public services. Permanent 

supportive housing is a cost-saving 

solution to chronic homelessness. 

• The most recent survey shows the 

number of people who are homeless 

appears to be dropping. 

• In 2011, 1,189 Fraser Health residents 

were counted as being homeless, 

roughly 40% of all homeless people 

counted across Metro Vancouver and 

the Fraser Valley Regional District. 

• In 2008, there were 2,660 street or 

sheltered homeless people in Metro 

Vancouver and an estimated 1,545 to 

16,846 hidden homeless. 10,11 

• The major change from 2008 to 2011 

was the increase in the proportion of 

homeless people who are in shelters 

rather than on the street (not shown). 

• As of March 31, 2009, Fraser Health 

Mental Health and Substance Use had 

880 supported housing units and 600 

licensed residential beds, typically with 

11 Eberle, M., et al. (2009). Results of the pilot study to 

estimate the size of the hidden homeless population in 

Metro Vancouver. Retrieved November 4, 2010 from: 

http://intraspec.ca/HiddenHomelessreportjun102009.pdf. 

56



lengthy waitlists. There are also 194 

year-round shelter beds and 213 

extreme weather mats. 

Limitations 

Homeless counts are 24-hour snapshots 

capturing only those met during this 

time and likely underestimate the 

number of people who are homeless. 

Based on preliminary data, Metro 

Vancouver data may change with the 

final report. 

Homeless People in Fraser Health 

1,500 

2002 2004/2005 2008 2011 

1,364 

1,250 

1,189 

1,095 

1,000 

# Homeless 

750 

500 

394 

346 

461 

505 

498 

411 

465 

345 

250 

172 

223 

200 

0 

Fraser North Fraser South Fraser East Fraser Health 

Sources: Metro Vancouver Homeless Counts, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 (preliminary report); Upper Fraser Valley 

Homelessness Surveys, 2004, 2008, and 2011. 

57

Number and Percentage of Homeless by Age Group, 2008 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

≤24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Unknown 

% of All Ages 13.0% 16.7% 26.7% 23.7% 6.8% 1.2% 11.9% 

Upper Fraser Valley 43 86 109 79 31 5 112 

Metro Vancouver 364 436 726 661 180 32 261 

Total 407 522 835 740 211 37 373 

Note: Metro Vancouver includes Vancouver and municipalities in Fraser Health (Burnaby, Delta, White Rock, the 

Langleys, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Pitt Meadows, Surrey, and the Tri-Cities). The upper Fraser Valley 

includes regions in Fraser East (Abbotsford, Mission, Chilliwack, Agassiz/Harrison, Hope, and Boston Bar). 

Sources: Metro Vancouver Homeless Count, Upper Fraser Valley Homelessness Survey, 2008. 

Number and Percentage of Homeless by Gender, 2008 

Gender 

Upper 

Fraser Valley 

Metro 

Vancouver 

Total 

Percentage 

Female 142 619 761 24.4% 

Male 292 1,679 1,971 63.1% 

Transgendered 0 22 22 0.7% 

Unknown 31 340 371 11.9% 

Total 465 2,660 3,125 100.0% 

Sources: Metro Vancouver Homeless Count, Upper Fraser Valley Homelessness Survey, 2008. 

58



Number and Percentage of Homeless by 

Type of Health Condition*, 2008 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

Medical condition/ 

Physical disability 

Mental illness Addiction Other 

% of All Respondents 74.0% 32.1% 61.3% 0.4% 

Upper Fraser Valley 109 69 150 11 

Metro Vancouver 1,722 725 1,365 

Total 1,831 794 1,515 11 

Note: * A respondent may have more than one health condition, so percentages do not sum up to 100%. 

Number and Percentage of Homeless by 

Length of Time of Homelessness, 2008 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 


Two major categories of serious crime 

are reported herein: 1) violent crimes 

(homicide, attempted murder, sexual 

and non-sexual assault, and robbery) 

and 2) property crimes (break-and-enter 

only). The total serious crime rate 

includes only violent and property crime 

as described above. Other crimes, such 

as prostitution, mischief, gaming, motor 

vehicle theft, etc. are not included. 

Similarly, the two categories exclude 

offences under federal statutes (e.g., 

drug offences) or provincial statutes 

(e.g., Securities Act, Liquor Control and 

Licensing Act). Criminal Code traffic 

offences, provincial and municipal traffic 

offences and violations, and other bylaw 

infractions are also excluded. 

The crime rate is the number of criminal 

code offences per 1,000 people based 

on the number of crimes reported within 

each jurisdiction. 

Geographic variation in crime rates may 

reflect differences in policing policies 

and practices between jurisdictions and 

also victim willingness to report crimes. 

A high crime rate often indicates a core 

area, where business and entertainment 

centres serve a large number of people, 

including people from other areas. 


Crime can affect health and well-being 

in a number of ways. Violent crimes 

directly impact health, whereas overall 

crime can indirectly impact health by 

increasing stress and anxiety, lowering 

the sense of community belonging, and 

limiting outdoor physical activity due to 

safety concerns. 

Serious Crime Rates 

• The overall crime rate is declining in 

BC; 12 in Fraser Health, the total and 

property crime rates have declined, 

but violent crimes increased. 

• Property crime is highest in Hope and 

Chilliwack, but violent crime is highest 

in New Westminster and Surrey. 

Limitations 

Unreported offences are not included 

and can be significant for certain types 

(e.g., property crime, sexual assault). 

Serious Crimes in BC Health Authorities, by Type 

per 1,000 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 


Violent Crime 3.78 2.75 3.93 2.35 4.63 3.46 

Property Crime 9.70 7.75 8.71 7.70 9.67 8.82 

Total Serious Crime 13.48 10.50 12.64 10.04 14.30 12.28 

% Change 

Rates per 1,000 People, 2007-2009 Average 

% Change in Crime Rates Between 2004-2006 & 2007-2009 

20% 

10% 

0% 

-10% 

-20% 

-30% 

-40% 


Violent Crime 12.0% 16.2% -7.2% 0.2% 3.8% 4.1% 

Property Crime -21.3% -30.4% -29.9% -24.3% -24.5% -25.6% 

Total Serious Crime -14.2% -22.2% -24.1% -19.7% -17.2% -19.1% 

Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics 

Canada, and BC Stats; as reported in BC Stats’ Socioeconomic 

Profiles: Retrieved September 1, 2011 from: 

www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/sep/choose.asp 

12 Province of British Columbia (2011). Crime statistics in 

British Columbia 2009. Retrieved November 2, 2011 from: 

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_services/publications/. 

60

7.6 

8.9 

13.7 

13.0 

14.6 

14.6 

14.4 

15.5 

14.8 

14.8 



Serious Crime Rates per 1,000 People, by Type of Crime, 

2007-2009 Average 

Hope 

Chilliwack 


Surrey 

Mission 

Langley 

Maple Ridge 

Burnaby 

Abbotsford 


Coquitlam 

Delta 

2.4 

2.0 

3.1 

3.6 

4.0 

3.7 

3.2 

4.0 

4.2 

4.8 

5.5 

5.0 

5.6 

6.6 

8.8 

10.0 

9.7 

10.8 

10.9 

10.4 

10.4 

11.6 

14.1 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 

per 1,000 People 

17.7 

22.4 

27.2 

Total Serious Crime 

Property Crime 

Violent Crime 

Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada, and BC Stats; as reported in BC Stats’ Socioeconomic 

Profiles: Retrieved September 1, 2011 from: www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/sep/choose.asp 

61

HEALTHY CHILD DEVELOPMENT 


Low birth-weight rate measures the 

number of live infants weighing less 

than 2,500 grams at birth per 1,000 live 

infants born each year. 


Low birth-weight is linked to infant 

mortality, physical disability, and longterm 

health problems, including heart 

disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory 

problems, difficulty learning, poor vision, 

and cerebral palsy. 13 

The main reasons for low birth-weight 

are premature birth (before 37 th week), 

stunted growth for gestational age, or 

both. Low birth-weight is more likely 

with multiple pregnancies, which are 

more common in women treated for 

infertility. Infection, genetics, human 

physiology, physical and social environments, 

nutrition and lifestyle, together 

with health service utilization, can also 

influence birth-weight. Low birth-weight 

is associated with smoking, poor diet 

during pregnancy, alcohol and/or drug 

abuse, low levels of vitamin D, 

preeclampsia, poverty, low education, 

and very young and older mothers. 

• Rates of low birth-weight infants in BC 

have been increasing steadily since 

1999-2003, with consistently higher 

rates in Fraser Health than BC overall. 

Low Birth-Weight Rate 

per 1,000 Live Births 


80 

60 

40 

20 

60 

55 

50 

45 

0 

• In Fraser Health, women ages 40 and 

older have the highest rate of low 

birth-weight infants, more than double 

that of women age 20 to 34-years. 

Limitations 

Data do not identify the cause of low 

birth-weight. The mother’s age affects 

low birth weight, and rates across LHAs 

were not adjusted for the age structure 

of the female population within the LHA. 

58.6 

Low Birth-Weight Rate, 2005-2009 

53.0 

57.6 

51.8 

48.9 


53.5 53.2 53.1 

50.8 50.6 

Low Birth-Weight Rates 

50.2 50.2 

52.0 51.8 


50.8 

53.7 

52.5 

54.9 

53.5 

BC 

56.2 

54.7 

57.7 

58.8 

55.8 

58.6 

55.6 55.9 55.8 

13 BC Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2006). 

Indicators of early childhood health and well-being in British 

Columbia, third report. Retrieved September 2, 2011 from 

http://www.cf.gov.bc.ca/early_childhood/pdf/early_indicator 

s_third_report.pdf 

40 

1995- 

99 

1996- 

00 

1997- 

01 

1998- 

02 

1999- 

03 

2000- 

04 

2001- 

05 

2002- 

06 

Source: VISTA Database, BC Vital Statistics Agency, 

Ministry of Health Services. 

2003- 

07 

2004- 

08 

2005- 

09 

62



Low Birth-Weight Rates, by LHA, 2005-2009 


Surrey 


Coquitlam 


Delta 


Burnaby 

Maple Ridge 

BC 

Langley 

Abbotsford 

Chilliwack 

Hope 

Mission 

68.2 

65.1 

62.7 

60.3 

59.3 

58.6 

58.6 

57.0 

56.7 

55.8 

52.7 

51.0 

49.5 

49.2 

49.1 

0 20 40 60 

80 


Low Birth-Weight Rates by Age of Mother, 2005-2009 

160 

140 

120 


100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45+ 

Fraser Health 62.2 53.6 53.2 55.4 69.1 95.1 128.7 

BC 53.7 51.7 51.8 53.0 62.5 87.6 142.3 

Source: VISTA Database, BC Vital Statistics Agency, Ministry of Health Services. 

63

Breastfeeding 


Breastfeeding data are derived from two 

sources: the BC Perinatal Database 

Registry and the Canadian Community 

Health Survey (CCHS). 

The BC Perinatal Database Registry is a 

province-wide database that collects 

data on health outcomes, processes of 

care, and resources for maternal, fetal, 

and newborn care. 14 Rates of exclusive 

breastfeeding (that is no other food or 

liquid, not even water, is given to the 

newborn) and partial breastfeeding 

(both breast milk and other supplements 

given to the newborn) among newborns 

discharged from Fraser Health hospitals. 

Data from the CCHS reports the selfreported 

duration of exclusive breastfeeding 

by mothers between the ages of 

15 and 55 years who had a child during 

the five years preceding the survey 

year. Women who were breastfeeding 

at the time of the survey were excluded. 


Breastfeeding is both the natural and 

the most environmentally friendly way 

to feed human babies from birth to two 

years of age and beyond. Research has 

shown that babies who do not receive 

human breast milk and mothers who do 

not breastfeed are at increased risk of 

health problems. Babies who do not 

receive human breast milk are at higher 

risk of infectious diseases, sudden infant 

death, asthma, insulin-dependent (type 

14 BC Perinatal Database Registry. 

http://www.bcphp.ca/Perinatal%20Database%20Registry.ht 

m 

1) diabetes, leukemia, lymphoma, and 

obesity. 15 Mothers who do not 

breastfeed are at increased risk of 

postpartum depression and, in later 

years, of type 2 diabetes and breast and 

ovarian cancers. 16 


• Overall exclusive breastfeeding rates 

at discharge have not improved in 

Fraser Health hospitals since 2006/07. 

• Mothers who live in Burnaby have the 

lowest exclusive breastfeeding rates 

among all Fraser Health LHAs in 

2010/11. 

Limitations 

Exclusive breastfeeding at discharge 

rates are for the number of babies, not 

mothers, and do not include babies 

delivered unexpectedly at the four (of 

twelve) Fraser Health hospitals without 

maternity wards. Data for 2010/11 may 

not be complete. Different Fraser Health 

hospitals may use different guidelines 

for coding type of infant feeding. CCHS 

duration of breastfeeding data is selfreported 

and not comparable to BC 

Perinatal Database Registry data. 

15 Bartick M, Reinhold A. The burden of suboptimal 

breastfeeding in the United States: a pediatric cost analysis. 

Pediatrics. 2010 May;125(5):e1048-56. 

16 Ip S, Chung M, Raman G, Trikalinos TA, Lau J. A summary 

of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's 

evidence report on breastfeeding in developed 

countries. Breastfeed Med. 2009 Oct;4 Suppl 1:S17-30. 

64



100% 

75% 

Newborn Exclusive Breastfeeding Rate* at Discharge, 

Fraser Health Hospitals, 2006/07 to 2010/11 

50% 

25% 

0% 

ARH/ 

MSA 

BH CGH LMH PAH RCH RMH SMH Total 

2006/07 59% 57% 71% 69% 75% 72% 76% 61% 66% 

2007/08 63% 67% 73% 50% 71% 68% 70% 60% 64% 

2008/09 61% 71% 77% 58% 68% 65% 79% 62% 65% 

2009/10 61% 63% 79% 68% 70% 65% 78% 66% 67% 

2010/11 65% 52% 68% 70% 73% 65% 75% 60% 64% 

*Percent of newborns at Fraser Health hospitals, including non-Fraser Health residents who were exclusively 

breastfeeding at discharge. 

Note: ARH=Abbotsford Regional Hospital, BH=Burnaby Hospital, CGH=Chilliwack General Hospital, 

LMH=Langley Memorial Hospital, PAH=Peace Arch Hospital, RCH=Royal Columbia Hospital, RMH=Ridge 

Meadows Hospital, SMH=Surrey Memorial Hospital. 

Newborn Feeding at Discharge, by Mother's LHA of Residence, 

2010/11 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Abb 

Ag/ 

Har 

Bby Chwk Coq Dlta Hope Lngly Mpl 

Rdg Mssn N. 

West 

Formula 47 ≤5 5 35 48 34 21 ≤5 5 62 29 20 8 206 ≤5 0 

Partial Breastmilk 569 17 585 243 529 132 17 323 213 113 185 1,745 34 

Excl Breastmilk 1,038 64 778 657 1,126 274 37 924 624 293 335 3,064 77 

Srry 

W. 

Rock 

Note : Data include newborns to Fraser Health residents discharged from Fraser Health sites. Residence code 

and postal code were used to determine LHA of residence. 

Source: BC Perinatal Database Registry. 

65

Newborn Feeding at Discharge by Age of Mother, 

Fraser Health, 2010/11 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

14-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35+ All 14+ 

Formula 18 72 149 167 138 544 

Partial Breastmilk 85 512 1,309 1,716 1,237 4,859 

Excl Breastmilk 165 1,101 2,799 3,362 2,044 9,471 

Note : Data include newborns to Fraser Health residents discharged from Fraser Health sites. Residence 

code and postal code were used to determine LHA of residence. 

Source: BC Perinatal Database Registry. 

100% 

Exclusive Breastfeeding for At Least 4 Months 

Among Mothers Aged 15 to 55 in Past 5 Years, 2005 

64.9% 

65.3% 

75% 

54.2% 

59.5% 

50.4% 

60.6% 

50% 

25% 

0% 


Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Surveys, 2005. 

66




67


Children in Government Care represents 

children and youth (ages up to and 

including 18 years old) who are in the 

care of provincial child care authorities, 

including all cases from the Ministry of 

Children and Family Development, from 

Delegated Aboriginal Agencies, and from 

Community Living BC. The majority of 

these children are from disadvantaged 

or single parent families. Children with 

Aboriginal ancestry are greatly overrepresented. 


The rate of children in government care 

is an important indicator of children's 

risk and vulnerability associated with 

social, economic, and behavioural 

factors. Children in care are more 

prone to poor health and life 

outcomes, including mental disorders, 

intentional and unintentional injuries, 

riskier sexual practices occurring at 

younger ages, and poor educational 

attainment. 17 

• Fraser Health overall had the second 

lowest rate of children in government 

care in BC. With 7.7 children 

per 1,000 18-years or younger, 

Vancouver Coastal Health had the 

lowest rate. 

• Among Fraser Health LHAs, Hope and 

Agassiz/Harrison have the highest 

rates of children in government care. 

Children in Government Care 

per 1,000 children age ≤18 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

• Approximately one in every ten (9.4%) 

Aboriginal children in Fraser Health were 

in government care compared to 0.5% 

of non-Aboriginal children in the region. 

Among the five health authorities in BC, 

Fraser Health had both the highest 

proportion and the largest number 

(2,931) of Aboriginal children in care. 

Limitations 

The rate of children in government care, 

as shown here, is a snapshot or a point 

estimate for a particular time in the year 

(in this case, December 2010). Therefore, 

the rate of children in government care 

for other periods may vary throughout the 

year. Interpret rates for LHAs with small 

population counts, such as Hope and 

Agassiz/Harrison, with caution. 

7.7 

Children in Government Care (Age ≤18), 

December 2010 

12.6 

5.3 

13.4 13.6 


Source: Ministry of Children and Family Development; as 

reported in BC Stats’ Socioeconomic Profiles: Retrieved 

September 1, 2011 from: 

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/sep/choose.asp 

9.2 

17 Provincial Health Officer’s Annual Report 2006. An Ounce of 

Prevention: A review of health promotion and selected 

outcomes for children and youth in BC schools. Retrieved April 

4, 2007, from: 

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pho/pdf/phoannual2006.pdf 

68



Children in Government Care (Age ≤18), by LHA 

December 2010 

Hope 


Mission 

Chilliwack 

Abbotsford 

BC 

Langley 

Maple Ridge 


Surrey 

Delta 


Coquitlam 


Burnaby 

5.0 

4.5 

4.2 

4.0 

6.9 

6.0 

8.4 

7.7 

9.2 

8.8 

10.4 

16.5 

16.2 

26.5 

38.0 

0 10 20 30 40 

per 1,000 children age ≤18 

50 

Source: Ministry of Children and Family Development; as reported in BC Stats’ Socioeconomic Profiles. Retrieved 

September 1, 2011 from: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/sep/choose.asp 

15% 

Children in Care as Percent of Population Aged ≤18, 

as of January 31, 2009 

Status Indians 

Other Residents 

10.8% 

10% 

9.1% 

8.2% 

9.4% 

6.5% 

5% 

0.8% 

0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 

0% 

Fraser East Fraser South Fraser North FHA BC 

Source: British Columbia. Provincial Health Officer’s Annual Report 2007. 18 

18 British Columbia. Provincial Health Officer. 2009. Pathways to Health and Healing: 2nd Report on the Health and Well-being of 

Aboriginal People in British Columbia. Provincial Health Officer's Annual Report 2007. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Healthy Living and 

Sport. 

69

Early Childhood Development 


The Early Development Instrument 

(EDI) is a tool used by the Human Early 

Learning Partnership (HELP) 19 to 

measure kindergarten children’s state of 

development in neighbourhoods across 

the province. HELP is an organization of 

academic, government, and community 

partners in British Columbia that aims to 

understand early child development. 

The EDI includes five areas or domains 

of development: physical health and 

well-being; social competence; emotional 

maturity; language and cognitive 

development; and communication skills 

and general knowledge. Each child is 

scored from 0 to 10 on each domain; 

children with scores in the lowest 10% 

are considered vulnerable. Data has 

been collected through four cycles each 

spanning more than one school year: 

Wave 1 (2001/02 to 2003/04), Wave 2 

(2004/05 to 2006/07), Wave 3 (2007/08 

to 2008/09), and Wave 4 (2009/10 to 

2010/11). 

The EDI is not used to label or identify 

individual children. Rather, it provides 

population-level data on the number 

and proportion of children within a given 

geographic area who are vulnerable and 

in what aspects of their development 

they are vulnerable. 


Research shows that early childhood 

experiences have life-long effects on 

health, social, and emotional well-being. 

Social, familial, economic, school, neigh- 

bourhood, and policy environments can 

affect early child development both 

independent of and in combination with 

biological characteristics. 

• Six of Fraser Health’s 13 LHAs had 

more than 30% of kindergarteners 

who were vulnerable on at least one 

domain of development, with South 

Surrey/White Rock having the lowest 

proportion of vulnerable children. 

• South Surrey/White Rock has the 

smallest proportion of kindergarteners 

who are vulnerable on all five EDI 

domains (data not shown). 

• Hope had the highest proportions of 

kindergarten children vulnerable on 

the domains of physical health and 

well-being (27%), social competence 

(22%), and communication skills 

(17%) (data not shown). 

• Five LHAs (Burnaby, Hope, Mission, 

and New Westminster,) had at least 

15% of children vulnerable on 

communication skills (data not 

shown). 

Limitations 

School district participation is voluntary, 

so not all schools are included. 

Kindergarteners who are home schooled 

or learning through distance education 

programs are not included in this data. 

EDI scores are based on kindergarten 

teachers’ observation of each child over 

several months. 

19 Human Early Learning Partnership. Retrieved September 

20, 2011, from: http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/ 

70

Kindergarten Children Vulnerable on 

at Least One Scale of the EDI, 2010/11 



Hope 

Mission 

Chilliwack 

Surrey 

Coquitlam 

Burnaby 

BC 

Langley 


Delta 

Maple Ridge 



Abbotsford 

§ 

19% 

35% 

34% 

34% 

33% 

32% 

31% 

29% 

28% 

27% 

25% 

23% 

43% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

Note: § Suppressed because there were fewer than 35 EDI children. 

% of Kindergarteners 

Kindergarten Children Vulnerable on at Least One Scale of the EDI 

LHA Wave 1* Wave 2* Wave 3* Wave 4* 

Burnaby 33% 33% 32% 32% 

New Westminster 33% 30% 24% 28% 

Coquitlam 20% 23% 27% 33% 

Maple Ridge 24% 25% 25% 25% 

Delta 22% 30% 27% 27% 

Langley 20% 23% 25% 29% 

Surrey 28% 32% 30% 34% 

South Surrey/White Rock 16% 19% 17% 19% 

Abbotsford 27% 34% 28% § 

Mission 32% 29% 35% 35% 

Chilliwack 28% 36% 33% 34% 

Hope 36% 43% 40% 43% 

Agassiz/Harrison 28% 22% 29% 23% 

BC n/a n/a 29% 31% 

Notes: n/a: not available. *Wave 1 includes 2001/02, 2002/03, 2003/04; Wave 2 includes 2004/05, 2005/06, 

2006/07; Wave 3 includes 2007/08, 2008/09 data where available; Wave 4 includes 2009/10 and 2010/11. 

§ Suppressed because there were fewer than 35 EDI children. 

Source: Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP), as posted September 19, 2011. 

71

Grades 4 and 7 Foundation Skills Assessment 


The Foundation Skills Assessment (FSA) 

is an annual, province-wide assessment 

of academic skills among students in 

Grades 4 and 7; it provides a snapshot 

of how well BC students are learning 

foundation skills in reading, writing, and 

math. 20 

This indicator reports the percentage of 

students in Grades 4 and 7 that meet 

provincial performance standards for 

each of the foundation skills; the 

performance standards are posted on 

the BC Ministry of Education website. 20 


There is a strong correlation between 

FSA scores and eventual school 

completion. Schooling is linked to 

income, with those with less education 

being more likely to have lower 

incomes. A lack of education and 

poverty are both associated with 

unhealthy lifestyles and poor well-being. 

• In all three categories, Fraser Health 

students had comparable results to 

overall results for BC. 

• A larger percentage of students in 

Vancouver Coastal Health are meeting 

standards in FSA scores in all skills 

compared to students in Fraser Health. 

• Hope, Agassiz/Harrison, and Surrey 

LHAs have the lowest percentages of 

students meeting the standards. 

Percent of Students 



Limitations 

The FSA is only one measure of student 

performance. 

Students Meeting Standard on Foundation Skills Assessment 

Reading Tests, 2007/08 to 2009/10 Average 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 


Grade 4 80.8% 81.3% 85.6% 80.9% 74.4% 81.3% 

Grade 7 77.6% 75.8% 83.7% 75.3% 70.5% 77.6% 


Writing Tests, 2007/08 to 2009/10 Average 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 


Grade 4 83.8% 78.6% 86.3% 77.9% 74.0% 81.7% 

Grade 7 83.9% 80.1% 88.2% 77.5% 74.8% 82.4% 


Math Tests, 2007/08 to 2009/10 Average 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

20 BC Ministry of Education. Foundation Skills Assessment. 

Retrieved September 6, 2011 from 

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/assessment/fsa/ 

0% 


Grade 4 77.3% 76.6% 82.9% 75.8% 66.3% 77.2% 

Grade 7 78.2% 70.0% 86.3% 70.5% 62.7% 76.0% 

Source: BC Ministry of Education; compiled and provided by 

BC Stats. 

72



Percentage of Students Meeting Standards on 

Foundation Skills Assessment, by Local Health Area, 

2007/08 to 2009/10 Average 

Local Health Area 

Reading Writing Math 

Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 4 Grade 7 

Burnaby 81.2% 82.3% 84.2% 87.9% 82.6% 86.3% 

New Westminster 81.1% 74.9% 81.7% 87.1% 79.9% 75.8% 

Coquitlam 83.1% 77.6% 85.6% 86.5% 80.9% 78.7% 

Maple Ridge 78.1% 73.4% 79.8% 81.3% 71.5% 71.5% 

Delta 84.7% 82.4% 87.6% 88.3% 80.5% 82.6% 

Langley 83.8% 80.9% 85.3% 81.9% 80.5% 80.5% 

Surrey 75.1% 73.7% 80.9% 80.6% 69.8% 75.3% 

South Surrey/White Rock 85.6% 85.8% 85.4% 85.8% 84.3% 85.6% 

Abbotsford 85.7% 79.8% 86.9% 87.8% 84.1% 81.8% 

Mission 77.2% 77.9% 79.6% 79.7% 72.4% 73.6% 

Chilliwack 85.4% 73.6% 88.8% 81.5% 80.5% 68.5% 

Hope 77.5% 63.6% 66.8% 71.1% 61.3% 51.7% 

Agassiz/Harrison 78.0% 59.2% 73.9% 68.3% 64.5% 63.3% 

Fraser Health 80.8% 77.6% 83.8% 83.9% 77.3% 78.2% 

BC Total 81.3% 77.6% 81.7% 82.4% 77.2% 76.0% 

Source: BC Ministry of Education; compiled and provided by BC Stats in Socio-Economic Profiles. Retrieved 

September 6, 2011 from http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/sep/choose.asp 

73

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Motor Vehicle Use 

Definition 

Mo tor vehicle use is estimated using 

proxy indicators. The first reports the 

number of licensed passenger vehicles 

with active registration in e ach area and 

the numbe r of vehicles per person. The 

percentage change in numbers 

of 

license d passenger vehicles with active 

registrati ons from 2006 to 2010 as of 

December 31 of each year is compared 

to the percentage change in the number 

of people living in the area. 

The second indicator reports the modes 

of transportation used to travel to work 

and location of workplace, as measured 

in the Census surveys. Mode of trans- 

portation is shown as the percent 

of 

persons traveling to work by 1) motor 

vehicles ( car, van, or truck), 2) public 

transport, 3) bicycle or walking, and 4) 

other. The location of workplace is a 

proxy for the percentage of persons 

who need to commute to work. 


High use of motor vehicles in an area 

affects health by worsening air quality 

and increasing traffic injuries. Time 

spent in vehicles reduces opportunities 

for healthy activities such as physical 

exercise and spending time with the 

family and community. 

• Only about 1 in 4 people in Fraser 

Health take transit, bike/walk, or 

carpool to work. 

• Chilliwack and Abbotsford LHAs in 

Fraser East have high proportions of 

residents driving to work, despite 

having som e of the largest proportions 

of reside nts who w ork within their own 

municip ality. In contrast, New 

Westminster 

LHA has the largest proportion 

of residents working outside their 

municip ality, but a lso has the largest 

proportion of residents taking 

public 

transit. 

Limitatio 

ns 

These indicators do not measure the 

availability of public transit or walkability 

of neighbo urhoods. Modes of transportation 

data are not available at the 

Fraser Health level. The number of 

commercial vehicles is not included in 

counts. Some vehicles emit more air 

pollutants than others do. 

The number of licensed vehicles is only 

a proxy for actual usage. It does not 

measure usage patterns such as trip 

duration or distance, trip frequency, or 

number of occupants. 

• Langley has the highest ratio of 

vehicles per population, but Port 

Moody has the largest percentage 

increase in population and number of 

vehicles between 2006 and 2010. 

74



Number of Licensed Passenger Vehicles, 2010 

City 

# Vehicles # Vehicles per person 

Langley 66,320 0.63 

Hope 3,850 0.61 

White Rock 10,960 0.57 

Delta 51,370 0.51 

Chilliwack 39,140 0.50 

Port Moody 16,960 0.50 

Port Coquitlam 27,930 0.49 

Coquitlam 60,980 0.48 

Pitt Meadows 8,730 0.48 

Maple Ridge 36,150 0.47 

Surrey 209,700 0.45 

Mission 17,000 0.45 

Abbotsford 61,300 0.44 

Burnaby 100,060 0.44 

New Westminster 28,210 0.42 

Fraser Health* 738,660 0.48 

BC 2,065,000 0.46 

Note: * Fraser Health total is a sum of passenger vehicles licensed in all municipalities listed. 

25% 

Percentage Change in Licensed Passenger Vehicles 

and Total Population from 2006 to 2010 

20% 

Percent Change 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

Lngly Hope 

W. 

Rock Dlta Chwk Pt 

Mdy 

Pt 

Coq 

# Vehicles 7.9% 1.3% 3.3% 1.7% 10.3%16.1% 5.2% 6.2% 11.6% 7.5% 11.6% 4.7% 7.2% 6.5% 10.9% 8.2% 6.0% 

Total Population 8.2% 1.3% 1.9% 0.5% 9.4% 18.0% 5.3% 

Coq 

Pitt 

Mead 

Mpl 

Rdg 

Srry Mssn Abby Bby 

New 

West 

FH* 

5.9% 11. 3% 6.9% 12.0% 5.1% 6.8% 8.0% 10.5% 8.4% 6.8% 

* Fraser Health total is a sum of passenger vehicles licensed in all municipalities listed; data for Agassiz and Boston Bar is not available. 

Source: Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2010; Population data from BC Stats, Service BC, BC Ministry of 

Labour and Citizens' Services, P.E.O.P.L.E. 36 Projections. 

BC 

75

Mode of Transportation to Work, Fraser Health, 2006 

Car, truck, van 

(as driver) , 

75.5% 

Car, truck, van 

(as passenger), 

7. 8% 

Public transit, 

11.3% 

W alk or bicycle, 

4.3% 

Motorcycle, taxi, 

other, 1. 1% 

Source: Statistic Canada, Census 2006. 

100% 

Location of Workplace, Fraser Health 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Municpality of 

residence 

Different 

municipality 

At home 

Outside 

Canada 

No fixed 

workplace 

1996 27.1% 53.3% 7.9% 0.5% 11.2% 

2001 27.6% 52.2% 8.0% 0.6% 11.6% 

2006 28.2% 49.5% 7.7% 0.7% 13.9% 

Source: Statistic Canada, Census 1996, 2001, 2006. 

76



Mode of Transportation to Work, 2006 

100% 

75% 


50% 

25% 

0% 

Bby 

New 

West 

Coq 

Mpl 

Rdg Delta Lngly Sry SS/ 

WR 

Abb Mssn Chwk 

Ag/ 

Har 

Hope FH BC 

Motorcycle, taxi, other 0.9% 1.1% 0.9% 1.3% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.4% 1.1% 1.4% 1.1% 1.2% 0.3% 1.1% 1.5% 

Walk or bicycle 5.3% 7.0% 4.1% 3.9% 4.3% 4.6% 2.9% 4.9% 4.2% 3.1% 5.7% 10.5%12.1% 4.3% 8.9% 

Public transit 25.0%26.7%12.9% 7.9% 9.1% 3.5% 11.5% 6.9% 1.4% 2.9% 1.1% 0.8% 0.8% 11.3%10.3% 

Car, truck, van (as passenger) 5.9% 4.9% 7.4% 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 9.3% 5.7% 10.7% 7.6% 9.2% 6.9% 9.9% 7.8% 7.7% 

Car, truck, van (as driver) 62.8%60.3%74.7%79.7%78.0%83.5%75.2%81.1%82.7%85.0%82.8%80.8%76.8%75.5%71.6% 

100% 

Location of Workplace, 2006 


75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Bby 

New 

West 

Coq 

Mpl 

Rdg Delta Lngly Sry SS/ 

WR Abb Mssn Chwk Hope Ag/ 

Har 

No fixed workplace 11.3% 12.6% 11.7% 13.9% 13.5% 14.0% 16.1% 12.4% 15.6% 18.4% 14.8% 16.5% 12.7% 13.9% 13.1% 

Outside Canada 1.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 0.6% 1.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.7% 0.7% 

At home 6.9% 5.2% 7.3% 7.2% 8.5% 9.9% 5.6% 12.6% 9.1% 8.6% 10.0% 8.3% 14.8% 7.7% 9.0% 

Different municipality 52.2% 66.7% 63.2% 53.8% 53.8% 52.6% 46.0% 46.8% 28.3% 48.5% 28.3% 27.4% 44.6% 49.5% 39.6% 

Municpality of residence 28.2% 15.0% 17.1% 24.7% 23.5% 23.0% 31.6% 27.0% 46.4% 24.2% 46.5% 47.4% 27.7% 28.2% 37.6% 

Source: Statistic Canada, Census 2006. 

FH 

BC 

77

Exposure to Second-hand Smoke 


Second-hand smoke or environmental 

tobacco smoke is composed of the 

smoke exhaled by a smoker and the 

smoke released from the burning end of 

a cigarette, pipe or cigar. This indicator 

reports the percent of people 12 years 

and older who reported exposure to 

second-hand smoke on the Canadian 

Community Health Survey (CCHS). Since 

2007, data for the CCHS are collected 

yearly instead of every two years, with 

half the number of respondents. Data 

was combined for two years to obtain 

estimates that are more reliable. In the 

graphs, columns represent point 

estimates and whisker lines represent 

the 95% confidence intervals. 


Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 

chemicals, 50 of which are associated 

with or are known to cause cancer. 

Smokers inhale about one-third of the 

smoke from a burning cigarette. The 

remaining smoke contaminates the 

surrounding environment to be inhaled 

by anyone in that area. 

Scientific evidence from the last 30 

years shows that people repeatedly 

exposed to second-hand smoke are 

more likely to develop and die from 

heart problems, lung cancer, and 

breathing problems. Second-hand 

smoke can also cause chest and/or ear 

infections, excessive coughing, and 

throat irritation. 

Pregnant women, fetuses, and young 

children can experience additional 

effects of second-hand smoke such as 

pregnancy complications, low 

birth- 

weight, reduced lung development, 

increased risk of sudden infant death 

syndrome (SIDS), ear infections, and 

increased severity of asthma and other 

respiratory illnesses. Children of 

smokers are twice as likely to smoke. 

Tobacco smoke can present problems 

both indoors and outdoors. Most 

Canadians spend more time indoors 

than outdoors: in homes, workplaces, 

cars, and other public places such as 

restaurants, schools, shopping malls and 

arenas. Tobacco smoke is a serious 

contaminant of indoor air. 

Outdoors, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency estimates that the risk of 

developing cancer from exposure to 

second-hand smoke is about 57 times 

greater than the combined risk posed by 

all outdoor air contaminants regulated 

under U.S. environmental law. 21 

• Although exposure to second-hand 

smoke in the home has declined in 

recent years, exposure in public places 

remains prevalent, with about 129,000 

in Fraser Health exposed in 2009/10. 

• The proportion of those aged 12 to 19 

who are exposed to second-hand 

smoke has dropped in all three 

settings (the home, public places, and 

vehicles) 

• People 34 and younger are more likely 

to be exposed to second-hand smoke, 

especially in public places. 

Limitations 

Self-report methods are known to 

underestimate socially undesirable 

behaviours like smoking. 

21 Cunningham, Rob. Smoke & Mirrors - The Canadian 

Tobacco War. Ottawa: International Development Research 

Centre, 1996. 

78



20% 

Non-Smokers (Age 12+) Exposed to 

Second-hand Smoke, by Location, 2009/10 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

Home 

Public Places 

Vehicle 

Fraser North 3.3% 13.2% 5.7% 

Fraser South 3.1% 9.2% 3.0% 

Fraser East 5.0% 11.9% 6.6% 

BC 3.2% 

11.5% 5.2% 

Use with caution, estimates are less reliable due to small sample sizes 

Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey, 2009/10. 

Non-Smokers Exposed to Second-Hand Smoke, 

25% 

by Age and Location, British Columbia, 2009/10 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

Home Public Places Vehicle 

12 to 19 years 8.1% 17.4% 10.7 

20 to 34 years 3.2% 16.3% 7.8 

35 to 44 years 2.0% 11.1% 4.7 

45 to 64 years 2.9% 9.6% 3.7 

65 years and over 1.4% 5.4% 1.5 


Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey, 2003, 2005, 2007/08 and 2009/10. 

Note: Bars represent point estimates; whisker lines represent 

95% confidence intervals. 

79

15% 


Second-hand Smoke in Home, 2003 to 2009/10 

12% 

9% 

6% 

3% 

0% 

Fraser North Fraser South Fraser East BC 

2003 5.6% 5.0% 5.6% 5.6% 

2005 4.0% 4.5% 6.1% 4.8% 

2007/08 4.0% 3.2% 3.8% 4.0% 

2009/10 3.3% 3.1% 5.0% 3.2% 

Use with caution, estimates for HSDAs are less reliable due to small sample sizes. 


Second-hand Smoke in Public Places, 2003 to 2009/10 

20% 

16% 

12% 

8% 

4% 

0% 


2003 11.9% 11.6% 12.8% 12.3% 

2005 10.9% 13.8% 10.3% 10.5% 

2007/08 12.5% 8.5% 8.4% 10.9% 

2009/10 13.2% 9.2% 11.9% 11.5% 

20% 


Second-hand Smoke in Vehicles, 2003 to 2009/10 

16% 

12% 

8% 

4% 

0% 


2003 6.4% 5.9% 6.8% 6.8% 

2005 4.6% 6.1% 8.9% 5.7% 

2007/08 5.6% 5.5% 4.8% 5.6% 

2009/10 5.7% 3.0% 6.6% 5.2% 

Use with caution, estimates for HSDAs are less reliable due to small sample sizes. 


Note: Bars represent point estimates; whisker lines represent 95% confidence intervals. 

80



81

HEALTHY LIVING 


This indicator reports the percent of 

people 12 years and older who reported 

being current daily or occasional 

smokers on the Canadian Community 

Health Survey (CCHS). Current Smokers 

reported that they had smoked at least 

100 cigarettes during their lifetime and 

had smoked in the 30 days preceding 

the survey. Since 2007, data for the 

CCHS are collected yearly instead of 

every two years, with half the number 

of respondents. Data was combined for 

two years to obtain estimates that are 

more reliable. In the graphs, columns 

represent point estimates and whisker 

lines 95% confidence intervals. 

Data on hospitalizations and deaths due 

to tobacco are from the BC Alcohol and 

Other Drug Monitoring Project. 22 


Smoking causes illness, disability, and 

premature death. It is the single most 

significant cause of lung cancer, chronic 

respiratory disease and heart disease. 

Smoking also harms those indirectly 

exposed to tobacco smoke, particularly 

children and partners of regular 

smokers. 

• In 2009/10, there were roughly 

204,000 current smokers age 12 

years and older in Fraser Health. 

• None of the HSDAs in BC have 

reached the BC Healthy Living 

Tobacco Use 

Alliance (BCHLA) target of reducing 

smoking rates to 10% by 2010. 

Fraser East HSDA has the highest 

smoking rates in Fraser Health. 

• Young adults aged 20 to 34 have the 

highest smoking rates. 

• Males and people with low income 

and low education tend to have 

higher smoking rates. 

• Aboriginals have the highest smoking 

rates in Fraser Health. 

• In general, smoking rates and 

hospitalizations due to illness from 

tobacco across Fraser Health and BC 

are down. However, hospitalization 

rates in Fraser Health continue to be 

higher than the overall BC rate. 

• Tobacco continues to be a significant 

cause of death in Fraser Health and 

BC. 

• LHAs in Fraser East generally have 

higher rates of hospitalization than 

other Fraser Health LHAs or BC 

overall. The mortality rate, which 

had been trending down, appears to 

have reversed and is now increasing. 

Limitations 

Survey data underestimates smoking 

rates and other socially undesirable 

behaviours like smoking. 

22 BC Alcohol and Other Drug Monitoring Project: 

http://carbc.ca/MonitoringProject/MortalityandMorbidity/tabi 

d/412/Default.aspx 

82



30% 

Current S mokers (Age 12+ ), 2009/10 

25% 

20% 

BCHLA Target ≤ 10% 

15.7% 

13.8% 

16.6% 

Best HSDA 

in BC 

13.0% 

16.7% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

Fraser North 

Fraser South 

Fraser East 

North Shore/ 

Coast Garibaldi 

BC 


30% 

Current Smokers (Age 12+), 2003 to 2009/10 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 


2003 18.5% 14.8% 19.5% 18.8% 

2005 14.5% 17.6% 17.8% 17.8% 

2007/08 17.1% 16.7% 16.5% 18.2% 

2009/10 15.7% 13.8% 16.6% 16.7% 

Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Surveys, 2003, 2005, 2007/08, and 2009/10. 


83

50 % 

Current Smokers, by Age Group, 2005 

40 % 

30 % 

20 % 

10 % 

0 % 

12-19 20-34 35-44 45-64 65+ 

FHA 8.5% 21.3% 17.3% 17.7% 9.0% 

BC 9.9% 25.2% 20.6% 17.4% 9.5% 

Fraser Health Current Smokers Aged 12+, 

Selected Groups, 2005 

Females 

Males 


Average= 16.1% 

Household Income < $30,000 

Household Income ≥ $80,000 

High school education 

University education 

White 

East Asian/ South Asian 

Aboriginal 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 


Note: Household income



Age and Sex Standardized Hospitalization Rate 

Attributable to Tobacco 

800 

600 

Rate per 100,000 

400 

200 

0 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Fraser East 699.1 684.9 654.4 661.7 653.6 671.8 617.1 670.5 

Fraser North 618.6 653.3 603.1 605.2 591.3 573.5 554.0 536.2 

Fraser South 628.2 621.3 625.9 634.6 597.9 589.4 592.5 562.0 

Fraser Health 635.3 642.3 621.2 628.0 604.2 597.5 581.4 570.7 

BC 601.1 602.6 591.8 602.0 577.8 562.7 559.1 544.5 

Age and Sex Standardized Hospitalization Rate 

Attributable to Tobacco, by LHA, 2009 

Hope 

Chilliwack 

Maple Ridge 

Langley 

Mission 

Abbotsford 



Coquitlam 

Delta 

Surrey 

BC 



Burnaby 

724.0 

664.6 

662.4 

641.2 

630.8 

624.1 

570.7 

552.6 

546.1 

545.2 

544.5 

535.0 

488.5 

455.4 

870.4 

0 200 400 600 800 1000 


Source: Buxton, J., Tu, A., & Stockwell, S. (2011). Mortality and Morbidity Data. BC Alcohol and Other Drug 

Monitoring Project. Retrieved August 4, 2011 from: 

http://carbc.ca/AODMonitoring/ResearchComponents/HospitalizationsDeaths.aspx. 

85

140 

120 

100 

Age and Sex Standardized Mortality Rate 

Attributable to Tobacco 


80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Fraser East 118.1 112.8 114.0 117.0 105.3 112.8 111.9 116.7 

Fraser North 103.9 111.2 104.2 105.4 101.0 95.6 97.4 95.4 

Fraser South 92.4 96.4 104.9 97.6 93.2 95.9 101.5 82.2 


BC 106.2 104.0 105.1 102.0 97.7 98.8 98.7 91.9 

Age and Sex Standardized Mortality Rate 

Attributable to Tobacco, by LHA, 2009 

Hope 

Chilliwack 

Mission 



Maple Ridge 

Abbotsford 


Langley 

Coquitlam 

BC 

Burnaby 

Surrey 

Delta 


94.4 

93.5 

92.9 

92.1 

91.9 

88.9 

83.6 

77.8 

69.9 

134.8 

125.7 

118.4 

117.2 

111.9 

170.8 

0 40 80 120 160 200 


Source: Buxton, J., Tu, A., & Stockwell, S. (2011). Mortality and Morbidity Data. BC Alcohol and Other Drug 

Monitoring Project. Retrieved August 4, 2011 from: 

http://carbc.ca/AODMonitoring/ResearchComponents/HospitalizationsDeaths.aspx. 

86




87

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption 


Fruit and vegetable consumption refers 

to the number of times a day that a 

person eats a serving of fruit and/or 

vegetables. Canada’s Food Guide to 

Healthy Living recommends eating 5 to 

10 servings of fruits and vegetables 

every day. 

The proportion of the population aged 

12+ who reported eating five or more 

fruits and/or vegetables in the Canadian 

Community Health Survey (CCHS) are 

presented. Since 2007, data for the 

CCHS are collected yearly instead of 

every two years, with half the number 

of respondents. Data was combined for 

two years to obtain estimates that are 

more reliable. In the graphs, columns 

represent point estimates and vertical 

whisker lines represent the 95% 

confidence intervals. 


A healthy diet rich in fruits and 

vegetables can help reduce the risk of 

cancer and other chronic diseases. 

Naturally low in calories and fat, most 

fruits and vegetables are healthier than 

processed snack foods. Fruits and 

vegetables are excellent sources of fibre 

and essential vitamins and minerals, 

which contribute to overall good health 

and well-being. 

• Fraser Health is far below the BC 

Healthy Living Alliance (BCHLA) 

target of increasing the proportion of 

the population eating five or more 

daily servings of fruits/vegetables to 

70% by 2010. 

• There has been no significant 

improvement in the proportion of the 

100% 

population consuming five or more 

servings of fruits/vegetables from 

2003 to 2009/10 in Fraser Health 

HSDAs. 

Limitations 

This indicator looks at the number of 

servings consumed each day, but does 

not measure the variety of fruits and 

vegetables eaten or how processed they 

are, nor does it look at consumption 

from other food groups. 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

41.3% 

53.6% 

Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health 

Survey, 2009/10. 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

45.8% 

Consumption of 5 or More Servings of 

Fruits/Vegetables Daily (Age 12+), 2009/10 

BCHLA Target = 70% 

42.9% 

Best HSDA 

in BC 

Fraser North Fraser South Fraser East North Shore/ 


Consumption of 5 or More Servings of 

Fruits/Vegetables Daily (Age 12+), 2003 to 2009/10 


2003 39.0% 42.3% 41.1% 42.6% 

2005 44.7% 40.6% 39.7% 43.7% 

2007/08 45.2% 38.9% 39.4% 43.4% 

2009/10 45.8% 42.9% 41.3% 43.8% 


Survey (CCHS 2003, 2005, 2007/08 and 2009/10). 

43.8% 

BC 

88



100% 

Consumption of Five or More Servings of 

Fruits/Vegetables Daily (Age 12+), by Sex, 2009/10 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 


Females 49.4% 47.6% 46.0% 48.9% 

Males 42.1% 38.2% 

36.4% 38.5% 

Consumption of Five or More Servings of 

Fruits/Vegetables Daily, by Age Group, 2009/10 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 


12 to 19 years 47.7% 54.7% 45.4% 48.7% 

20 to 34 years 45.6% 35.1% 39.6% 40.3% 

35 to 44 years 38.0% 46.8% 39.3% 42.9% 

45 to 64 years 46.7% 40.0% 38.5% 43.1% 

65 years and over 53.4% 48.6% 48.7% 48.4% 



89

Self-Reported Leisure Time Physical Activity 


Leisure time physical activity refers to 

how much one exercises outside of the 

workplace. The Canadian Community 

Health Survey (CCHS) assesses the 

average daily amount of physical activity 

during leisure time for the past three 

months using the following definitions: 

Inactive:



100% 

Moderately or Physically Active Population (Age 12+), 

2003 to 2009/10 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 


2003 57.5% 59.4% 57.8% 59.9% 

2005 57.9% 54.7% 54.5% 59.0% 

2007/08 53.2% 54.2% 56.1% 57.7% 

2009/10 54.6% 54.1% 55.9% 59.3% 


Moderately or Physically Active Population (Age 12+), 

by Sex, 2009/10 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 


Females 55.0% 51.9% 52.4% 57.9% 

Males 54.2% 56.4% 

59.6% 60.8% 

Moderately or Physically Active Population, by Age Group, 2009/10 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 


12 to 19 years 78.9% 72.9% 78.2% 75.8% 

20 to 34 years 57.6% 53.8% 68.2% 60.1% 

35 to 44 years 49.0% 55.5% 53.6% 57.5% 

45 to 64 years 47.4% 48.7% 43.2% 56.6% 

65 years and over 52.2% 49.5% 47.1% 54.2% 



91

Overweight and Obesity: 

Self-Reported Body Mass Index 


Body Mass Index (BMI) is a measurement 

used to estimate a person’s 

healthy or normal weight based on their 

height. It is calculated using selfreported 

height and weight information 

collected via the cyclical Canadian 

Community Health Survey (CCHS). 

BMIs are reported for respondents aged 

18 years and older, using internationally 

recognized BMI classifications: 

Underweight =



100% 

Overweight and Obese Population Age 18+, 2009/10 

75% 

50% 

BCHLA Target ≤ 30% 

39.7% 

48.1% 

52.0% 

Best HSDA 

in BC 

44.7% 

31.7% 

25% 

0% 

Fraser North 

Fraser South 

Fraser East Vancouver BC 


Overweight and Obese Population Age 18+, 2003 to 2009/10 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Fraser North Fraser South 

Fraser East BC 

2003 40.5% 44.1% 50.2% 43.4% 

2005 41.4% 47.9% 56.5% 46.1% 

2007/08 43.7% 44.1% 50.1% 44.5% 

2009/10 39.7% 48.1% 

52.0% 44.7% 

Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey, 2003, 2005, 2007/08, and 2009/10. 


93

50% 

Overweight Population and Obese Population 

Age 18+, 2009/10 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 


Overweight 27.2% 34.2% 33.7% 31.3% 

Obese 12.6% 13.8% 18.3% 13.5% 

100% 

Overweight and Obese Population Age 18+, 

by Sex, 2009/10 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Fraser North Fraser South Fraser East British Columbia 

Females 28.2% 34.1% 45.3% 34.9% 

Males 50.9% 61.8% 58.5% 54.5% 



94



100% 

Overweight and Obese Population, 

by Age Group, 2009/10 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Fraser North Fraser South Fraser East British Columbia 

20 to 34 years 22.2% 39.1% 39.3% 32.4% 

35 to 44 years 37.3% 50.5% 51.3% 44.4% 

45 to 64 years 51.9% 52.9% 60.4% 52.6% 

65 years and older 51.1% 54.4% 58.5% 50.2% 



95

Vitamin D Inadequacy 


Data report the proportion of Canadians 

with adequate, inadequate, or deficient 

vitamin D levels reported by age and by 

sex. Vitamin D is measured by a blood 

test for 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), 

which is changed in the kidneys to the 

active form of vitamin D used by the 

body. Data is from the Canadian Health 

Measures Survey (CHMS). 27 


Vitamin D deficiency is a 25(OH)D level 

less than 20-25 nanomoles/litre 

(nmol/L), a level below which children 

can get rickets and adults osteomalacia 

(soft bones), 28 or as less than 37.5 

nmol/L, a level below which adults can 

get osteoporosis. 29 Vitamin D levels 

between 37.5 and 75 nmol/L are called 

inadequate or insufficient. Both 

inadequate and deficient vitamin D 

levels are linked to increased risk of fall, 

fracture, diabetes, cancer, tuberculosis, 

multiple sclerosis, and other problems. 28 

Vitamin D is made in our skin with 

exposure to the ultraviolet in sunlight 

with wavelength 280-315 nm, wavelengths 

blocked by glass, plastic, and 

sunscreen. Even the most vitamin D-rich 

foods provide little vitamin D compared 

to sun exposure. 28 Sunshine in even 

southern Canada is not strong enough 

to make vitamin D from October to 

March. 30 Long-term exposure to sun 

strong enough to maintain vitamin D 

levels can damage skin and cause skin 

cancer, so dermatologists recommend 

vitamin D supplements instead. 28 

Factors that put people at risk of having 

low vitamin D levels include: wearing 

sunscreen, not being outdoors in the 

sun, having darker skin 28,31 or a higher 

body mass index 30 , and being 50 years 

old or older. 28 

• The majority of Canadians do not have 

adequate levels of vitamin D. 

• Canadian guidelines for vitamin D 

intake do not reflect research findings 

from the last few decades and 

recommend amounts of vitamin D too 

low to achieve adequate levels. 

• Osteoporosis Canada recommends 

400-1,000 IU daily under age 50 and 

800-2,000 IU daily over age 50 for 

adults who do not have osteoporosis 

nor any issue absorbing vitamin D. 28 

Limitations 

Data is not available at the provincial or 

Health Authority level. 

27 Statistics Canada (2009). Canadian Health Measures 

Survey. Retrieved September 17, 2010 from: 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgibin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=5071&lang=e 

n&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2. 

28 Hanley DA et al. Vitamin D in adult health and disease: a 

review and guideline statement from Osteoporosis Canada. 

CMAJ 2010 182: E610-E618. 

29 Langlois K et al. Vitamin D status of Canadians as 

measured in the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures 

Survey. Health Reports, Vol. 21, no. 1, March 2010: 47-55. 

30 Canadian Paediatric Society. Vitamin D supplementation: 

Recommendations for Canadian mothers and infants: a 

Canadian Paediatric Society Position Statement. Paediatric 

Child Health 12(7) Sept 2007: 583-589. 

31 Weiler HA et al. Canadian Aboriginal Women Have a 

Higher Prevalence of Vitamin D Deficiency than Non- 

Aboriginal Women Despite Similar Dietary Vitamin D Intakes 

J. Nutr. 2007 137:461-465. 

96



25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels in Canadians Age 6 to 79 Years, 

by Age and Sex, 2007 to 2009 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

FemaleMale FemaleMale FemaleMale FemaleMale FemaleMale FemaleMale 

6 to 11 years 12 to 19 years 20 to 39 years 40 to 59 years 60 to 79 years Total 6 to 79 

years 

Adequate (>75 nmol/L) 45.1% 51.9% 35.3% 35.0% 36.3% 22.9% 34.1% 33.2% 46.0% 43.3% 37.8% 33.0% 

Inadequate (37.5-75 nmol/L) 48.3% 45.9% 55.8% 50.5% 54.0% 61.4% 57.3% 53.0% 48.3% 48.0% 53.9% 54.1% 

Deficient (

DISEASE PREVENTION 

Primary Prevention 

School Immunization Coverage 

Definition 

In BC, publicly funded vaccines are 

currently available to protect children 

against the following serious diseases: 

diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), 

tetanus (lockjaw), polio, Haemophilus 

influenza type B infection, hepatitis B, 

pneumococcal infection, meningococcal 

C infection, measles, mumps, rubella, 

varicella (chickenpox), and human papillomavirus 

(HPV) infection. Immunization 

coverage rates are based on school 

enrolment, calculated as the percentage 

of children fully immunized for each 

vaccine by the end of each school year. 

Beginning in 2010, the definition of upto-date 

for age for mumps (requiring 

two doses) was separated from rubella 

(requiring one dose). 

The definition of up-to-date for varicella 

includes children who are vaccinated 

and those protected by having had the 

disease previously. 


Vaccination is one of the most effective 

health procedures for reducing or 

eliminating illness and death linked to 

communicable disease. Widespread 

immunization coverage in a community 

reduces the number of susceptible 

people, thereby lessening the chance of 

a disease spreading in a population. 

Poor coverage can lead to the return of 

a disease that had been eliminated 

previously. When immunization rates 

fall, the corresponding disease will come 

back. 

• Across BC, immunization coverage 

rates for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, 

and polio (DaPTP) have dropped 

among Kindergarten students. In 

2011, coverage in Fraser Health has 

dropped slightly to 75.7% from 78.4% 

in 2005 (data not shown). 

• Immunization coverage for meningococcal 

C among Grade 6 students 

declined between 2003 (93.9%) and 

2011 (86.8%); immunization coverage 

for hepatitis B declined between 2002 

(92.6%) and 2011 (81.0%). Similar 

trends are seen across the province 

(data not shown). 

Limitations 

Data for some home-schooled students 

are not available and are therefore not 

included in rates. 

Caution is needed when comparing to 

previous years due to changes in the 

definitions for coverage; revisions were 

made to the DaPTP definition starting in 

2005 and to mumps and rubella in 

2010. 

Information on child history of varicella 

disease or vaccination may be not be 

completely reported by parents, so the 

proportion of children protected against 

varicella is likely underestimated. 

98


PRIMARY PREVENTION 

Kindergarten Immunization Coverage: Up-to-Date for Age, 2011 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

DaPTP* Measles Mumps 

Rubella 

Hepatitis 

B 

Varicella 

Meningo 

C* 

Fraser Health 75.7% 87.7% 87.7% 89.8% 89.8% 89.6% 89.7% 

BC 76.0% 87.6% 87.5% 90.2% 88.7% 89.1% 89.1% 

* DaPTP = Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus and Polio; Meningo C = Meningococcal C 

Grade 6 Immunization Coverage: Up-to-Date for Age, 2011 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Hepatitis B 

Meningococcal C Varicella HPV* 

Fraser Health 81.0% 86.8% 84.6% 68.4% 

BC 84.0% 87.7% 

87.8% 68.2% 

* HPV = Human Papillomavirus 

Source: British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), 2011. 

99

Grade 9 Immunization Coverage: Up-to-Date for Age, 2011 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Tetanus/diptheria Acellular pertussis HPV* 

Fraser Health 88.3% 85.1% 60.4% 

BC† 88.2% 86.4% 61.7% 

* HPV = Human Papillomavirus 

† 

BC rates do not include Vancouver or Richmond Health Service Delivery Areas. 


100




101

Influenza Immunization Coverage 


Seasonal influenza (flu) immunization 

coverage is reported for seniors aged 65 

and older who reside in long-term care 

facilities, and for health care workers in 

long term care facilities and hospitals. 

Long-term care facilities include 

contracted facilities, Fraser Health 

owned and operated facilities, privatepay 

facilities, and mental health facilities 

with over 15 beds and more than half 

the residents are aged 65 and older. 

Health care workers include regular, 

casual, and contract staff members 

where data is available. Immunization 

coverage for volunteers is not included. 

The BC Ministry of Health set long-term 

targeted rates for seasonal influenza 

immunization coverage of 90% for 

residents and 80% for staff members of among health care workers. 

long-term care facilities, and 60% for 

staff members of acute care hospital. 


Influenza can be a serious respiratory 

infection, leading to complications and 

even death, particularly in very young 

children, the elderly, and anyone who 

has pre-existing medical conditions. 

Immunization is an effective way to 

prevent influenza and to reduce 

complications and death among cases 

where infection is not prevented. 

The majority of residents in long-term 

care facilities are elderly and many have 

chronic medical conditions, putting them 

at risk for more severe disease and 

complications. Protecting long-term care 

residents requires immunizing not only 

the residents but also the health care 

workers providing them with care, and 

family and friends who visit regularly. 

Immunizing health care workers in 

hospitals helps prevent influenza 

infection in workers and their vulnerable 

patients who are at risk of complications 

and death. 


• Influenza immunization rates declined 

among residents and even more so 

among health care workers, especially 

in the 2009/10 season. Of note, in the 

2009/10 season, pandemic influenza 

immunization and recommendations to 

delay distribution of the seasonal 

influenza vaccine until after the 

pandemic vaccine contributed to lower 

seasonal influenza vaccine uptake 

• The seasonal influenza immunization 

rate among health care workers in 

Fraser Health hospitals was the lowest 

of all BC health authorities in 2010/11. 

Rates in all health authorities fall short 

of the long-term target set by the 

Ministry of Health. 

Limitations 

Some of the Fraser Health owned and 

operated facilities did not report 

immunization data for residents. 

102

Influenza Immunization Among Residents of 

Long-Term Care Facilities, 2010/11 



100% 

90.4% 

84.9% 

92.2% 

89.7% 90.0% 89.6% 

80% 

. 

d 

Percent Immunize 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 



Seasonal Influenza Immunization Among Residents 

in Long-Term Care Facilities 

100% 

Percent Immunized 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

Target ≥ 90% 

50% 

2006/07 2007/ 08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 

Fraser North 93.9% 93.6% 91.5% 90.8% 90.8% 

Fraser South 92.8% 93.5% 90.5% 90.2% 90.3% 

Fraser East 93.0% 89.3% 90.3% 87.4% 90.0% 

Fraser Health 93.3% 92.6% 90.9% 89.9% 90.4% 

Source: Public Health, Fraser Health, 2011. 

103

Influenza Immunization Among Health Care Workers 

in Long-Term Care Facilities, 2010/11 

100% 

80% 


60% 

40% 

58.3% 

47.6% 

53.2% 

47.2% 49.1% 

55.5% 

20% 

0% 



Seasonal Influenza Immunization Among Health Care Workers 

in Long-Term Care Facilities 

100% 

Percent Immunized . 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 


0% 

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 





Source: Public Health and Workplace Health, Fraser Health, 2011. 

104



100% 

Influenza Immunization Among Health Care Workers 

in Hospitals, 2010/11 

80% 


60% 

40% 

30.5% 

44.3% 

46.4% 

39.3% 

41.7% 

45.9% 

39.8% 

20% 

0% 

FHA IHA VCHA VIHA NHA PHSA BC 


Seasonal Influenza Immunization Among Health Care Workers 

in Hospitals 

100% 

Percent Immunized . 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 


0% 

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 





Source: Workplace Health, Fraser Health, 2011. 

105

Secondary Prevention 

Screening Mammography Program (SMP) 


Screening Mammography Program 

(SMP) participation rates represent the 

number of women age 50 to 69 years at 

time of screening who have been 

screened as a proportion of all women 

age 50 to 69 years. The BC Ministry of 

Health has set a long-term target of 

screening at least 70% of women ages 

50 to 69 every two years. 


Breast cancer is the most frequently 

diagnosed cancer among women in BC. 

It is the second leading cause of death 

due to cancer in women. Mammograms 

are breast x-rays that can show cancer 

two or three years before the cancer is 

large enough for someone to detect 

through physical breast examination. 

Mammography screening helps identify 

abnormal cell growth, increasing the 

likelihood of early detection of breast 

cancer and the earlier 

cancer is 

detected, the greater the chances for 

survival. Studies show that screening 

mammography reduces the number of 

deaths due to breast cancer. 

below the target of screening 70% of 

eligible women. 

• Participation rates in all but one Fraser 

Health LHA have gone up slightly since 

2007-2008; the rate in Agassiz/ Harrison 

has dropped (data not shown). 

• Among LHAs, South Surrey/White Rock 

(59.0%) had the highest participation 

rate in 2009-2010, followed by Delta 

(55.8%), and Burnaby (55.5%); Mission 

(46.0%), Hope (47.4%), and Surrey 

(48.0%) had the lowest participation 

rates of eligible women screened. 

Limitations 

Rates are calculated based on women 

who were aged 50-69 years and living in 

Fraser Health when the mammogram 

was done. 

• Screening mammography participation 

has increased marginally since the 

2007-2008 period, with little variation 

across BC health authorities. 

• In 2009-2010, VCHA and VIHA had the 

highest participation rates, but the rate 

in Fraser Health was only slightly lower. 

Rates in all health authorities and all 

communities in Fraser health are far 

106


SECONDARY PREVENTION 

Screening Mammography Participation, Women Ages 50-69 

100% 

75% 

BC Target ≥ 70% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

FHA 

IHA VCHA VIHA NHA BC 

2007-2008 48.6% 49.7% 51.9% 51.8% 46.9% 50.3% 

2008-2009 49.2% 50.8% 51.6% 51.8% 47.5% 50.7% 

2009-2010 53.1% 53.0% 55.3% 54.6% 49.9% 53.9% 

Screening Mammography Participation, Women Ages 50-69, 

2009-2010 


Delta 

Burnaby 

Abbotsford 

Langley 

Coquitlam 

BC 

Chilliwack 


Maple Ridge 



Surrey 

Hope 

Mission 

59.0% 

55.8% 

55.5% 

55.2% 

55.1% 

55.0% 

53.9% 

53.5% 

53.1% 

51.9% 

49.2% 

48.1% 

48.0% 

47.4% 

46.0% 

BC Target ≥ 70% 

0% 25% 

50% 75% 100% 

Source: BC Cancer Agency; SMP database, received September 7, 2011 from Population Oncology. 

107

Tertiary Prevention 

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) Management 


This measure reports the proportion of 

patients in the provincial primary health 

care (PHC) diabetes registry who have 

their haemoglobin A1C levels measured 

at least twice in a year. 

The Canadian Diabetes Association 

recommends that diabetics have their 

haemoglobin A1C levels tested every 

three months. The BC Ministry of Health 

(MoH) set a long-term target for health 

authorities to increase the proportion of 

diabetics having haemoglobin A1C tests 

twice a year to 70% or higher. 


Diabetes mellitus is a serious chronic 

condition that affects the body’s ability 

to produce insulin or to use it properly. 

Improperly managed, diabetes can 

cause disabling and life-threatening 

complications including heart disease, 

stroke, kidney disease, and many 

others. 

Controlling blood glucose levels is crucial 

to reducing diabetics’ risk of long-term 

complications. Haemoglobin A1C tests 

are used to measure overall blood 

glucose control over the three previous 

months, whereas blood glucose tests 

are used to measure the blood sugar 

level at the time the test is taken. 

• Only 49% of Fraser Health diabetics 

had two or more haemoglobin A1C 

tests in 2009/10. Among provincial 

health authorities, Vancouver Island 

had the largest proportion of diabetics 

getting two or more tests; none of the 

health authorities has reached the 

long-term target for 70% of diabetics 

to have A1C levels tested twice a year. 

• While the proportion of registered 

diabetics having at least twice yearly 

haemoglobin A1C testing is increasing, 

none of the LHAs in Fraser Health 

have yet achieved the MoH target of 

70%. 

Limitations 

Diabetics who are not in the provincial 

PHC registry are not included in these 

findings. 

Duplicate tests are included although 

some patients occasionally get duplicate 

tests for verification within a very short 

time. 

100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Diabetics Having Two or More A1C Tests per Year, 

2009/10 

MoH long-term target ≥ 70% 

49% 

52% 

48% 

54% 

47% 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC, Diabetes Registry as of 

November 2010. 

50% 


108


TERTIARY PREVENTION 

Diabetics Having Two or More A1C Tests per Year 

100% 


BC 

75% 

50% 

40% 40% 41% 

42% 

39% 39% 40% 41% 

44% 

43% 

46% 

45% 

48% 

47% 

50% 50% 50% 

49% 49% 49% 

25% 

0% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Diabetics Having Two or More A1C Tests per Year, 2009/10 



Chilliwack 

Burnaby 

Coquitlam 

Langley 

BC 

Delta 



Abbotsford 

Mission 

Surrey 

Maple Ridge 

Hope 

54% 

52% 

52% 

51% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

49% 

49% 

49% 

47% 

47% 

46% 

44% 

42% 

MoH long-term target ≥ 70% 

0% 25% 

50% 75% 100% 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC, Diabetes Registry as of November 2010. 

109

110 

[This page was left blank intentionally]

HEALTH STATUS 

Health Status 


It is important to know how we rate our physical and mental health. There is an increased risk 

of death among those who report that their health is poor. Our emotional and psychological 

well-being is also important. Poor coping skills for dealing with stress can make a person 

vulnerable to health problems. People who are vulnerable because of lower educational 

attainment or low er socioeconomic status both tend to have poorer health and more difficulty 

accessing prevention services and care. Trend information on other general health status 

indicators helps identify new issues. 

Morbidity 

It is important to look at what is making people sick. Chronic diseases are among the most 

common and costly health problems, yet they are largely preventable. A chronic disease can 

seriously affect the quality of life. 

Mortality 

It is important to look at the reasons why people are dying. Many deaths may be untimely and 

unnecessary because effective public health and medical interventions exist. 

111


Life Expectancy at Birth 


Life expectancy is the average number of 

years that a newborn baby can expect to 

live if the mortality trends that exist when 

the baby is born continue. It is calculated 

using age-specific mortality rates reported 

as the number of years. Data represent 

five-year averages (2006 to 2010). 


Socioeconomic status and individual 

health practices affect health and life 

expectancy. Individuals and society can 

address these factors with potential for 

both individual and societal benefit. 

• For BC residents born between 2006 

and 2010, life expectancy is longest for 

those born in the Vancouver Coastal 

area. 

• Across B C, 

women tend to live longer 

on average than men do. In Fraser 

Health, women can expect to outlive 

men by 4.1 years. 

• Eastern areas of Fraser Health tend to 

have markedly lower life expectancies 

than western areas. This may be related 

to socioeconomic and lifestyle factors, 

which also follow an east to west 

gradient. 

Years 

Life expectancy measures years of life 

without consideration for health status 

or quality of life. 

Years 

90 

85 

80 

75 

70 

65 

FHA IHA VCHA VIHA NHA 

Females 83.8 83.0 85.4 83.6 81.2 83.9 

Males 79.7 78.3 81.1 79.1 76.6 79.5 

Overall 81.8 80.6 83.3 81.4 78.8 81.7 

90 

85 

80 

75 

Life Expectancy at Birth by Sex, 2006-2010 

Canada = 80.9 (2006-2009) 

Sources: BC Stats, Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ 

Services, as of April 2011. Canadian data from Statistics 

Canada, retrieved December 14, 2011 from: 

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a05?lang=eng&id= 

1020512&paSer=&pattern=102- 

0512&stByVal=3&csid= 

Overall Life Expectancy at Birth 


BC 

BC 

Limitations 

The methodology used to calculate life 

expectancy can vary between different 

regions, affecting comparability since 

different methods can alter estimates by a 

fraction of a year. 

70 

65 

1987- 

1991 

1992- 

1996 

1997- 

2001 

2002- 

2006 

Sources: BC Stats, Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ 

Services, as of April 2011. 

2005- 

2009 

2006- 

2010 

112

HEALTH STATUS 

GENERAL HEALTH STATUS 

Overall Life Expectancy at Birth, 2006-2010 


Coquitlam 

Burnaby 

Delta 

Fraser 

BC 

Surrey 

Abbotsford 

Langley 

Maple Ridge 



Chilliwack 

Mission 

Hope 

75.5 

83.4 

83.0 

83.0 

82.7 

81.8 

81.7 

81.6 

81.4 

81.4 

80.4 

80.4 

80.3 

80.0 

79.2 

65 

70 75 80 85 90 

Years 

Female Life Expectancy at Birth, 2006-2010 

Male Life Expectancy at Birth, 2006-2010 

S. Surrey/W. Rock 

85.4 

Coquitlam 

81.2 

Burnaby 

85.1 

S. Surrey/W. Rock 

81.1 

Coquitlam 

84.7 

Delta 

80.9 

Delta 

84.3 

Burnaby 

80.8 

BC 

83.9 


79.7 


83.8 

Surrey 

79.7 

Abbotsford 

83.7 

BC 

79.5 

Surrey 

83.5 

Langley 

79.3 


83.5 

Abbotsford 

79.1 

Langley 

83.3 

Maple Ridge 

78.3 


82.4 


78.1 

Maple Ridge 

82.4 

Chilliwack 

77.8 

Chilliwack 

82.2 


77.6 

Mission 

81.3 

Mission 

77.1 

Hope 

77.8 

Hope 

73.5 

65 70 75 80 85 90 

65 70 75 80 85 90 

Years 

Years 

Source: BC Stats, Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services. Retrieved August 31, 2011 from 

http://www.bcstats.go v.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/dynamic/LifeExpectancy.asp. 

113

Live Birth Rates & Related Indicators 


Live Birth Rate: The live birth rate is the 

number of live births per 1,000 people 

in a given period. For small populations, 

a slight change in the number of live 

births can dramatically affect rates. So 

rates are calculated over a five-year 

period because single year rates can 

fluctuate from year to year. 

Caesarean Rate: The number of babies 

born by Caesarean section per 1,000 

live births for 2005-2009. 

Births to Older Mothers: The number of 

live babies born to women aged 35 

years and older expressed as a rate per 

1,000 live births for 2005-2009. 


Knowing the numbers of births in each 

LHA is important for planning prenatal, 

perinatal, and neonatal health services 

and childcare services. 

Mothers over age 35 face a higher risk 

of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, 

and other complications that can 

increase the likelihood of a caesarean 

delivery. The risk of a baby having 

chromosomal anomalies such as Down’s 

syndrome increases with the age of the 

mother. 

• Fraser Health has a higher rate of live 

birth than BC overall (11.4 and 10.1 

respectively in 2009). 

• Birth rates in Fraser Health and BC 

have remained stable since 2000. 

• The live birth rate is highest among 

women 30- to 34-years old. 

• Caesarean rates among women tend 

to be higher in western LHAs than in 

eastern LHAs; this is likely due, in 

part, to western LHAs having higher 

birth rates among older mothers age 

35-years and older. 

Limitations 

Rates are not adjusted for regional 

population age structures, so data do 

not account for age differences between 

different area populations. 

Total Number of Live Births by LHA*, 

2009 

Local Health Area # Live Births 

Burnaby 2,367 

Coquitlam 2,269 

Maple Ridge 1,001 

New Westminster 732 

Delta 833 

Langley 1,473 

Surrey 5,185 

South Surrey/White Rock 530 

Abbotsford 1,765 

Mission 454 

Chilliwack 1,083 

Hope 69 

Agassiz/Harrison 98 

Fraser Health 17,859 

BC 44,908 

* The number of live births in each LHA is based on where 

the mother lives. 

Source: VISTA Database, BC Vital Statistics Agency, Ministry 

of Health Services. 

114

HEALTH STATUS 


18 

Live Birth Rates 


BC 

0 Population 

per 1,00 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

14.9 15.0 

13.6 13.4 

14.4 

12.9 

13.9 

12.4 

12.7 

11.2 

11. 7 

10. 4 

11.2 11.2 

10.8 

9.9 9.8 9.7 

11.3 11.4 

10.1 10.1 

4 

2 

0 

1989 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 2009 

Source: VISTA Database, BC Vital Statistics Agency, Ministry of H ealth Services. 

120 

Live Births by Age of Mother, 2009 

100 

males in Age Group 

1,000 Fe 

per 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

10-14 15-19 20-24 

25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45+ 


BC 0.1 10.2 41.1 

81.6 99.4 54.3 10.5 0.1 

Source: Birth counts from VISTA database, BC Vital Statistics Agency, BC Ministry of Health; rates were calculated 

using P.E.O.P.L.E. 36 projections, BC Stats, BC Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services. 

115

Live Birth Rates, 2005-2009 

Surrey 

Abbotsford 

Chilliwack 


Mission 



Langley 

Maple Ridge 

Burnaby 

Coquitlam 

BC 

Hope 

Delta 


6.6 

13.5 

12.8 

12.2 

11.2 

11.1 

11.0 

10.9 

10.8 

10.5 

10.4 

10.0 

Lowest in BC = 5.4 

9.9 

Highest in BC = 20.0 

9.1 

8.7 

0 5 10 15 20 

per 1,000 Population 

Caesarean Rates, 2005-2009 


Delta 

Coquitlam 

Surrey 

Maple Ridge 



Burnaby 

BC 


Chilliwack 

Langley 

Mission 

Abbotsford 

Hope 

345.9 

345.5 

332.6 

322.5 

320.6 

311.8 

307.4 

306.9 

305.6 

291.3 

287.1 

287.0 Lowest in BC = 163.6 

284.3 


275.4 

254.1 

0 100 200 300 400 500 


Source: BC Vital Statistics Agency. Selected Vital Statistics and Health Status Indicators, 2009. 

116

HEALTH STATUS 


Birth Rates for Older Mothers Age 35+, 2005-2009 


Burnaby 

Coquitlam 


Delta 

BC 

Maple Ridge 


Langley 

Surrey 

Mission 


Chilliwack 

Abbotsford 

Hope 

312.1 

296.8 

291.7 

274.9 

264.0 

223.1 

215.4 

211.8 

196.9 

168.8 

148.3 

Lowest in BC = 64.5 

142.6 


133.2 

123.2 

106.6 

0 100 200 300 400 500 


Source: BC Vital Statistics Agency. Selected Vital Statistics and Health Status Indicators, 2009. 

117


The number of live births among teen 

mothers 15- to 19-years old, expressed 

as an annual rate per 1,000 females of 

the same age. Data exclude stillbirths 

and abortions. 


Teenage mothers and their babies tend 

to have more problems than do other 

mothers and their babies. For example, 

the incidence of preterm and low birthweight 

infants is higher for adolescent 

pregnancies. 32,33 Teenage mothers are 

also at higher risk for pregnancy-related 

high blood pressure and eclampsia. 

Teenaged mothers are more likely to 

live below the poverty level and become 

dependent on social assistance. They 

are also more likely than other mothers 

are to be lone-parents and tend to have 

less education than their non-mother 

peers. 34 Given the socioeconomic 

challenges they face, some young 

mothers are at higher risk of abusing or 

neglecting their children. 

Teen birth rates are influenced by 

various factors, such as socioeconomic 

status, sexual behaviours and practices, 

personal belief systems, knowledge and 

proper use of contraceptive methods, 

and the availability, accessibility, and 

32 Conde-Agudelo, A., Belizán, J.M., & Lammers, C. (2005). 

Maternal-perinatal morbidity and mortality associated with 

adolescent pregnancy in Latin America: Cross-sectional 

study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 

192, 342-9. 

33 Konial-Griffin, D. & Turner-Pluta, C. (2000). Health risks 

and psychosocial outcomes of early childbearing: A Review 

of the literature. Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 

15(2), 1-17. 

34 Stewart, P. (1998). As cited on page 131 in: 

Canadian Institute of Child Health. (2000).The health of 

Canada’s children (3 rd Ed). Ottawa, ON: Author. 

Teen Birth Rate 

per 1,000 Teen Females 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

acceptability of family planning and 

related health services. 35 

• Overall, teen birth rates have dropped 

dramatically since 1988, but they 

appear to have stabilized since 2004. 

• LHAs in the east have higher teen 

birth rates than other LHAs in Fraser 

Health. 

Limitations 

Some teen births are planned, especially 

for ethnic or cultural groups in which 

marriage before age 20 is common. 

Rates in areas with small populations, 

such as Hope or Agassiz/Harrison, may 

fluctuate from year to year, so interpret 

with caution. 

7.8 

Teen Birth Rates, Ages 15-19, 2009 

14.3 

Source: VISTA Database, BC Vital Statistics Agency, Ministry 


3.8 

12.2 

27.3 

35 Canadian Institute for Health Information, Working Group 

on Community Health Information Systems, Chevakier, S., 

Choiniere, R., Ferland, M., Pageau, M., & Sauvageau, Y. 

(1995). Community health indicators: Definitions and 

interpretations. Ottawa, ON: Author. 

10.2 


118

HEALTH STATUS 


Teen Birth Rates, Ages 15-19 

30 


BC 

25 

23.4 23.5 24.1 23.3 

22.3 22.2 21.6 

s 

per 1,000 Tee n Fe male 

20 

15 

10 

5 

21.2 

19.8 

20.9 

19.8 19.8 

17.3 

18.3 

18.5 

16.9 

17.3 

15.2 

9.8 

16.2 

15.3 

13.8 13.1 

14.7 14. 4 

12.6 

11.8 11.0 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.4 10.2 

10.9 10.3 9.6 

8.9 

9.1 

7.3 7.9 7.8 

7.1 

0 

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 

Teen Birth Rates (Counts), Ages 15-19, 2009 

Hope 


Chilliwack 

Mission 

Abbotsford 

BC 

Surrey 

Langley 


Maple Ridge 

Coquitlam 


Burnaby 

Delta 


10.9 ( 17) 

10.7 (48) 

10.2 (1,414) 

8.9 (112) 

8.0 (37) 

7.8 (405) 

6.6 (22) 

4.6 (35) 

4.1 (7) 

4.0 (25) 

3.4 (12) 

2.0 (5) 

22.7 (65) 

32.8 (10) 

41.5 (10) 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

per 1,000 Teen Females (Counts) 


119

Self-Rated Health 


Self-rated health is a commonly used 

measure, which describes health status 

based on the respondent’s personal 

judgement. Self-rated health reflects not 

only physical health, but also a general 

sense of well-being. 

Data are generated through the cyclical 

Canadian Community Health Survey 

(CCHS) in which one question asks 

respondents aged 12+ to rate their own 

health as: excellent; very good; good; 

fair; or poor. 

In the graphs, bars represent point 

estimates and whisker lines represent 

the 95% confidence intervals. 


Self-reported health reflects global 

aspects of health and well-being that 

are not captured in other measures such 

as disease status and severity, physiological 

and psychological measures, and 

social and mental function. 

• At 52.7%, Fraser East HSDA has the 

smallest proportion of residents in 

Fraser Health with very good or 

excellent self-rated health; at 65.6%. 

North Shore/Coast Garibaldi HSDA in 

Vancouver Coastal Health has the 

highest proportion in the province. 

• Self-rated health has declined 

slightly in Fraser East and Fraser 

South from 2003 to 2009/10, but the 

change is not statistically significant. 

• In 2005, those over age 45 years 

(data not shown) and those with low 

income or weak sense of community 

belonging were less likely to have 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

very good or excellent self-rated 

health. 

• General health and mental health are 

closely related; those who report 

good mental health are more likely 

to report good self-rated health. 

Limitations 

Data reflects the respondent’s 

perspective of their health and not their 

actual health. 

0% 

58.3% 

59.9% 

52.7% 

65.6% 


Survey, 2009/10. 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

Population Age 12+ with Very Good/Excellent 

Self-Rated Health, 2009/10 

Best HSDA 

in BC 




Self-Rated Health, 2003 to 2009/10 


2003 57.9% 62.7% 58.0% 60.1% 

2005 57.9% 61.3% 60.7% 59.5% 

2007/08 58.6% 58.6% 54.8% 57.8% 

2009/10 58.3% 59.9% 52.7% 59.6% 


Survey, 2003, 2005, 2007/08 and 2009/10 

Note: Bars represent point estimates; whisker lines 

represent 95% confidence intervals. 

59.6% 

BC 

120

HEALTH STATUS 


Population Aged 12+, 

b y Self-Rated Health, 2005 

50% Fraser Health BC 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Poor 


BC 2.9% 

Fair 

Good Very Good Excellent 

8.8% 28.4% 37.5% 22.3% 

Very Good/Excellent Self-Rated Health (Age 12+), 

Fraser Health, by Selected Groups, 2005 

Females 

Males 





White 


Aboriginal 

Very good/excellent self-rated mental health 

Poor/fair self-rated mental health 

Strong sense of community belonging 

Weak sense of community belonging 

Use with caution, estimates are less 

reliable due to small sample sizes 

0% 

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 


Self-Rated Mental Health 


Self-rated mental health measures 

respondents’ health status based on 

her/his personal judgement, reflecting 

psychological health as well as a general 

sense of well-being. 

Data are generated through the cyclical 

Canadian Community Health Survey 

(CCHS) with one question asking 

respondents age 12 years or older to 

rate their own mental health as: 

excellent; very good; good; fair; or 

poor. In the graphs, bars represent 

point estimates and whisker lines the 

95% confidence intervals. 

100% 

80% 

health as very good/ excellent than 

those with a weak sense of community 

belonging. 

Limitations 

The survey does not define ‘mental 

health,’ making it difficult to determine 

how respondents framed the question in 

terms of psychological, emotional, and/ 

or cognitive elements of mental health. 


Self-Rated Mental Health, 2009/10 

71.7% 

71.6% 

71.0% 

74.2% 

71.0% 


A vital part of overall wellbeing, good 

mental health goes beyond the absence 

of mental illness. Good mental health 

enables people to feel good about 

themselves, maintain a positive outlook, 

and cope with the demands of life. 

Self-rated mental health is a single 

measure that has been shown to predict 

functional decline, health service usage, 

and overall well-being. 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 


Surveys, 2009/10. 

100% 

80% 

Best 

HSDA 

in BC 




Self-Rated Mental Health, 2003 to 2009/10 

BC 

• There have been no statistically 

significant trends in self-rated mental 

health from 2003 to 2009/10. 

• Those with low income are less likely 

to rate their own mental health as 

very good/ excellent than those with 

high income. 

• Social relationships and mental health 

are connected. Those with a strong 

sense of community belonging are 

more likely to rate their own mental 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 


2003 68.7% 73.9% 70.7% 70.6% 

2005 72.6% 75.0% 74.8% 72.5% 

2007/08 74.4% 71.2% 69.9% 71.4% 

2009/10 71.7% 71.6% 71.0% 71.0% 


Surveys, 2003, 2005, 2007/08 and 2009/10. 


represent 95% confidence intervals 

122

HEALTH STATUS 


Very Good/Excellent Self-Rated Mental Health (Age 12+), 

by Age Group, 2005 

100% Fraser Health BC 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

12-19 20-34 

35-44 45-64 65+ 


BC 77.7% 75.0% 73.6% 71.5% 66.7% 

Very Good/Excellent Self-Rated Mental Health (Age 12+), 

Fraser Health, by Selected Groups, 2005 

Females 

Males 





White 


Aboriginal 

Strong sense of community belonging 

Weak sense of community belonging 

Use with caution, estimates are less 

reliable due to small sample sizes 

0% 20% 

40% 60% 80% 100% 


MORBIDITY 

Leading Causes of Hospitalization 


The cause of hospitalization is coded as 

the principal diagnosis as extracted from 

patient hospital records. This is the 

diagnosis that the physician considers to 

be most responsible for the patient’s 

hospital stay. Data are grouped by 

diagnostic short code. 

Data are for acute inpatients, excluding 

newborns, stillbirths, rehab, and surgical 

daycare. Data are analyzed by place of 

residence including residents of Fraser 

Health hospitalized outside the region. 

Along with general hospitalization rates, 

the five leading diagnoses are shown for 

all age groups. For this analysis, those 

conditions related to pregnancy and 

delivery were excluded from the top 

five; these accounted for 60.9% of all 

hospitalizations among women aged 17 

to 24 and 69.7% among women aged 

25 to 44. 

Also excluded from the top five is the 

category “persons encountering health 

services for specific procedures and 

healthcare” (Z00-Z99), which refers to 

follow-up medical surveillance or care. 

These accounted for 5% of all 

hospitalizations among men and women 

aged 45 to 64; 6.5% among males aged 

65 and older; and 6.9% among females 

aged 65 and older. 


This indicator reports the primary 

reasons for why people are admitted to 

hospital and how these reasons differ by 

age and sex. While data presented only 

account for a small percentage of all 

diagnosed illnesses, they help identify 

the most troublesome health problems 

in a community. 

• In Fraser Health, hospitalization rates 

are generally higher in eastern than 

western LHAs. 

• Hospitalization rates for men aged 65- 

years and older are higher than for 

women of the same age. 

• Mental illnesses are among the leading 

reasons for hospitalization among 

those age 17 to 44 years. 

Limitations 

Data refer to inpatient cases discharged 

from a hospital. Since someone can be 

admitted to and discharged from 

hospital more than once a year, data 

represent hospitalization events only, 

not the number of individuals with a 

specific illness. 

Hospitalization rates give information 

only on illnesses that require admission 

to hospital. Illnesses can be treated at 

home, in a doctor’s office, in hospital 

emergency departments, or in other 

settings and therefore the data do not 

provide complete information on the 

effects specific illnesses can have on the 

population or the healthcare system. 

Hospitalization data capture only the 

serious cases of a disease. 

124

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Hospitalization Rate by Age Group & Sex, 2009/10* 

500 

te per 1,000 Population 

Ra 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

≤16 17-24 25-44 45-64 65-84 85+ 

Female 25.1 62.7 113.1 62.7 172.9 394.6 

Male 28.9 25.0 31.7 67.8 198.8 457.7 

Hope 

Chilliwack 

Abbotsford 




Mission 

BC 

Maple Ridge 

Langley 

Delta 


Surrey 

Coquitlam 

Burnaby 

Inpatient Discharge 

Rate, 2009/10* 

98.4 

94.5 

87.7 

87.1 

86.4 

86.0 

83.3 

79.9 

79.3 

77.9 

77.1 

68.9 

68.0 

67.6 

122.0 

0 20 40 

60 80 100 120 140 

Rate per 1,000 Population 

* Note: General hospitalization and discharge rates above consist of all diagnoses, including conditions related to 

pregnancy and delivery and “persons encountering health services for specific procedures and healthcare,” 

which are excluded from the following tables showing the leading five causes of hospitalization. 

Source: Discharge Abstract Database, 2009/10. 

125

Females Leading Cause of Hospitalization, 2009/10 

≤16 Years Old 

Diagnosis Cases Days 

% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

Intestinal infectious diseases 188 417 5.0% 1.3 1.3 

Influenza and pneumonia 184 678 4.9% 1.2 1.6 

Diseases of appendix 151 415 4.0% 1.0 1.0 

Other acute lower respiratory infections 143 436 3.8% 1.0 1.0 

Disorders related to length of gestation 

and fetal growth 

141 3,581 3.8% 0.9 0.9 

All Causes of Hospitalization 3,754 18,996 100% 25.1 27.2 

17 - 24 Years Old 


% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

Mood [affected] disorders 191 1,780 3.6% 2.2 2.2 

Symptoms and signs involving the 

digestive system and abdomen 

151 355 2.8% 1.8 1.8 


Poisoning by drugs, medicaments and 

biological substances 

93 180 1.7% 1.1 1.1 

Disorders of gallbladder, biliary tract 

and pancreas 

74 191 1.4% 0.9 1.1 




Noninflammatory disorders of female 

genital tract 

% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

675 1,471 2.7% 3.0 3.5 


Symptoms and signs involving the 

digestive system and abdomen 


and pancreas 

383 951 1.5% 1.7 1.9 

376 1,304 1.5% 1.7 1.9 

Benign neoplasms 370 996 1.5% 1.6 1.6 



126

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Males Leading Cause of Hospitalization, 2009/10 

≤16 Years Old 


% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

Influenza and pneumonia 269 897 5.8% 1.7 1.9 

Other acute lower respiratory infections 

Haemorrhagic and haemtological 

disorders of fetus and newborn 

239 658 5.1% 1.5 1.6 


Intestinal infectious diseases 215 470 4.6% 1.3 1.4 

178 329 3.8% 1.1 1.4 



Schizophrenia, schizotypal 

delusional disorders 


and 

% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

196 3,966 8.3% 2.1 3.0 


Mood [affected] disorders 176 2, 103 7.4% 1.9 1.9 

Injuries to the head 

In juries to the knee and lower leg 

141 

628 5.9% 1.5 1.7 

100 339 4.2% 1.1 1.3 




Schizophrenia, schizotypal 

and 

delusional disorders 

Mental & behavioural disorders due to 

psychoactive substance use 

% Total 

Discharges 

521 9,739 7.4% 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

2.3 3.0 

513 2,021 7.3% 2.3 2.6 


Diseases of appendix 

Injuries to the knee and lower leg 

285 254 635 

805 

4.0% 

3.6% 

1.3 

1.1 

1.3 

1.3 



127

Females 

Leading Cause of Hospitalization, 2009/10 

45 - 64 Years O ld 


Noninflammatory disorders of female 

genital tract 

Arthrosis 693 2,713 

% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

712 1,745 5.4% 

3.3 3.4 


Benign neoplasms 505 1,410 3.9% 2.4 2.3 


and pancreas 

5.3% 3.2 3.2 

481 2,087 3.7% 

2.2 2.6 




% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

Other forms of heart disease 1,177 9,851 7.0% 12.2 

12.3 

Arthrosis 1,015 5,010 6.1% 10.5 11.1 

Chronic lower respiratory diseases 758 8,274 4.5% 7.8 7.9 

Ischemic heart diseases 737 5,334 4.4% 7.6 8.7 

Other diseases of intestines 626 5,171 3.7% 6.5 7.0 


85 Years and Older 


% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

Other forms of heart disease 757 8,756 10.8% 42.5 37.4 

Injuries to the hip and thigh 578 11,397 8.2% 32.5 29.2 

General symptoms and signs 375 5,902 5.3% 21.1 16.0 

Ischemic heart diseases 280 2,941 4.0% 

15.7 15.7 

Other disorders of urinary system 276 4,028 3.9% 15.5 12.6 

All Causes of Hospitalization 


7,023 106,658 100% 394.6 368.0 

128

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Males Leading Cause of Hospitalization, 2009/10 



% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

Ischemic heart diseases 1,263 6,497 8.8% 5.9 7.0 

Other forms of heart disease 640 3,675 4.4% 3.0 

3.3 

Arthrosis 503 1,741 3.5% 2.4 

2.8 

Mental & behavioural disorders due to 

psychoactive substance use 

479 2,423 3.3% 2.3 2.6 


and pancreas 

477 2,278 3.3% 2.2 2.2 




% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

Other forms of heart disease 1,380 11,650 8.3% 16.4 16.5 

Ischemic heart diseases 1,369 9,324 8.2% 16.3 18.5 


Arthrosis 688 3,150 4.1% 8.2 8.8 

Cerebrovascular diseases 620 7,606 3.7% 7.4 7.1 


85 Years and Older 


% Total 

Discharges 

FH Rate 

per 1,000 

BC Rate 

per 1,000 

Other forms of heart disease 507 6,653 11.9% 54.4 47.2 


Ischemic heart diseases 214 2,780 5.0% 23.0 23.1 

Influenza and pneumonia 214 1,850 5.0% 23.0 20.5 

General symptoms and signs 195 3,546 4.6% 20.9 17.3 



129

Cance 

r Incidence – Child & Adult 

What are we look 

ing at? 

Cancer inci 

dence mea 

sures the number 

of new cancer cases 

diagnosed durin 

g a 

given time period. Incidence rat 

es are 

given for children (ages 

≤19) and f 

or 

adults (a 

ges 20+). Data are expressed 

as annual age-standardized in 

cidence 

rates (ASIR) per 100,000 population. 

36, 37, 38 


Cancer is a common illness and one of 

the leading causes of death in Canada. 

Predominantly affecting the elderly, 

cancers are rare in children; childhood 

cancers account for less than 1% o 

f all 

cancer diagnoses in Canada. Howeve 

r, it 

is the most common disease-relat 

ed 

cause of death among those ≤19 yea 

rs 

of age and the second leading cause of 

death among children 1-14 years of ag 

e. 

Childhood cancers differ from what we 

see in adults; children are more likely to 

suffer blood and lymphatic nancies such as leukemia. Unlike adult 

cancers, childhood canc 

ers are seldom 

preventable. Adult cancers are typically 

malignant tumours starting in 

the glan 

ds 

or the tissues lining t 

he organs. 

Minimizing risk factors can help prevent 

cancer overall. For leading cancers in 

adults, the main risk factors 

are smoking 

and second-hand smoke exposure, d 

malign- 

iet 

36 Health Canada. (2010). Health concerns, diseases & 

conditions, cancer. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from 

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/dc-ma/cancer-eng.php 

37 Canadian Cancer Society. (2010). Statistics at a glance. 

Retrieved July 30, 2010, from 

http://www.cancer.ca/Canadawide/Aboutcancer/Cancerstatistics/Stats 

at a glance 

38 BC Cancer Agency. (2010). Childhood cancer. Retrieved 

July 30, 2010, from 

http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/TypesofCancer/ChildhoodCa 

ncer/default.htm 

and nutrition, occupation, excessive 

alco hol use, genetics, and physical 

inactivity. In Canada, the major leading 

cancers ar e breast (for women), 

prostate (for men), lung, and colorectal; 

a similar distribution of cancers is seen 


Early detection and screening, such as 

mammography or colonoscopy, are 

critical. The earlier can cer is detected, 

the sooner treatment can begin, and the 

better the odds of survival. 

• In children and in adults, males have a 

higher incidence of cancer than females. 

• Leukemia is the most com mon cancer in 

children. 

• In general, cancer incidence is higher in 

the east of Fraser Health than the west. 

• The incidence of prostate cancer is 

higher in Fraser Health than BC overall. 

Limitations 

Incidence r efers to the diagnosis of new 

cancer cases not cancer-related deaths. 

Some cance rs are readily curable while 

others are not. 

Rates among children are based on 

small case numbers, s o data analyses 

are limited to large geographic areas; 

small changes in the number of cases 

can influence rates greatly; particularly 

in areas that have small populations like 

Hope or Agassiz/Harrison. 

New diagnostic methods can influence 

rates for certain cancer sites with better 

identification and/or earlier detection. 

130

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Childhood (Ages ≤19) Cancer Incidence in Fraser Health, 

20 

All Cancers by Sex 

15 

ASIR 

10 

5 

0 

Girls 

Boys 

2004 14.1 16.3 

2005 14.6 17.0 

2006 15.4 19.4 

2007 15.2 18.9 

2008 15.1 

18.1 

*Note: CNS denotes Central Nervous System. 

Childhood (Ages ≤19) Cancer Incidence in Fraser Health, 

20 

All Cancers by Sex 

15 

ASIR 

10 

5 

0 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Girls 14.1 14.6 15.4 15.2 15.1 

Boys 16.3 17.0 19.4 18.9 18.1 

Source: BC Cancer Agency. 

131

Cancer Incidence in Fraser Health and BC, All Cancers, Ages 20+ 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 


Men 605.1 595.6 590.7 592.5 587.5 

Women 449.5 451.3 448.9 446.8 448.2 

BC 

Men 601.9 591.0 580.4 581.9 579.3 

Women 460.2 459.0 457.2 455.4 454.1 

Lung Cancer Incidence Among Women, Ages 20+, 2008 

Hope 


Maple Ridge 

Mission 

Langley 

Chilliwack 


Coquitlam 


BC 

Delta 


Burnaby 

Surrey 

Abbotsford 

88.6 

83.4 

81.1 

72.1 

69.7 

68.8 

65.9 

61.9 

61.7 

55.8 

54.9 

54.6 

52.7 

47.9 

123.7 

0 50 100 150 200 

ASIR 

Lung Cancer Incidence Among Men, Ages 20+, 2008 

Hope 

Mission 

Maple Ridge 


Chilliwack 

Langley 


BC 


Coquitlam 


Burnaby 

Surrey 

Abbotsford 

Delta 

116.9 

108.4 

98.7 

93.7 

87.0 

78.8 

77.1 

76.8 

75.5 

70.1 

67.9 

66.8 

66.4 

60.6 

144.2 

0 50 100 150 200 

ASIR 


132

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Colorectal Cancer Incidence Among Women, Ages 20+, 2008 

Hope 

Chilliwack 

Coquitlam 

Mission 

Langley 


Maple Ridge 


BC 



Surrey 

Burnaby 

Delta 

Abbotsford 

75.5 

64.9 

60.2 

59.5 

58.1 

58.0 

56.6 

56.5 

53.9 

53.3 

51.1 

49.5 

49.3 

48.3 

45.6 

0 50 100 150 200 

ASIR 

Colorectal Cancer Incidence Among Men, Ages 20+, 2008 



Chilliwack 

Mission 

Hope 

Langley 

Coquitlam 

BC 



Maple Ridge 

Delta 

Burnaby 

Abbotsford 

Surrey 

89.5 

85.9 

84.6 

84.4 

84.3 

81.3 

77.4 

77.0 

76.2 

75.2 

74.6 

73.7 

68.6 

65.7 

105.8 

0 50 100 150 200 

ASIR 


133

Breast Cancer Incidence Among Women, Ages 20+, 2008 

Langley 

Hope 



Maple Ridge 

Chilliwack 

BC 

Coquitlam 


Burnaby 

Abbotsford 

Delta 


Mission 

Surrey 

153.0 

149.9 

149.6 

149.3 

134.8 

134.8 

134.1 

132.5 

131.8 

129.3 

128.5 

128.1 

123.0 

117.2 

114.2 

0 50 100 150 200 

ASIR 

Prostate Cancer Incidence Among Men, Ages 20+, 2008 

Hope 

Langley 


Delta 

Abbotsford 

Chilliwack 




Mission 

Coquitlam 

Surrey 

BC 

Maple Ridge 

Burnaby 

216.3 

207.5 

207.2 

190.7 

184.7 

183.5 

175.3 

174.5 

174.2 

169.5 

168.7 

167.2 

162.3 

159.7 

159.3 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

ASIR 


134

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 


135

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 


Data report newly diagnosed cases of 

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 

infection as a rate per 100,000 people. 

For those testing positive for HIV for the 

first time, infection may have occurred 

recently or some time in the past. Some 

may have been infected decades ago 

but are diagnosed only now. Rates of 

newly diagnosed cases will increase if 

more people become infected, but they 

can also increase if there is more testing 

among those infected previously, 

picking up people with existing but 

undiagnosed infections. 


HIV is a global epidemic that is 

preventable. HIV can be transmitted by 

sexual contact, blood-to-blood contact 

such as injection drug use (IDU), and 

perinatally (from a pregnant woman to 

her baby). HIV infection gradually 

destroys the immune system and the 

ability to fight other infections. As the 

disease progresses, HIV infection can 

lead to the development of Acquired 

Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). 

HIV also causes a general state of 

inflammation, which damages many 

organs and promotes chronic diseases 

such as heart disease, renal failure, and 

cancer. 

While highly active antiretroviral therapy 

reduces HIV transmission and greatly 

increases life expectancy for people 

infected with HIV, they still die sooner 

than those in the general population 39 

and they suffer side effects and reduced 

quality of life. 

More information on HIV is available in 

Fraser Health’s Annual Communicable 

Disease Report. 

• New Westminster has the highest rate 

of newly diagnosed HIV of the Fraser 

Health LHAs, followed by Burnaby. 

• In 2010, more than 70% of newly 

diagnosed HIV cases likely contracted 

the infection through sexual activity. 

Limitations 

When a case address is unavailable, the 

ordering physician’s address is used to 

assign the case to a geographic area. A 

community where more people with HIV 

go to be diagnosed may therefore be 

reported as having higher rates than it 

actually has. In addition, HIV/AIDS 

cases in regional correction facility 

populations are not separated from 

cases in the general population. 

Rates of HIV infection are affected by 

factors such as changes in availability of 

preventive services (e.g., methadone 

therapy, harm reduction supply) or 

changes in drug consumption (e.g., a 

reduction in cocaine injection). Changes 

to the surveillance system for HIV have 

affected reported rates over the years, 40 

including better removal of duplicate 

reports. 

39 The Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration. (2008). 

Life expectancy of individuals on combination antiretroviral 

therapy in high income countries: A collaborative analysis of 

14 cohort studies. Lancet, 372, 293--299. 

40 BC Centre for Disease Control, Annual surveillance report 

HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2009. 

136

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 


15 

10 

5 

Rates of Newly Diagnosed HIV Cases 

Fraser Health & BC, 2001-2010 

Improved reportability 

& increased identification 

of positve contacts 

Immigration tests removed 

from first positives in BC 

Better removal 

of duplicates 

0 

FH BC FH BC FH BC FH BC FH BC FH BC FH BC FH BC FH BC FH BC 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

FH Reports - outside BC 2 3 2 4 15 16 13 16 12 9 

FH Reports - in BC 87 101 95 109 88 73 81 69 87 72 

FH rates - outside BC 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.6 

FH rates - in BC 6.2 7.1 6.6 7.5 6.0 4.9 5.4 4.5 5.5 4.5 

BC rates - outside BC 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.8 

BC rates - in BC 10. 10. 9.9 10. 9.5 8.5 9.1 7.9 7.6 6.7 

Note: Many changes have been made to the HIV surveillance system that affect comparability from year to year. 41 

Total First Positive HIV cases by LHA, 2006-2010 Average 


15.1 

1.9 

Burnaby 

6.1 

0.9 


4.9 

0.9 

Hope 

Surrey 


Mission 

Abbotsford 

Maple Ridge 

Coquitlam 


Delta 

Langley 

Chilliwack 

4.9 

4.6 

4.5 

4.3 

4.2 

3.9 

3.8 

3.6 

3.4 

2.8 

1.7 

1.1 

1.0 

1.0 

0. 2 

0. 8 

0.7 

0.2 

0.3 

0.5 

2.5 

1st (+) in BC 

1st (+) in BC, previously (+) outside BC 

0 5 10 15 20 

Rate per 100, 000 

Source: Cognos Impromptu Web Reporting System, BC Centre for Disease Control. Data extracted on August 12, 

2011. Population estimates from BC Stats, Service BC, BC Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, P.E.O.P.L.E. 

36 Projections. 

41 BC Centre for Disease Control, & STI/HIV Prevention and Control. (2010). HIV/AIDS annual report 2009. Retrieved December 9, 

2011 from http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A8CE7DC6-EBD3-4E90-9142- 

50B9367C8B35/0/STI_HIVReport_HIVAIDSUpdate2009_20110401.pdf 

137

Distribution of Newly Positive for HIV by Exposure, 


100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

NIR/Unknown 13 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 

Other 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 3 4 5 

HET 28 33 40 32 23 24 33 26 35 30 

IDU 29 42 25 33 34 20 16 8 18 10 

MSM 16 20 27 42 26 26 30 30 27 22 

Notes: a) NIR/Unknown – No identified risk, b) HET – heterosexual contact, c) IDU – intravenous drug user, d) MSM 

– men who have sex with other men. In order to reflect best the current risk factors for acquiring HIV infection 

in Fraser Health, the data shown include only cases newly diagnosed in BC and not cases previously diagnosed 

outside of BC. 

Source: Cognos Impromptu Web Reporting System, BC Centre for Disease Control. Data extracted on August 12, 

2011. 

138

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 


139

Chronic Disease 

Primary Health Care (PHC) Patient Registry – 

Case Definitions 

Registry Information 

The PHC Patient Registry is a provincial 

registry maintained by the Ministry of 

Health that includes individuals with 

claims for chronic disease management. 

The registry provides prevalence and 

incidence rates on various chronic 

diseases and health care performance. 

Prevalence data reported are the Age- 

Standardized Prevalence Rates (ASPR), 

which are direct age-standardized using 

five-year age groups based on 2001 

Census estimates for BC, except 

dementia. 

Health authority comparisons are based 

on rates calculated using three-year 

moving averages and the reference year 

is the middle year (2007/08, 2008/09, 

and 2009/10). All other rates, such as 

the rates for each LHA, are shown as 

single year. Compare single year rates 

with caution, especially in areas that 

have smaller populations because oneyear 

rates may fluctuate each year. 

Registry case definitions are reviewed 

periodically and definitions refined to 

address limitations associated with 

administrative data. Definitions can be 

refined to reduce the number of missing 

cases and the number of false positives. 

Some records in the registry meeting 

the case definition may not in fact have 

the specified chronic disease, but have 

been included in the registry for reasons 

such as error in the diagnostic code 

provided. In addition, the registry does 

not include those who are undiagnosed 

or who have other diagnoses given on 

their claims. 

The registry is cumulative, including 

anyone who met the current case 

definition from 1992/93 to the present. 

Cases are removed only if they no 

longer live in BC or if they died. Those 

meeting the case definition in the past 

remain in the register even if they no 

longer meet the current case definition. 

To protect client confidentiality, all 

registry cells with less than five cases 

are suppressed and totals adjusted prior 

to data distribution. 

Case Definitions 

Diabetes Mellitus 

The diabetes registry case definition is 

for one of the following scenarios to 

occur within 365 days: 

a) one hospitalization with a diabetes 

diagnosis; or 

b) two medical visits with a diabetes 

diagnosis; or 

c) two or more insulin prescriptions; or 

d) two or more prescriptions for an oral 

antihyperglycaemic (excluding metformin), 

or 

e) one prescription for insulin plus one 

prescription for an oral antihyperglycaemic 

(excluding metformin); or 

f) one prescription for metformin plus 

one prescription for an antihyperglycaemic 

(excluding metformin), or 

g) two prescriptions for metformin plus 

one medical visit with a diabetes 

diagnosis. 

140

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Asthma 

Limited to those ages 5 to 54-years, the 

asthma registry case definition is for one 

of the following scenarios to occur 

within 365 days: one hospitalization with 

an asthma code, or two medical visits 

with an asthma code, or one medical 

visit with two prescriptions for asthma 

medications. 

Cardiovascular Disease 

There is no single register for cardiovascular 

disease; rather data are 

derived from merging three separate 

registries: a) angina, b) congestive heart 

failure (CHF), and c) acute myocardial 

infarction (AMI). 

Case criteria vary for each registry, 

cases are included in registries when 

one or more of the following scenarios 

occur within 365 days: 

a) Angina: one hospitalization with an 

angina diagnosis or one specialist 

visit with angina diagnosis and one 

nitrate prescription or two GP visits 

with angina diagnosis and one 

nitrate prescription. 

b) CHF: see definition below. 

c) AMI: one hospitalization with an AMI 

diagnostic code. 

Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) 

Current criteria in the CHF registry are 

one hospitalization or two medical visits 

with CHF diagnostic code and a prescription 

(ACE-I, loop diuretic, spironolactone, 

potassium sparing diuretic) 

within 365 days, or one specialist visit 

with CHF diagnostic code and a 

prescription within 365 days. 

visits with a depression diagnostic code 

in the specified 365-day period. 

Hypertension 

Limited to ages 20 and older, the 

registry criteria for hypertension are 

patients ages 20 and older with one 

hospitalization or two medical visits with 

a hypertension diagnostic code in the 

specified 365-day period. 

Stroke (Acute Cerebrovascular 

Syndrome - ACVS) 

The registry criteria for stroke include a 

hospitalization with diagnosis code for 

acute ischemic or haemorrhagic stroke. 

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary 

Disease (COPD) 

Limited to ages 45 and older, the 

registry criteria for COPD are for 

patients ages 45 years and older with 

one hospitalization or two medical visits 

with a COPD-related diagnostic code in 

the specified 365-day period. 

Osteoarthritis 

Osteoarthritis registry criteria are one 

hospitalization or two medical visits with 

an osteoarthritis diagnostic code or two 

or more prescriptions for osteoarthritis 

medication within 365-days. 

Dementia 

Limited to ages 45 and older, registry 

criteria are for are one hospitalization or 

two medical visits during which the 

patient was age 45-years or older with a 

dementia diagnostic code within 365 

days. 

Depression/Anxiety 

Registry criteria for depression/anxiety 

are one hospitalization or two medical 

141

a) Diabetes Mellitus (DM) 


The prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) 

refers to the percentage of the population 

who have diabetes mellitus, representing 

everyone registered in the Primary Health 

Care (PHC) patient registry during the 

time shown. 

Data are direct age-standardized using 


Census estimates for BC. For health 

authority comparisons, the rates shown 

are based on three-year moving averages 

where the reference year is the middle 

year (2007/08, 2008/09, and 2009/10). 

All other rates are single year rates. 


The prevalence of diabetes is increasing 

even though many of the risk factors are 

preventable. Diabetes is a costly disease 

for the health care system. Diabetes is a 

serious chronic condition affecting the 

body’s ability to produce and/or to use 

insulin properly. Even when well treated, 

diabetes can lead to a n umber of 

disabling or life-threatening complications, 

including hypertension, heart disease, 

stroke, and even premature death. 

Diabetes is the single largest cause of 

blindness in Canada and a leading cause 

of kidney failure and lower limb 

amputations. 42 

Babies who are breastfed are at lower risk 

of Type 1 diabetes. Not smoking, regular 

exercise, a healthy diet, and maintaining a 

healthy body weight help prevent Type 2 

ASPR 

diabetes. Control of blood sugar levels 

and of blood pressure and other risk 

factors can reduce the risk of 

complications. 

• Fraser Health has the highest agestandardized 

prevalence rates (ASPR) 

of diabetes mellitus in the province. 

Interior and Vancouver Island health 

authorities have the lowest prevalence 

rates. 

• Surrey and Abbotsford LHAs have the 

largest proportion of diabetics among 

Fraser Health LHAs, which may be due 

in part to the large South Asian 

43 

populations residing in those areas. 

Limitations 

See page 140 for case definitions and 

more information on registries and 

data limitations. 

10% 

8% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus, 

Based on Three-Year Moving Average, 2008/09 

6.2% 

5.0% 

4.6% 4.6% 

5.7% 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Diabetes Registry as of 

February 2011. 

5.3% 


42 Sanmartin, C., & Gilmore, J. (2006). Diabetes care in 

Canada: Results from selected provinces and territories, 2005. 

Retrieved April 4, 2007, from: 

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/82-621- 

XIE/2006002/diabetic.htm. 

43 Kumar, S. S., and Houlden, R. L. (2005). Ethnocultural 

diversity and the diabetes epidemic in Canada: A call to 

action. Canadian Journal of Diabetes, 29(2), 84-85. 

142

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus 

10% 


BC 

8% 

ASPR 

6% 

4% 

4.0% 

3.6% 

5. 0% 

4.7% 

4.5% 

4.2% 

4.0% 

4.2% 

4.4% 3.8% 

5.3% 

5.6% 

5.9% 

6.2% 

6.5% 

4.6% 

4.9% 

5.1% 

5.3% 

5.5% 

2% 

0% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Prevalence of Diabetes 

Mellitus, 2009/10 

Surrey 

Abbotsford 

Mission 

Burnaby 


Maple Ridge 

Hope 

Chilliwack 

Langley 

Delta 


Coquitlam 


8.1% (33,950) 

7.1% (11,314) 

6.7% (3,188) 

6.4% (18,418) 

6.4% (5,162) 

6.2% (6,609) 

6.1% (864) 

5.9% (6,779) 

5.9% (9,490) 

5.9% (8,041) 

5.9% (752) 

5.8% (14,368) 

4. 3% (6,130) 

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 

ASPR (Count) 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Diabetes Registry as of February 2011. 

143

) Asthma 


Asthma prevalence represents the proportion 

of people aged 5 to 54 years old 

registered with the Primary Health Care 

patient registry during the time shown. 



Census estimates for BC. Rates shown 

for health authority comparison are 

based on three-year moving averages 


year (2007/08, 2008/09, and 2009/10). 

All other rates are single year. 


Caused by chronic inflammation of the 

airway, asthma makes it difficult to 

breath and can impair one’s ability to 

function in daily life. Asthma can cause 

people to need long-term medications 

that may have secondary effects or it 

can even cause death. 44 

Many factors increase the likelihood of 

developing asthma, such as having 

allergies, being overweight, smoking, 

being exposed to second-hand smoke, 

having a mother who smoked while 

pregnant, and being exposed to exhaust 

fumes (by living close to a busy road) or 

to chemicals that are used in farming, 

hairdressing, or manufacturing. 44 

Asthma can be triggered and made 

worse by allergens (e.g., animal, pollen, 

mould, and dust mites) and by nonallergic 

airway irritants (e.g., smoke, 

smog, and exercise, especially in cold 

ASPR 

air). 45 People of low socio-economic 

status are more likely to have asthma 

and can often encounter barriers to 

getting the appropriate medical care 

they need and they can face challenges 

paying for needed medication. 

• The prevalence of asthma is increasing 

and Fraser Health has the second 

highest prevalence of asthma among 

BC health authorities. 

• Asthma tends to be more common in 

people with low socio-economic status. 

• Asthma prevalence is higher in Fraser 

Health’s eastern LHAs, which typically 

have lower socio-economic status then 

the more westerns LHA. 

10% 

8% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

Prevalence of Asthma, Ages 5-54, 


7.6% 

7.1% 

6.1% 

8.0% 

7.1% 7.0% 


Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Asthma Registry as of 


Limitations 


more information on registries and data 

limitations. 

44 Mayo Clinic. (2010). Asthma risk factors. Retrieved 

October 18, 2010, from 

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/asthma/DS00021/DSECT 

ION=risk-factors 

45 Asthma Society of Canada. (2011). Common asthma 

triggers: About inflammatory triggers. Retrieved December 

14, 2011 from 

http://www.asthma.ca/adults/about/inflammatoryTriggers.p 

hp 

144

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Prevalence of Asthma, Ages 5-54 

10% 


BC 

ASPR 

8% 

6% 

4% 

5.3% 

4.9% 

5.6% 

6.0% 

6.3% 

5.2% 

5.5% 

5.8% 

6.6% 

6.1% 

7.8% 

7.3% 

7.5% 

7.1% 

6.9% 

6.8% 7.0% 7. 3% 

6.6% 

6.4% 

2% 

0% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Prevalence of Asthma, Ages 5-54, 2009/10 

Abbotsford 


Mission 

Langley 

Delta 

Surrey 

Maple Ridge 

Hope 

Chilliwack 



Coquitlam 

Burnaby 

9.7% (12,198) 

9.6% (656) 

9.1% (3,584) 

8.8% (10,768) 

8.4% (8,046) 

8.4% (32,862) 

8.4% (7,383) 

7.7% (533) 

7.6% (5,805) 

7.4% (4,666) 

7.0% (4,199) 

6.7% (14,424) 

6.0% (13,256) 

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 

ASPR (Count) 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Asthma Registry as of February 2011. 

145

c) Cardiovascular Disease and Congestive Heart Failure 


Prevalence rates for cardiovascular 

disease are based on cases registered in 

the relevant Primary Health Care (PHC) 

patient registries during the time shown. 

There is no single registry for cardiovascular 

disease; rather data are 

derived from merging three separate 

registries: a) angina, b) congestive heart 

failure (CHF), and c) acute myocardial 

infarction (AMI). 

The prevalence of congestive heart 

failure (CHF) represents all cases 

registered in the PHC patient registry for 

CHF during the time shown. 

For health authority comparisons, rates 

are based on three-year moving 

averages in which the reference year is 

the middle year (2007/08, 2008/09, and 

2009/10). All other rates are single year 

rates. 


Also known as ‘heart disease,’ cardiovascular 

diseases are the leading cause 

of death in Canada. 46,47 Cardiovascular 

disease is a broad term encompassing 

numerous diseases that affect the 

circulatory system, including ischemic 

heart disease, cerebrovascular disease 

(stroke), heart failure, peripheral 

vascular disease, rheumatic heart 

disease, and congenital heart disease. 

However, the PHC case definition is 

more limited, including only angina, 

46 Public Health Agency of Canada. (2008). Six types of 

cardiovascular disease. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from 

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/cvd-mcv/cvd-mcveng.php 

47 Public Health Agency of Canada. (2008). Cardiovascular 

disease. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from 

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/cvd-mcv/index-eng.php 

CHF, and AMI. Ischemic heart disease is 

the most common cardiovascular 

disease for both men and women. 

Congestive heart failure is a lifethreatening 

condition where the heart is 

not able to pump sufficient blood 

throughout the body. In most cases, 

CHF is a chronic long-term condition, 

but it can also develop quite suddenly. 

While some risk factors, like age, family 

history, or sex, cannot be changed, 

many risk factors can be avoided or 

reduced. Smoking, lack of exercise, 

unhealthy eating, high cholesterol, high 

blood pressure, and sodium intake are 

all modifiable factors that increase the 

46, 47 

risk of cardiovascular disease. 

• Vancouver Coastal has the lowest 

prevalence of cardiovascular disease 

among BC health authorities, while 

Vancouver Island has the lowest 

prevalence of CHF. 

• Generally, LHAs in eastern regions of 

Fraser Health have higher prevalence 

rates than LHAs in western regions. 

• With over 14,000 people affected, 

Surrey LHA (which does not include 

South Surrey) has more people with 

cardiovascular disease than does all of 

Fraser East (14,241 vs 13,796 people). 

Limitations 



limitations. The registry criteria for CHF 

has changed and data in this report 

cannot be compared to data reported in 

previous versions of this report. 

146

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

10% 

Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease, 


8% 

6% 

ASPR 

4% 

3. 2% 

3.5% 

2.5% 

2.8% 

3.7% 

3.0% 

2% 

0% 

FHA IHA VCHA 

VIHA NHA BC 

Source: Ministry of Health Services, PHC Angina, CHF, and AMI patient Registries as of February 2011. 

10% 

Prevalence of Congestive Heart Failure, 


8% 

6% 

ASPR 

4% 

2% 

1.3% 1.4% 

1.2% 

1.1% 

1.8% 

1.3% 

0% 

FHA IHA VCHA 

VIHA NHA BC 

Source: Ministry of Health Services, PHC Congestive Heart Failure Registry as of February 2011. 

147

Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease 

10% 


BC 

8% 

6% 

ASPR 

4% 

2% 

3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3.2% 

2.8% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 

0% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease, 2009/10 

Hope 


Chilliwack 

Surrey 

Mission 

Maple Ridge 

Langley 

Abbotsford 

Delta 


Coquitlam 


Burnaby 

4.1% (661) 

4.0% (569) 

3.5% (4,650) 

3.5% (14,241) 

3.5% (1,715) 

3.5% (3,796) 

3.5% (6,018) 

3.4% (6,201) 

3.1% (4,733) 

3.1% (2,755) 

2.9% (7,038) 

2.7% (5,227) 

2.6% (8,244) 

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 

ASPR (Count) 

Source: Ministry of Health Services, PHC Angina, CHF, and AMI patient Registries as of February 2011. 

148

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Prevalence of Congestive Heart Failure 

10% 


BC 

8% 

6% 

ASPR 

4% 

2% 

0% 

1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 

1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Prevalence of Congestive Heart Failure, 2009/10 

Mission 


Hope 

Abbotsford 

Surrey 

Maple Ridge 

Chilliwack 

Langley 

Delta 


Burnaby 


Coquitlam 

1.8% (891) 

1.7% (240) 

1.6% (265) 

1.5% (2,972) 

1.5% (6,112) 

1.5% (1,619) 

1.4% (1,972) 

1.4% (2,544) 

1.3% (2,082) 

1.3% (1,196) 

1.2% (4,011) 

1.1% (2,379) 

1.1% (2,622) 

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 

ASPR (Count) 

Source: Ministry of Health Services, PHC Congestive Heart Failure Registry as of February 2011. 

149


The prevalence of depression/anxiety 

represents all residents with a history of 

depression/anxiety registered in the PHC 

patient registry for the given period. 


Occasional periods of unhappiness, 

grief, or sadness are normal. Major 

depression, on the other hand, causes 

prolonged feelings of hopelessness and 

a lack of self worth lasting more than 

two months and interfering with daily 

life. 48 Depression can affect people of 

any age and symptoms can alter the 

way someone thinks and behaves; 

depression can even cause physical 

effects. 48 Signs of depression include 

prolonged feelings of hopelessness or 

despair, detachment from life, lethargy, 

suicidal thoughts, change in appetite, 

and/or frequent headaches or stomach 

upsets. 

People with anxiety disorders experience 

excessive anxiety, fear, or worries that 

interfere with relationships, school and 

work performance, social activities, and 

recreation. 49 Anxiety disorders are the 

most common of all mental illnesses. 49 

Mood disorders like depression and 

anxiety have major economic implications 

through lost work productivity 

and related health care expenses. 49 

Canadians living in low-income neighbourhoods 

were found to be 85% more 

likely to be hospitalized for depression 

48 Health Canada. (2009). It's your health: Depression. 

Retrieved August 4, 2009, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hlvs/iyh-vsv/diseases-maladies/depression-eng.php 

49 Health Canada. (2002). A report on mental illnesses in 

Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Health Canada. Retrieved August 

4, 2009 from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/miicmmac/index-eng.php 

d) Depression/Anxiety 

ASPR 

than those living in higher income 

neighbourhoods. 50 

• The prevalence of anxiety/depression 

is increasing. 

• In Canada, roughly 16% of women 

and 11% of men will suffer serious 

depression during their lifetimes 48 

while about 16% of women and 9% 

of men experience anxiety disorders. 49 

• Vancouver Coastal has the lowest rate 

of depression/anxiety in BC. 

• LHAs in Fraser East have the highest 

rates of depression/anxiety in Fraser 

Health, but account for only 20% of 

cases across the region; Fraser North 

has 1.8 times the number of cases 

and Fraser South 2.3 times the cases. 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Prevalence of Depression/Anxiety, 


19.8% 

22.5% 

17.2% 

22.2% 

Source: Ministry of Health Services, PHC Depression 

Registry as of February 2011. 

21.2% 

Limitations 

See page 140 for registry information, 

case definitions, and data limitations. 

19.8% 


50 Canadian Institute for Health Information. (Feb. 24, 

2009). The association between socio-economic status and 

inpatient hospital service use for depression. Analysis in 

brief: Taking health information further. Ottawa, ON: CIHI. 

150

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Prevalence of Depression/Anxiety 

30% 


BC 

ASPR 

20% 

15.8% 

15.4% 

16.7% 

17.5% 

18.2% 

16.4% 

17.3% 

18.0% 

18.7% 19.0% 19.3% 19.6% 19.8% 20.0% 

18.5% 18.9% 19.3% 19.5% 19.8% 20.0% 

10% 

0% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Prevalence of Depression/Anxiety, 2009/10 

Abbotsford 

Mission 

Chilliwack 

Hope 


Maple Ridge 

Delta 

Langley 


Surrey 


Coquitlam 

Burnaby 

0% 

24.0% (33,256) 

23.7% (10,146) 

23.1% (20,635) 

22.2% (2,145) 

22.1% (22,157) 

21.9% (21,275) 

21.8% (25,092) 

21.7% (30,327) 

21.6% (1,962) 

19.9% (81,550) 

19.8% (14,947) 

17.6% (42,003) 

15.6% (41,643) 

10% 20% 30% 

ASPR (Count) 

Source: Ministry of Health Services, PHC Depression/Anxiety Registry as of February 2011. 

151


The prevalence of hypertension (high 

blood pressure) represents all residents 

aged 20 and older who have a history of 

hypertension and who are registered in 

the Primary Health Care (PHC) patient 

registry during the time shown. 




authority comparisons, given rates are 



year (2007/08, 2008/09, and 2009/10). 


e) Hypertension 

Some risk factors for hypertension 

cannot be changed, such as age or a 

family history of cardiovascular disease 

or hypertension. However, numerous 

risk factors can be controlled, including 

tobacco use, drinking alcohol, physical 

activity, and being overweight. 54 

• Fraser Health has the second highest 

rate among BC health authorities, 

while Vancouver Coastal Health has 

the lowest. 

• With over 65,000 cases, Surrey LHA 

has the highest prevalence of hypertension 



Hypertension, or high blood pressure, is 

the leading modifiable risk factor for 

stroke and a major risk factor for heart 

disease, the two leading causes of 

hospitalization and death in Canada. 51,52 

Uncontrolled hypertension can cause 

serious harm, damaging arterial walls, 

accelerating the hardening of arteries, 

and/or leading to heart enlargement or 

failure. In turn, damage or hardening of 

the arteries can lead to heart disease, 

heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, loss 

of sight, and aneurysms. 53 

51 Jenkins, K., & Alberta Health Services. (2009). Do you 

know what your blood pressure is? You should! Retrieved 

August 6, 2009, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cdmc/cvd-mcv/blood_pressure-tension_arterielle-eng.php 

52 Public Health Agency of Canada. (2009). Hypertension 

facts and figures. Retrieved August 6, 2009, from 

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/cvdmcv/hypertension_figures-eng.php 

53 Public Health Agency of Canada. (2009). What can 

happen if I have uncontrolled high blood pressure and what 

can I do to lower it? Retrieved August 6, 2009, from 

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/cvd-mcv/hbp-ha_02- 

eng.php 

ASPR 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Prevalence of Hypertension, Ages 20+, 


13.9% 

12.7% 12.4% 

12.9% 

14.3% 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Hypertension Registry as of 


Limitations 



limitations. 

13.1% 


54 Ministry of Health, BC Government. (2008). Hypertension 

– detection, diagnosis and management: A guide for 

patients. Retrieved December 14, 2011, from 

http://www.bcguidelines.ca/pdf/hypertension_patient_guide 

.pdf 

152

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Prevalence of Hypertension, Ages 20+ 

30% 


BC 

20% 

ASPR 

10% 

10.6% 

9.9% 

11.1% 

11.7% 12.1% 

10.4% 10.9% 11.3% 

12.6% 12.9% 13.4% 13.7% 13.9% 14.1% 

11.8% 12.1% 12.6% 12.9% 13.1% 13.3% 

0% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Prevalence of Hypertension, Ages 20+, 2009/10 

Surrey 

Maple Ridge 

Abbotsford 

Delta 

Langley 


Mission 

Hope 


Coquitlam 

Burnaby 

Chilliwack 


15.5% (65,187) 

15.0% (16,313) 

14.7% (24,408) 

14.2% (20,177) 

14.0% (23,097) 

13.8% (1,818) 

13.7% (6,604) 

13.5% (1,973) 

13.4% (11, 305) 

13.4% (33,628) 

13.3% (39,381) 

13.3% (15,799) 

12.2% (18,808) 

0% 10% 20% 30% 

ASPR (Count) 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Hypertension Re gistry as of February 2011. 

153

f) Stroke (Acute Cerebrovascular Syndrome) 


The prevalence of stroke represents all 

clients with a hospitalization for stroke 

registered in the Primary Health Care 

(PHC) registry for the time shown. 


A stroke occurs when blood flow is cut 

off to part of the brain and brain cells in 

the affected area are damaged or die. 55 

Stroke is a major cause of death and 

disability in seniors. 56 Deaths due to 

stroke are dropping, but stroke survivors 

often experience some degree of 

disability long after the stroke and 

despite rehabilitation. 

Following a stroke, common outcomes 

include impaired vision, trouble using or 

understanding language, paralysis or 

weakness on one side of the body, 

tiredness, depression, and trouble 

55, 56 

thinking. 

While stroke is most common among 

older adults, a stroke can occur at any 

age. Besides age, other risk factors 

include obesity, hypertension, and a 

history of heart disease, physical 

inactivity, smoking, and heavy 

drinking. 55 A healthy diet high in 

unrefined plant foods and not high in 

salt or fat can help lower blood pressure 

and maintain a healthy body weight. 

A stroke is an emergency that requires 

immediate action to save lives and to 

ASPR 

reduce debilitating outcomes. 56 With 

stroke, “time is brain” because the 

longer it takes to reach care, more brain 

cells die. 

3% 

2% 

1% 

0% 

• Hospitalizations for stroke vary little 

between health authorities, and the 

overall trend over time has remained 

constant. 

Prevalence of Stroke, 


0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 

0.6% 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Stroke Registry as of 


Limitations 



limitations. The registry criteria for 

stroke has changed and data in this 

report cannot be compared to data 

reported in previous versions of this 

report. 

0.5% 


55 Public Health Agency of Canada. (2005). Stroke info-sheet 

for seniors. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from 

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/seniorsaines/publications/public/age/info/stroke/stroke-eng.php 

56 About.com. Senior health: Stroke research and treatment. 

Retrieved August 7, 2008, from 

http://seniorhealth.about.com/od/stroke/Stroke_Research_a 

nd_Treatment.htm 

154

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

3% 

Prevalence of Stroke 


BC 

2% 

ASPR 

1% 

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0. 5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 

0% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/ 05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Prevalence of Stroke, 2009/10 

Hope 

Maple Ridge 

Mission 

Langley 

Chilliwack 



Abbotsford 

Burnaby 

Surrey 

Delta 

Coquitlam 


0.6% (99) 

0.6% ( 615) 

0.5% (275) 

0.5% (968) 

0.5% (680) 

0.5% (78) 

0.5% (480) 

0.5% (963) 

0.5% (1,549) 

0. 5% (1,989) 

0.5% (712) 

0.5% (1,082) 

0.4% (847) 

0% 1% 2% 3% 

ASPR (Count) 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Stroke Registry as of February 2011. 

155

g) Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) 


The prevalence of chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease (COPD) represents 

all residents aged 45 years and older 

who have COPD and are registered in 

the Primary Health Care (PHC) patient 








year (2007/08, 2008/09, and 2009/10). 


air pollution makes symptoms worse, 

which can be particularly troublesome 

for people with COPD living in the Fraser 

Valley because the valley’s shape tends 

to trap air pollution. 

• Fraser Health has similar prevalence of 

COPD as the BC average. 

• Among LHAs, the highest rates are in 

Hope, Mission, New Westminster, 

Maple Ridge, and Langley. 

• Because it has the largest population 

among our LHAs, Surrey LHA has the 

largest number of adults with COPD. 


COPD is a broad term for a group of 

respiratory diseases that block airflow, 

including emphysema and chronic 

bronchitis. COPD makes breathing very 

difficult; symptoms include shortness of 

breath, cough, and sputum production. 

In turn, breathing difficulties limit 

activity levels and reduce quality of life 

for patients. 57 COPD symptoms are 

uncommon among people younger than 

55 years, but damage to the lungs starts 

well before symptoms start showing. 57,58 

Smoking is by far the biggest preventimportant 

to continue initiatives that 

able risk factor for COPD 58 so it is very 

reduce smoking rates and limit exposure 

to second-hand tobacco smoke. Outdoor 

ASPR 

3% 

2% 

1% 

0% 

Prevalence of COPD, Ages 45+, 


1.4% 

1.9% 

1.2% 

1.4% 

1.9% 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC COPD Registry as of 


Limitations 



limitations. 

1.5% 


57 Public Health Agency of Canada. (2008). Chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Retrieved August 11, 

2009, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/crdmrc/copd-mpoc-eng.php 

58 Public Health Agency of Canada. (2008). What is COPD 

and can it be prevented? Retrieved August 11, 2009, from 

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/crd-mrc/copd_preventmpoc_prevenir-eng.php 

156

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

Prevalence of COPD, Ages 45+ 

3% 


BC 

2% 

ASPR 

1% 

1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 

1.5% 

1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 

0% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Prevalence of COPD, Ages 45+, 2009/10 

Hope 

Mission 


Maple Ridge 

Langley 


Chilliwack 

Coquitlam 

Abbotsford 

Surrey 

Burnaby 


Delta 

0% 

2.3% (373) 

1.9% (897) 

1.8% (1,565) 

1.8% (1,936) 

1.7% (2,890) 

1.6% (241) 

1.5% (1,976) 

1.4% (3,417) 

1.4% (2,451) 

1.4% (5,483) 

1.3% (4,113) 

1.2% (2,233) 

1.2% (1,789) 

1% 2% 3% 

ASPR (Count) 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC COPD Registry as of Februa ry 2011. 

157

h) Osteoarthritis (OA) 


The prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) 

represents all cases registered in the 

Primary Health Care (PHC) patient 








year (2006/07, 2007/08, and 2008/09). 



Osteoarthritis occurs when cartilage (the 

material that cushions bone ends) is 

damaged or wears down. While there 

are many different forms of arthritis, 

OA is the most common and is the 

most frequent joint problem among 

seniors. 59 The Public Health Agency of 

Canada estimates that OA affects 85% 

of Canadians by age 70. 59 

Characterized by pain, stiffness, and/or 

swelling in or around a joint, osteoarthritis 

can be very painful and is one 

of the main factors leading older adults 

to limit their activities. 59 Finger joints 

are the most likely joint to be affected, 

though OA can also cause pain in knees, 

hips, shoulders, elbows, wrists, or the 

back. 60 

59 Public Health Agency of Canada. (2000). Arthritis infosheet 

for seniors. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and 

Government Services Canada. Retrieved December 15, 2009 

from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/seniorsaines/publications/public/age/info/arthritis/arthritis-eng.php 

60 

A Healthy Me. (2011). Osteoarthritis Retrieved December 

14, 2011, from http://ahealthyme.epnet.com/osteoarthritis 

ASPR 

10% 

8% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

Along with age, risk factors include 

excess weight, injury, heredity, and lack 

of physical activity. Fatigue, pain, and 

stiffness may lead people to avoid 

exercise, which ironically can worsen 

arthritic symptoms. 59 

• Among provincial health authorities, 

Vancouver Coastal has the lowest 

prevalence of osteoarthritis and lower 

than the BC average. 

• Among Fraser Health LHAs, Surrey has 

the highest prevalence rate and the 

largest number of cases, nearly double 

the number of cases in Burnaby, which 

has the lowest rate. 

Prevalence of Osteoarthritis, 


6.0% 

6.4% 

4.6% 

6.0% 

6.7% 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Osteoarthritis Registry as 

of February 2011. 

5.7% 


Limitations 



limitations. The registry criteria for 

osteoarthritis has changed and data in 

this report cannot be compared to data 

reported in previous versions of this 

report. 

158

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

10% 

Prevalence of Osteoarthritis 


BC 

8% 

ASPR 

6% 

4% 

4.7% 

4.4% 

4.9% 

4.6% 

5.1% 

4.8% 

5.3% 

5.0% 

5.5% 

5.2% 

5.6% 5.8% 5.9% 6.0% 6.1% 

5.4% 5.5% 5.6% 5.7% 5.8% 

2% 

0% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Surrey 

Hope 



Abbotsford 

Delta 

Langley 

Mission 

Chilliwack 

Maple Ridge 

Prevalence of Osteoarthritis, 2009/10 

Coquitlam 

Burnaby 

7.0% (28,719) 

6.9% (1,013) 

6.9% (0,920) 

6.5% (10,349) 

6.4% (10,833) 

6.4% (9,113) 

6.2% (10,290) 

6.2% (3,028) 

6.1% (7,406) 

6.0% (6,556) 

New Westminster 5.8% (4,972) 

5.2% (12,966) 

5.0% (14,909) 

0% 2% 

4% 6% 8% 10% 

ASPR (Count) 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Osteoarthritis Regi stry as of February 2011. 

159


Dementia prevalence reports the percent 

of adults (45 years and older) with 

dementia, representing all cases in the 

PHC patient registry for the time shown. 


Dementia refers to a broad class of 

disorders characterized by progressive 

deterioration of the mind, including 

perception, thought, and memory. 61 The 

signs and symptoms of dementia include 

loss of memory, deterioration of 

judgment and reasoning skills, and 

changes in mood, behaviour, and 

communication ability leading to the loss 

of ability to perform activities of daily 

living. Alzheimer’s disease is a 

degenerative and eventually fatal brain 

disease that is by far the most common 

cause of dementia, accounting for about 

63% of all cases of dementia in Canada. 

Dementia not only implies a long period 

of disability for the person affected by 

the disease, it also places immense 

strain and significant financial pressure 

on family and caregivers. 61 

The risk of dementia increases with age. 

It is more common among women than 

among men and it is more common 

among the very old (85+) than among 

younger seniors (65-84). Factors known 

to increase the risk of dementia include 

hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, 

or having had a heart attack or stroke. 62 

Though the exact cause of dementias 

i) Dementia 

ASPR 

3% 

2% 

1% 

0% 

may be hard to determine, making 

healthy living choices that reduce the 

risk of other chronic disease are 

recommended as beneficial in reducing 

our risk of some forms of dementia. 

Staying as healthy and as mentally and 

socially active as possible can help 

prevent further cognitive decline among 

those who already have dementia. 62 

• Dementia prevalence in Fraser Health 

(0.7%) is similar to BC overall (0.7%), 

but prevalence is increasing. 

• Dementia prevalence ranged from 

0.6% in Chilliwack LHA to 0.9% in 

Mission LHA. 

Limitations 


registry and data limitation information. 

The registry criteria for dementia has 

changed and data in this report cannot 

be compared to data reported in 

previous versions of this report. 

Prevalence of Dementia, Ages 45+, 


0.6% 0.7% 

0.8% 0.8% 

0.7% 0.7% 


61 Dedgeon, S. (2010). Rising tide: The impact of dementia 

on Canadian society Alzheimer Society of Canada. 

62 Curtis, J., & Poore, R. (2009). HealthLinkBC: Dementia. 

Retrieved July 14, 2010, from 

http://www.healthlinkbc.ca/kb/content/major/uf4984.html# 

uf4985 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Dementia Registry as of 


160

HEALTH STATUS 

MORBIDITY 

3% 

Prevalence of Dementia, Ages 45+ 


BC 

2% 

ASPR 

1% 

0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0. 6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0. 6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 

0% 

00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 

Prevalence of Dementia, Ages 45+, 2009/10 

Mission 

Maple Ridge 

Delta 



Langley 


Hope 

Surrey 

Coquitlam 

Abbotsford 

Burnaby 

Chilliwack 

0.9% (448) 

0.8% ( 907) 

0.8% (1,316) 

0.7% (1,876) 

0. 7% (749) 

0.7% (1,420) 

0.7% (111) 

0.7% (114) 

0.7% (2,693) 

0.6% (1,550) 

0.6% (1,385) 

0.6% (2,227) 

0.6% (912) 

0% 1% 

2% 3% 

ASPR (Count) 

Source: Ministry of Health, PHC Dementia Registry as of February 2011. 

161

MORTALITY 

Infant Mortality 


Infant mortality is expressed as the 

number of deaths of infants less than 

one year old as a rate per 1,000 live 

births. 

The low birth-weight (

HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 

8 

Five-Year Infant Mortality, 

by Health Authority, 2005-2009 

Live Births 

ate per 1,000 

R 

6 

4 

2 

0 


Count 287 117 208 145 73 830 

Rate 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.7 4.1 3.9 

80 

Five-Year Low Birth-Weight Infant Mortality, 

by Health Authority, 2005-2009 

LBW Live Births 


60 

40 

20 

0 


Count 182 65 135 81 40 503 

Rate 36.8 39.4 46.8 50.6 46.1 42.1 


Note: Bars represent point estimates; whisker lines represent 95% confidence intervals 

163

8 

Infant Mortality 


BC 

Rate per 1,000 Live Births . 

6 

4 

2 

4.2 

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.0 

4.0 3.9 3.9 

3.7 3.8 3.9 

3.7 

3.6 3.6 

3.9 

3.4 

0 

1996- 

2000 

1997- 

2001 

1998- 

2002 

1999- 

2003 

2000- 

2004 

2001- 

2005 

2002- 

2006 

2003- 

2007 

2004- 

2008 

2005- 

2009 

80 

Low Birth-Weight Infant Mortality 


BC 

Rate per 1,000 LBW Live Births 

60 

40 

20 

50.3 

48.6 48.3 48.6 49.3 49.7 

44.5 43.6 44.0 43.9 

45.4 46.7 

48.1 46.8 

43.1 42.7 

44.7 

40.6 

42.1 

36.8 

0 

1996- 

2000 

1997- 

2001 

1998- 

2002 

1999- 

2003 

2000- 

2004 

2001- 

2005 

2002- 

2006 

2003- 

2007 

2004- 

2008 

2005- 

2009 


164

HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 

Infant Mortality by LHA, 2005-2009 

Hope 

Mission 

Surrey 

BC 

Abbotsford 


Coquitlam 

Langley 

Maple Ridge 


Chilliwack 

Burnaby 



Delta 

4.8 (11) 

4.6 (112) 

3.9 (830) 

3.4 (29) 

3.4 (287) 

3.2 (33) 

3.1 (21) 

3.0 (14) 

2.7 (9) 

2.6 (13) 

2.6 (29) 

2.1 (

Five-Year Infant Mortality by Length of Gestation, 

2005-2009 

50 

Rate per 1,000 Live Births 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 

Fraser Health Leading Causes of Infant Mortality, 2005-2009 

All other causes 

20% 

Total Infant Deaths = 287 

Congenital 

malformations & 

chromosome 

abnormalities 

20% 

Perinatal respiratory & 

cardiovascular disorders 

4% 

Premature/postmature & 

fetal growth disorders 

20% 

Other perinatal 

conditions 

9% 

Sudden infant death 

syndrome (SIDS) 

10% 

Fetus/newborn affected 

by maternal factors & 

pregnancy, labour & 

delivery complications 

17% 


167

All Causes of Death – ASMR 


The age-standardized mortality rate 

(ASMR) summarizes the age-adjusted 

death rates for a particular population. 

Death rates are standardized to a 

‘standard’ population (1991 Census). 

The ASMR represents the theoretical 

number of deaths per 10,000 people 

that would have occurred in the 

population in question if it had the same 

age group distribution as the ‘standard’ 

population. 


80 

60 

40 

20 

ASMR for All Causes of Death, 2005-2009 

64.0 

55.3 

50.9 51.6 

50.9 

44.6 

• Vancouver Coastal Health had the 

lowest rate among the provincial 

health authorities; Fraser Health is 

not far off at 51 deaths for every 

10,000 people. 

• However, the ASMRs among Fraser 

Health LHAs vary considerably, with 

rates higher in the east than in the 

west. 

0 


Source: Vista Database, BC Vital Statistics Agency, Ministry 




Limitations 

Only ASMRs calculated to the same 

standard population are comparable. 

The ASMR is a theoretical value used for 

rate comparison and does not represent 

the actual observed death rate. 

ASMR data are calculated for single 

years and for aggregated five-year 

periods. 

Data represent all causes of death and 

therefore do not indicate the specific 

cause of death nor differentiate rates 

from specific causes of death. 

168

HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 

80 

ASMR for All Causes of Death 

60 


40 

20 

0 

1990 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 2000 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 

Fraser Health 64.7 65.4 65.3 65.0 62.9 62.5 64.6 61.4 59.4 57.4 55.1 55.8 53.6 54.7 53.8 53.7 52.2 50.7 51.4 46.9 

BC 66.6 65.4 65.0 66.1 64.4 63.1 63.7 61. 4 60.8 59.1 56.1 56.2 55.5 54.6 54.1 53.2 51.9 51.1 50.6 47.8 

ASMR for All Causes of Death, 2005-2009 

Hope 

Mission 

Chilliwack 


Maple Ridge 

Langley 


Abbotsford 

Surrey 


BC 

Delta 

Coquitlam 

Burnaby 


58.6 

58.6 

57.8 

53.3 

52.9 

51.4 

51.3 

50.9 

50.9 

47.7 

46.5 

46.1 

44.3 

64.1 

79.2 

0 

20 40 60 80 100 


Source: Vista Database, BC Vital Statistics Agency, Ministry of Health Services. 


169

Potential Years of Life Lost – PYLL 


Potential years of life lost (PYLL) refers 

to the number of years of life lost when 

someone dies before age 75, which is 

the presumed normal life expectancy 

used for the calculation. Data are shown 

as rates per 1,000 men or 1,000 

women, directly age-standardized to the 

1991 Census population. PYLL data are 

calculated for 2009 and an aggregated 

five-year period (2005 to 2009). 


PYLL is an indicator of premature death, 

emphasizing the causes of death that 

occur at younger ages over those that 

occur at older ages. 

Deaths due to motor vehicle collisions 

and suicide typically have higher PYLLs 

as they tend to occur among younger 

age groups. Deaths due to congenital 

abnormalities occur very early in life 

resulting in numerous life years lost. 

Smoking is frequently associated with 

premature death due to disease (e.g., 

lung cancer, ischemic heart disease, 

etc.). Other risk factors for premature 

death include hypertension, high blood 

cholesterol, diabetes, and alcohol abuse. 

• For all causes of death, Vancouver 

Coastal Health has the lowest PYLL 

among provincial health authorities. 

• Men account for more years of life 

lost than women. 

• For women, the PYLL due to 

ischemic heart disease is significantly 

higher in Fraser Health than in BC 

overall. For men, the PYLL due to 

Standardized Rate per 1,000 . 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

homicide is significantly higher than 

the BC average. 

36.4 

Potential Years of Life Lost, 2009 

48.8 

32.8 





Limitations 

In Fraser Health, life expectancy is 79.3 

years for men and 83.5 years for 

women (2005-2009). Therefore, using 

age 75 as the ‘normal’ life expectancy 

underestimates the number of years lost 

by 4.3 years for men and by 8.5 years 

for women. 

PYLLs are only comparable when age 

standardized to the same standard 

population. 

46.1 

61.5 


40.5 

170

HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 

Potential Years Life Lost - Females 2005-2009 

Lung cancer 

Breast cancer 

Cancer of digestive organs 

Perinatal conditions 

Ischaemic heart diseases 


BC 

Congenital anomalies 

Suicide 

Cancer of female genital organs 

Other nervous system disorders 

Motor vehicle collisions 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

PYLLSR 

Potential Years Life Lost - Males 2005-2009 

Ischaemic heart disease 

Cancer of digestive organs 

Suicide 

Motor vehicle collisions 

Lung cancer 

Perinatal conditions 


BC 

Homicide 

Other nervous system disorders* 

Lymphoid and hematopoietic cancers 

Congenital anomalies 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

PYLLSR 


Note: Bars represent point estimates; whisker lines represent 95% confidence intervals 

171

Age-Standardized Mortality Rate, by Natural Cause 




death rates for a specific population. 

Mortality rates are standardized to a 




that would have occurred in the given 

population if it had the same age group 

distribution as the ‘standard’ population. 

Because data are age-standardized, the 

ASMR is a general mortality indicator 

useful for comparing death rates in 

different geographic locales and/or over 

time. ASMRs are given for select broad, 

prominent causes of death. 


Tracking mortality rates for major broad 

causes of death can highlight just how 

many deaths are due to preventable 

causes. For example, many deaths due 

to cancers, heart disease and 

respiratory disease are related to 

smoking, a sedentary lifestyle, and 

obesity. 

Cancer mortality includes deaths from 

all forms of malignant tumours. 

Cardiovascular mortality can be due to 

ischemic heart diseases, hypertension 

and hypertensive diseases, and more. 

Cerebrovascular mortality can result 

from circulatory system diseases that 

result in blood clots or bleeding inside 

the head causing death. 

Respiratory system mortality data 

includes chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease (e.g., emphysema), influenza, 

ASMR 

ASMR 

ASMR 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Cancer Mortality, 2005-2009 


Count 13,421 8,999 9,083 9,415 2,534 43,455 

Rate 14.8 15.6 13.1 15.6 18.4 14.9 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Cardiovascular Disease Mortality, 2005-2009 


Count 11,054 7,046 6,835 7,387 1,594 33,919 

Rate 11.1 11.1 8.7 10.3 12.5 10.4 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Cerebrovascular Disease Mortality, 2005-2009 

0 


Count 3,400 2,310 2,762 2,511 502 11,486 

Rate 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4 4.1 3.5 





172

HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 

pneumonia, asthma, and others, but 

does not include cancers of the 

respiratory system. 

Infectious diseases are preventable and 

for most mortality is rare in most cases. 

Mortality rates from infectious disease 

can include HIV, viral hepatitis, bacterial 

intestinal infections, other bacterial 

diseases, and others. For more information 

on infectious diseases, refer to the 

Fraser Health Annual Communicable 

Disease Report. 64 

• Among the broad causes of death 

presented here, cancer deaths have 

the highest ASMR in every health 

authority and are the most frequent 

cause of death. 

• Vancouver Coastal Health has the 

lowest ASMRs for cancer and 

cardiovascular diseases. 

• Interior Health had the lowest ASMR 

for infectious diseases. 

• The declining trend has stalled for 

respiratory diseases. 

• Except for infectious diseases, ASMRs 

have generally gone down over time. 

Deaths due to infectious diseases have 

been steadily increasing over the past 

decade. The increase in infectious 

disease mortality appears to be driven 

by increased ASMRs from chronic viral 

hepatitis, other septicemia, and 

Clostridium difficile enterocolitis (data 

not shown). 

ASMR 

ASMR 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Limitations 

Mortality is the most serious possible 

outcome and reveals nothing about how 

many people are living with any given 

disease. 

Count 

5,534 3,328 3,781 3,306 783 16,735 

Rate 5.6 5.3 4.8 4.7 6.2 5.2 

2.0 

1.6 

1.2 

0.8 

0.4 

0.0 

Respiratory System Disease Mortality, 2005-2009 


Infectious Disease Mortality, 2005-2009 


Count 

975 431 928 501 132 2,968 

Rate 1.0 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 





64 Fraser Health. (2009). Fraser Health Communicable 

Disease Report 2008. Retrieved September 15, 2010 from 

http://www.fraserhealth.ca/media/CDReport2008.pdf 

173

30 

Cancer Mortality 

25 

20 

ASMR 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1996- 

2000 

1997- 

2001 

1998- 

2002 

1999- 

2003 

2000- 

2004 

2001- 

2005 

2002- 

2006 

2003- 

2007 

2004- 

2008 

2005- 

2009 

Fraser Health 16.8 16.5 16.2 15.9 15.8 15.7 15.4 15.3 15.2 14.8 

BC 16.7 16.4 16.2 16.0 15.8 15.7 15.5 15.4 15.2 14.9 

Cancer Mortality, 2005-2009 

Hope 

Mission 

Chilliwack 

Maple Ridge 


Langley 

Coquitlam 

Delta 

Surrey 

Abbotsford 



Burnaby 

21.7 (146) 

18.8 (407) 

17.7 (1,022) 

17.6 (844) 

17.4 (692) 

15.8 (1,220) 

15.0 (1,542) 

14.6 (941) 

14.0 (2,416) 

13.9 (1,152) 

13.6 (1,147) 

13.6 (86) 

12.8 (1,788) 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

ASMR 

Note: Values in parentheses represent the observed number of deaths in each LHA. Bars represent point estimates; 

whisker lines represent 95% confidence intervals 


174

HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 

30 

Cardiovascular Disease Mortality 

25 

20 

ASMR 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1996- 

2000 

1997- 

2001 

1998- 

2002 

1999- 

2003 

2000- 

2004 

2001- 

2005 

2002- 

2006 

2003- 

2007 

2004- 

2008 

2005- 

2009 


BC 15.1 14.5 13.9 13.3 12.7 12.2 11.7 11.2 10.9 10.4 

Hope 


Mission 

Maple Ridge 

Chilliwack 

Abbotsford 

Langley 

Surrey 

Burnaby 

Delta 

Coquitlam 



Cardiovascular Disease Mortality, 2005-2009 

14.3 (106) 

14.2 (666) 

13.2 (310) 

12.2 (624) 

12.1 (793) 

11.8 (1,168) 

11.7 (1,043) 

11.1 (1,869) 

10.5 (1,667) 

10.4 (711) 

9.5 (971) 

9.4 (70) 

9.3 (1,056) 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

ASMR 


whisker lines represent 95% confidence intervals. 


175

10 

Cerebrovascular Disease Mortality 

8 

ASMR 

6 

4 

2 

0 

1996- 

2000 

1997- 

2001 

1998- 

2002 

1999- 

2003 

2000- 

2004 

2001- 

2005 

2002- 

2006 

2003- 

2007 

2004- 

2008 

2005- 

2009 


BC 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 

Maple Ridge 

Delta 


Mission 

Langley 

Abbotsford 

Chilliwack 

Surrey 


Burnaby 

Coquitlam 


Hope 

Cerebrovascular Disease Mortality, 2005-2009 

4.1 (206) 

3.8 (266) 

3.7 (177) 

3.6 (84) 

3.5 (328) 

3.4 (339) 

3.4 (222) 

3.3 (550) 

3.3 (25) 

3.3 (512) 

3.1 (317) 

3.0 (352) 

2.9 (22) 

0 2 4 6 8 

ASMR 

10 




176

HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 

12 

Respiratory System Disease Mortality 

10 

8 

ASMR 

6 

4 

2 

0 

1996- 

2000 

1997- 

2001 

1998- 

2002 

1999- 

2003 

2000- 

2004 

2001- 

2005 

2002- 

2006 

2003- 

2007 

2004- 

2008 

2005- 

2009 


BC 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 

Hope 

Mission 

Chilliwack 

Langley 

Maple Ridge 

Abbotsford 

Burnaby 


Surrey 

Coquitlam 


Delta 


Respiratory System Disease Mortality, 2005-2009 

8.5 (63) 

7.6 (166) 

7.3 (478) 

6.3 (553) 

6.0 (298) 

5.7 (563) 

5.6 (911) 

5.6 (266) 

5.4 (882) 

4.9 (494) 

4.9 (36) 

4.8 (326) 

4.4 (498) 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

ASMR 




177

1.5 

Infectious Disease Mortality 

1.2 

ASMR 

0.9 

0.6 

0.3 

0.0 

1996- 

2000 

1997- 

2001 

1998- 

2002 

1999- 

2003 

2000- 

2004 

2001- 

2005 

2002- 

2006 

2003- 

2007 

2004- 

2008 

2005- 

2009 


BC 0.97 0.91 0.92 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.05 1.07 1.05 1.01 

Hope 


Surrey 

Chilliwack 

Delta 

Langley 

Burnaby 

Maple Ridge 


Abbotsford 

Coquitlam 

Mission 


Infectious Disease Mortality, 2005-2009 

1.61 (12) 

1.32 (60) 

1.27 (223) 

1.14 (63) 

1.10 (71) 

1.07 (90) 

1.04 (152) 

1.01 (51) 

1.01 (7) 

0.93 (80) 

0.92 (97) 

0.90 (20) 

0.57 (49) 

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 

ASMR 




178

HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 


179

Age-Standardized Mortality 

Rate, by External Cause 




death rates for a particular population. 

Mortality rates are standardized to a 




that would have occurred in the given 

population if it had the same age group 

distribution as the ‘standard’ population. 

Because data are age-standardized, the 

ASMR is a general mortality indicator 

useful for comparing death rates in 

different geographic locales and/or over 

time. Rates are shown for motor vehicle 

collisions, accidental falls, and suicide. 


Deaths due to external causes such as 

motor vehicle collision, falls, or suicide 

are largely preventable. A variety of 

strategies can reduce the number of 

people who die from unintentional and 

intentional injuries. 


• In BC, Fraser Health has the largest 

numbers of deaths due to motor 

vehicle collisions, accidental falls, 

and suicides. 

• Vancouver Coastal Health has the 

lowest ASMR for motor vehicle 

collisions in the province. 

• ASMRs for motor vehicle collisions 

show an east-west gradient with 

higher rates in eastern LHAs. The 

biggest numbers of people who die 

are from Surrey, Coquitlam, and 

Abbotsford. 

ASMR 

2.0 

1.6 

1.2 

0.8 

0.4 

0.0 

Motor Vehicle Collision Mortality, 2005-2009 


Count 559 508 248 287 230 1,834 

Rate 0.7 1.4 0.4 0.7 1.6 0.8 

ASMR 

ASMR 

2.0 

1.6 

1.2 

0.8 

0.4 

0.0 

Accidental Falls Mortality, 2005-2009 


Count 467 427 338 461 101 1,794 

Rate 0.47 0.67 0.44 0.65 0.79 0.56 

2.0 

1.6 

1.2 

0.8 

0.4 

Suicide Rates, 2005-2009 

0.0 


Count 634 418 527 452 179 2,212 

Rate 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.3 0.9 

Source: Vista Database, BC Vital Statistics Agency, Ministry 


Note: bars represent point estimates; whisker lines 


180

HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 

2.0 

Motor Vehicle Collision Mortality 

1.6 

ASMR 

1.2 

0.8 

0.4 

0.0 

1996- 

2000 

1997- 

2001 

1998- 

2002 

1999- 

2000- 

2003 

2004 

2001- 

2005 

2002- 

2006 

2003- 

2007 

2004- 

2008 

2005- 

2009 


BC 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.03 0.99 0.92 0.81 

Hope 


Mission 

Maple Ridge 

Abbotsford 


Chilliwack 


Surrey 

Coquitlam 

Delta 

Burnaby 

Motor Vehicle Collision Mortality, 2005-2009 

1.86 (8) 

1.83 (6) 

1.16 (24) 

1.05 (43) 

1.01 (68) 

Langley 0. 92 (60) 

0.80 (28) 

0.73 (30) 

0.72 (23) 

0.70 (127) 

0.68 (71) 

0.38 (43) 

0.57 (28) 

0 1 

2 3 4 5 

ASMR 

Note: Values in parentheses represent the observed number of deaths in each LHA, bars represent point estimates; 



181

2.0 

Accidental Falls Mortality 

1.6 

ASMR 

1.2 

0.8 

0.4 

0.0 

1996- 

2000 

1997- 

2001 

1998- 

2002 

1999- 

2003 

2000- 

2004 

2001- 

2005 

2002- 

2006 

2003- 

2007 

2004- 

2008 

2005- 

2009 


BC 0.78 0.73 0.69 0.65 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.56 0.55 0.56 

Hope 



Mission 

Langley 

Surrey 

Burnaby 

Chilliwack 

Maple Ridge 

Abbotsford 


Coquitlam 

Delta 

Accidental Falls Mortality, 2005-2009 

1.08 (8) 

0.65 (29) 

0.65 (5) 

0.61 (14) 

0.53 (50) 

0.51 (86) 

0.50 (79) 

0.49 (29) 

0.46 (24) 

0.43 (44) 

0.41 (41) 

0.39 (40) 

0.27 (18) 

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 

ASMR 

2.0 

Note: Values in parentheses represent the observed number of deaths in each LHA, bars represent point estimates; 



182

HEALTH STATUS 

MORTALITY 

2.0 

Suicide 

1.6 

ASMR 

1.2 

0.8 

0.4 

0.0 

1996- 

2000 

1997- 

2001 

1998- 

2002 

1999- 

2003 

2000- 

2004 

2001- 

2005 

2002- 

2006 

2003- 

2007 

2004- 

2008 

2005- 

2009 


BC 1.24 1.18 1.14 1.11 1.11 1.09 1.05 1.00 0.97 0.94 

Hope 


Chilliwack 


Maple Ridge 


Abbotsford 

Langley 

Surrey 

Mission 

Coquitlam 

Burnaby 

Delta 

Suicide Rates, 2005-2009 

2.03 (7) 

1.65 (6) 

1.08 (45) 

1.05 (36) 

1.03 (48) 

0.93 (35) 

0.85 (57) 

0.82 (56) 

0.75 (143) 

0.71 (15) 

0.71 (76) 

0.69 (84) 

0.47 (26) 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

ASMR 

Note: Values in parentheses represent the observed number of deaths in each LHA, Bars represent point estimates; 



183

Health Profile 2011 - Fraser Health

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?