You are using an outdated browser. We suggest you update your browser for a better experience. Click here for update.
Close this notification.
Skip to main content Skip to search
Ontario Cancer Facts

Cancer Risk Factors Atlas of Ontario helps create targeted health policy planning

Sep 2018

 

  • The Cancer Risk Factors Atlas of Ontario provides neighbourhood-level risk factor data, which can help create targeted health policy planning.
  • Using data from the atlas, an analysis of Hamilton showed that there was a significant increase in smoking prevalence with increased neighbourhood marginalization factors related to income and residential instability.
  • The City of Hamilton has implemented strategies for local interventions to reduce inequities in smoking behaviours (e.g., targeted clinics and awareness campaigns, by-laws against smoking in parks, support of tobacco free policies in educational settings).

 

The recently launched Cancer Risk Factors Atlas of Ontario helps create targeted health policy planning by showing how risk factors related to cancer and other chronic diseases are distributed in local areas throughout Ontario. To identify and prioritize areas with increased risk factors, the atlas used Canadian Community Health Survey data from 2000 to 2014 to create local estimates for populations age 12 and older on 6 behavioural risk factors: alcohol consumption, excess body weight, inadequate physical activity, inadequate vegetable and fruit consumption, sedentary behaviour and tobacco smoking.

A unique feature of the atlas is that the data can be used with other sources of information, such as the Census of Canada, indicators of social determinants of health, or consumer data that may include product and media preferences (i.e., market segmentation data). This Cancer Fact explores relationships with social determinants of health using the Ontario Marginalization Index (ON-Marg), which provides 4 dimensions of indicators of social determinants of health (ethnicity, dependency, material deprivation and residential instability).

An analysis using data from the atlas showed strong associations linking neighbourhood current smoking prevalence in Hamilton to neighbourhood material deprivation (e.g., proportion of the population considered low-income) and residential instability (e.g., proportion of the population living alone) (see figure).

Association between selected indicators of social determinants of health and current smoking (ages 12+), 2000–2014, City of Hamilton, females

 

Association between selected indicators of social determinants of health and current smoking (ages 12+), 2000–2014, City of Hamilton, males

 

Source: Cancer Care Ontario. Cancer Risk Factors Atlas in Ontario. Toronto: Cancer Care Ontario; 2017.
Matheson et al. Development of the Canadian Marginalization Index: a new tool for the study of inequality. Can J Public Health, 2012;103(Suppl. 2):S12-S16.

Notes:

  1. The social determinants of health dimensions are indices comprised of several socio-economic indicators. The 4 dimensions are dependency (e.g. proportion of the population who are aged 65 and older), ethnic concentration (e.g., proportion of the population who self-identify as a visible minority), material deprivation (e.g., proportion of the population considered low-income) and residential instability (e.g., proportion of the population living alone). Learn more about the 2006 version of ON-Marg used in this example.
  2. The figure displays the statistical analysis (analysis of variance) results which estimates a change in the prevalence of smoking by social determinant of health indicator ranked category (quintiles). Each category is compared to the least-marginalized category (i.e., direction of increased marginalization) of the social determinant of health indicator dimensions.
  3. Each graph displays the average estimate (dots) and its statistical precision (95% credible intervals) as horizontal ticks for the comparison. Significant estimates do not include zero.
Association between selected indicators of social determinants of health and current smoking (ages 12+), 2000–2014, City of Hamilton
Sex Dimension Quintile comparison (Q1 = least; Q5 = most) Average estimate 2.50th percentile 97.50th percentile
Females Material deprivation Q2 vs Q1 2.50 1.29 3.70
Females Material deprivation Q3 vs Q1 3.76 2.54 4.99
Females Material deprivation Q4 vs Q1 5.64 4.41 6.91
Females Material deprivation Q5 vs Q1 10.87 9.48 12.27
Females Residential instability Q2 vs Q1 1.63 0.55 2.77
Females Residential instability Q3 vs Q1 3.51 2.29 4.69
Females Residential instability Q4 vs Q1 4.49 3.24 5.71
Females Residential instability Q5 vs Q1 4.82 3.52 6.06
Males Material deprivation Q2 vs Q1 1.93 0.61 3.23
Males Material deprivation Q3 vs Q1 3.13 1.81 4.49
Males Material deprivation Q4 vs Q1 4.94 3.55 6.31
Males Material deprivation Q5 vs Q1 10.96 9.45 12.46
Males Residential instability Q2 vs Q1 1.02 -0.16 2.22
Males Residential instability Q3 vs Q1 3.12 1.87 4.43
Males Residential instability Q4 vs Q1 4.88 3.53 6.25
Males Residential instability Q5 vs Q1 6.50 5.15 7.95

Source: Cancer Care Ontario. Cancer Risk Factors Atlas in Ontario. Toronto: Cancer Care Ontario; 2017.
Matheson et al. Development of the Canadian Marginalization Index: a new tool for the study of inequality. Can J Public Health, 2012;103(Suppl. 2):S12-S16.

Notes:

  1. The social determinants of health dimensions are indices comprised of several socio-economic indicators. The 4 dimensions are dependency (e.g. proportion of the population who are aged 65 and older), ethnic concentration (e.g., proportion of the population who self-identify as a visible minority), material deprivation (e.g., proportion of the population considered low-income) and residential instability (e.g., proportion of the population living alone). Learn more about the 2006 version of ON-Marg used in this example.
  2. The table displays the statistical analysis (analysis of variance) results which estimates a change in the prevalence of smoking by social determinant of health indicator ranked category (quintiles). Each category is compared to the least-marginalized category (i.e., direction of increased marginalization) of the social determinant of health indicator dimensions.

As material deprivation and residential instability increased, the prevalence of current smoking increased significantly across all Hamilton neighbourhoods, which were grouped into 5 ranked categories of marginalization, called quintiles. For example, for material deprivation, the most marginalized neighbourhoods had an approximately 10% higher neighbourhood smoking prevalence compared to the least marginalized neighbourhoods (after adjusting for the other indicators of the social determinants of health). No strong associations were found linking neighbourhood current smoking prevalence in Hamilton to dependency (e.g., proportion of the population who are aged 65 and older) and ethnic concentration (e.g., proportion of the population who self-identify as a visible minority) (not shown in the figure).

The strong associations that smoking prevalence has to material deprivation and residential stability suggest that these indicators may be important contributors to current smoking prevalence in Hamilton neighbourhoods. Given the associations with income-related factors, these findings highlight opportunities for tobacco smoking prevention and cessation through taxation policies, which the World Health Organization identified as being effective in reducing smoking. The findings also identify the need to focus programs on areas with increased residential instability, which is consistent with evidence showing the need for population-level interventions to address social, economic and physical components that influence health-related behaviours.

Smoking increases the risk of lung, mouth, nasal, voice box (larynx), esophagus, stomach, pancreas, colon and rectum, liver, kidney, bladder, cervix and ovarian cancers. Approximately 50% of cancers could be prevented if smoking, overweight and obesity (excess body weight), poor diet, excess alcohol consumption, inadequate physical activity, and harmful environmental and occupational exposures were reduced. Cancer Care Ontario recognizes the complex social, economic and physical components that contribute to exposure to factors that lead to health inequities. These factors include social determinants of health, such as a lack of material resources (e.g., inadequate household income) and social support mechanisms.

Identifying areas with increased prevalence of behavioural risk factors, such as tobacco smoking, can guide the direction of tailored health promotion programs and planning efforts that seek to prevent cancers and other chronic diseases. Hamilton Public Health Services has been implementing a number of local tobacco control strategies over the last several years to address smoking in its communities (see additional information on Hamilton’s tobacco control strategies in the highlights box).

To learn more about the atlas, go to Cancer Risk Factors Atlas of Ontario. For more information on the methods, which were developed by a team of investigators that included Cancer Care Ontario researchers, please visit Estimating micro area behavioural risk factor prevalence from large population-based surveys: a full Bayesian approach.

 

The City of Hamilton is actively addressing social determinants of health and health inequities, particularly through its smoking cessation program.

Hamilton Public Health Services (HPHS) offers smoking cessation clinics in lower socio-economic status areas of the city, where smoking rates may exceed 40%. Additionally, the HPHS Tobacco Control Program provides access to tobacco cessation services through healthcare professionals and free nicotine replacement therapy to every person in Hamilton (visit Hamilton Quits Smoking).

HPHS has also focused on protecting Hamilton’s population from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke and preventing people from starting to smoke. A substantial proportion of Hamilton’s non-smokers age 12 and older are exposed to second-hand smoke: 1 in 8 in Hamilton’s public places and 1 in 10 in the home. To enhance the quality and use of city property in all neighbourhoods of Hamilton, HPHS developed By-law No. 11-080 prohibiting smoking at city parks and recreation properties. In addition, HPHS worked with City Housing Hamilton to develop and approve a Smoke-Free Living Policy and Odour Mitigation to increase smoke-free housing options for 13,000 residents, 45% of whom are children.

Recognizing the prevalence of second-hand smoke exposure and that 78% of Hamiltonians who smoke start smoking between ages 12 and 19, HPHS actively supported the implementation of McMaster University’s new 100% Tobacco & Smoke Free policy (January 1, 2018). McMaster University is the first post-secondary institution in Ontario to go 100% smoke-free. Finally, since recent evidence indicates electronic cigarettes are likely a gateway to tobacco smoking among adolescents, HPHS aims social media campaigns at the segments of Hamilton’s population (males and young adults ages 12 to 24) most likely to report using electronic cigarettes (compared to females and adults ages 25 to 64).

References

  1. Matheson FI, Dunn JR, Smith KL, Moineddin R, Glazier RH. Development of the Canadian Marginalization Index: A New Tool for the Study of Inequality. Can J Public Health. 2012;103(8 Suppl 2):S12–6.
  2. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, Tobacco Control, Vol. 14: Effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. Lyon, FR: World Health Organization; 2011.
  3. Brownson RC, Baker EA, Novick LF (eds). Community-based prevention: programs that work. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers Inc.; 1999.
  4. Green L, Kreuter MW. Health program planning: an educational and ecological approach. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
  5. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Volume 100E: Personal Habits and Indoor Combustions. Lyon, FR: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2012.
  6. Danaei G, Vander Hoorn S, Lopez AD, Murray CJ, Ezzati M. Causes of cancer in the world: comparative risk assessment of nine behavioural and environmental risk factors. Lancet. 2005;366(9499):1784–93.
  7. Parkin DM, Boyd L, Walker LC. The fraction of cancer attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors in the UK in 2010. Br J Cancer. 2011;105 Suppl 2:S77–81.
  8. Colditz GA, Wolin KY, Gehlert S. Applying what we know to accelerate cancer prevention. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(127):127rv4. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003218.
  9. Townsend P. Deprivation. J Soc Policy. 1987;16(2):125–46.
  10. Hammond D, Reid JL, Cole AG, Leatherdale ST. Electronic cigarette use and smoking initiation among youth: a longitudinal cohort study. Can Med Assoc J. 2017;189(43):E1328–E36.
  11. Chaffee BW, Watkins SL, Glantz SA. Electronic Cigarette Use and Progression From Experimentation to Established Smoking. Pediatrics. 2018;141(4): pii: e20173594. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-3594. Epub 2018 Mar 5.