District Office Area Health Profile – Espanola 2013-2015
Purpose
This report provides a snapshot of the health of the population in the Espanola area which includes Whitefish River, Sables-Spanish Rivers, Espanola, and Baldwin, Nairn and Hyman
The report highlights the burden of specific health issues in the Espanola area, and compares it to the rest of Public Health Sudbury & Districts’ area. It will be of interest to local public health and medical professionals, community organizations working in health and other sectors, government decision makers, and the general public. We can all use this information to better understand our individual and collective health, to make plans about how we can improve health, and to measure progress towards the achievement of Public Health Sudbury & Districts’ vision: Healthier communities for all.
Learn more about how we have worked closely with each of our district office areas to tailor COVID-19 response efforts and to transition from risk to recovery and resilience.
Results Summary
Comparisons are between the rates for the Espanola area and the rest of Public Health Sudbury & Districts’ area (for example, excluding the Espanola area). If there is less than a 5% likelihood that the observed difference is due to chance, then that difference is deemed to be statistically significant. Otherwise, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the observed difference is real, even if the estimates vary by a substantial amount.
Adults (18-64) whose self-reported height and weight resulted in their body mass index.
| Body mass index | Prevalence rate (%) Espanola area | Prevalence rate (%) Sudbury and districts | Compared to the rest of Sudbury and districts, the rate in the Espanola area is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obese (body mass index ≥ 30) | 37% | 28% | Significantly different 32% Higher |
| Overweight (body mass index between 25.0 and 29.9) | 41% | 39% | Not significantly different |
| Overweight/Obese (body mass index between 25.0 and 29.9 and a body mass index ≥ 30) | 78% | 67% | Significantly different 16% Higher |
Adults (18+) who report having a specified chronic disease (expected to last 6 months or more) having been diagnosed by a doctor or health professional.
| Chronic diseases | Prevalence rate (%) Espanola area | Prevalence rate (%) Sudbury and districts | Compared to the rest of Sudbury and districts, the rate in the Espanola area is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| High blood pressure | 36% | 33% | Not significantly different |
| Osteoporosis | 10% | 8% | Not significantly different |
| Stroke | 3% Interpret with caution – High sampling variability | 3% | Not significantly different |
Households who experienced food security issues in the past 12 months.
| Food security | Prevalence rate (%) Espanola area | Prevalence rate (%) Sudbury and districts | Compared to the rest of Sudbury and districts, the rate in the Espanola area is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food insecurity - because of lack of money, either worried or did not have enough food to eat, or did not eat the quality or variety of foods they wanted to eat. | 8% | 7% | Not significantly different |
| Food access issues - refer to not having a place to go when there is not enough money, variety or quality of foods to eat. | 4% Interpret with caution – High sampling variability | 4% | Not significantly different |
Adults (18+) self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption.
| Fruit and vegetable consumption | Prevalence rate (%) Espanola area | Prevalence rate (%) Sudbury and districts | Compared to the rest of Sudbury and districts, the rate in the Espanola area is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meets fruit and vegetable daily targets recommended by Canada’s Food Guide (CFG) based on age and sex. | 10% | 10% | Not significantly different |
| Consumes 5+ fruits and vegetables daily | 29% | 31% | Not significantly different |
| Recommended number of food guide servings per day | Female teens 16-18 | Male teens 16-18 | Adult females 19-50 | Adult males 19-50 | Adult females 51+ | Adult males 51+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit and vegetable | 7 | 8 | 7-8 | 8-10 | 7 | 7 |
Source: Archived Content from Health Canada, Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide, 2011
Adults (18+) self-reported general health.
| General health | Prevalence rate (%) Espanola area | Prevalence rate (%) Sudbury and districts | Compared to the rest of Sudbury and districts, the rate in the Espanola area is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-rated health - Excellent/Very good | 45% | 54% | Significantly different 17% Lower |
| Self-rated mental health - Excellent/Very good | 58% | 66% | Significantly different 12% Lower |
Tobacco Practices in Adults (18+).
| Tobacco | Prevalence rate (%) Espanola area | Prevalence rate (%) Sudbury and districts | Compared to the rest of Sudbury and districts, the rate in the Espanola area is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current smokers include a combination of daily and occasional smokers. | 39% | 36% | Not significantly different |
| Drivers (18+) who do not allow any smoking in the vehicle they drive the most. | 81% | 85% | Not significantly different |
| Adults (18+) who reside in a home where no one smokes regularly in the home. | 86% | 90% | Not significantly different |
| Adults (18+) who reside in a home where visitors are not allowed to smoke. | 81% | 87% | Significantly different 7% Lower |
Drinkers.
| Alcohol | Prevalence rate (%) Espanola area | Prevalence rate (%) Sudbury and districts | Compared to the rest of Sudbury and districts, the rate in the Espanola area is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adults (18+) who report consuming at least one alcoholic drink in the past year. | 83% | 84% | Not significantly different |
| Adults (19+) (excluding pregnant women) who consume alcohol according to Canada’s Low-Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines (LRADG). Specifically this indicator measures compliance with guideline #1 of Canada’s LRADG; no more than 10 drinks a week for women, with no more than 2 drinks a day most days and 15 drinks a week for men, with no more than 3 drinks a day most days and plan non-drinking days every week to avoid developing a habit. | 73% | 75% | Not significantly different |
https://www.camh.ca/en/health-info/mental-illness-and-addiction-index/alcohol
Adults (18+) who report a fall in the past 12 months.
| Falls | Prevalence rate (%) Espanola area | Prevalence rate (%) Sudbury and districts | Compared to the rest of Sudbury and districts, the rate in the Espanola area is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adults (18+) who reported having a fall | 15% | 18% | Not significantly different |
| Adults (18+) who reported having a fall which affected activities of daily living. Activities of daily living include (but are not limited to) difficulties walking, getting dressed, going to work, or doing most of the things you normally do. | 3% Interpret with caution – High sampling variability | 5% | Not significantly different |
Adults (18+) who report a sunburn in the past 12 months.
| Sunburn | Prevalence rate (%) Espanola area | Prevalence rate (%) Sudbury and districts | Compared to the rest of Sudbury and districts, the rate in the Espanola area is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sunburn refers to any reddening or discomfort of the skin that lasts longer than 12 hours after exposure to the sun or other ultra violet sources, such as tanning beds or sunlamps. | 32% | 31% | Not significantly different |
Adults (18+) who have received an influenza vaccination within the last 12 months.
| Vaccination | Prevalence rate (%) Espanola area | Prevalence rate (%) Sudbury and districts | Prevalence Rate (%) Compared to the rest of Sudbury and districts, the rate in the Espanola area is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Influenza immunization | 45% | 44% | Not significantly different |
Source: Public Health Sudbury & Districts RRFSS, 2013-2015 Combined
Methodology
The results presented here are based on data from The Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System (RRFSS), an ongoing telephone survey that has been conducted on behalf of Public Health Sudbury & Districts’ by the Institute for Social Research (ISR) at York University since 2001. These results are based on a sample of 448 respondents living in Espanola between 2013–2015, and an additional 4089 respondents living elsewhere in Public Health Sudbury & Districts’ area. As with all telephone surveys, RRFSS data may be limited by certain biases, particularly those resulting from certain types of people (for example, young people; men; cell-phone only households) being less likely to participate, and inaccurate responses by participants (for example, due to problems with recall, inaccurate estimation, or their desire to respond in a socially acceptable way).
The results are presented as prevalence rates. These provide information on the estimated number of cases of a disease/condition that existed within the population during the study period and are presented here as a percentage of the population (for example, 39% of the population of the Espanola area were current smokers between 2013–2015).
Estimates based on survey data are imperfect, since only a small proportion of the total population contribute information to the survey. The results may have been different, simply due to chance, if other individuals had been selected to participate in the survey. The amount by which survey results might vary due to chance alone is measurable with statistics and is commonly known as the survey’s “margin of error”. For this report, the margin of error varies by the health outcome being reported upon, and for simplicity is not shown. It is generally on the order of plus or minus 9%. Sometimes, the margin of error in a particular estimate is quite large compared to the estimate itself, limiting the usefulness of the estimate. In such cases here, the result has been suppressed.
Since rate estimates for both the Espanola area and Public Health Sudbury & Districts’ area overall are shown here, and since each have a margin of error, the true difference between those two geographic areas may also be bigger, or smaller, than what is shown due to chance alone. Again, this is measurable with statistics. If there is less than a 5% likelihood that the observed difference is due to chance, then that difference is generally deemed to be statistically significant. Otherwise, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the observed difference is real, even if the estimates vary by a substantial amount.
This item was last modified on February 16, 2023