Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization of Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitations (2001-2010): A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Introduction:

Individuals with participation and activity limitations face important healthcare challenges.

Objectives:

We investigated healthcare utilization and characteristics of Canadians living with participation and activity limitations between 2001 and 2010.

Methods:

We pooled data from 5 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (2001-2010 CCHS). The multistage stratified cluster-sampling method used covered approximately 98% of Canadians, aged 12 years and older residing in private dwellings. We described sociodemographic, behavioral, and health-related characteristics of participants with participation and activity limitations and reported their annual utilization (prevalence; 95% CI) of 7 healthcare providers. Multivariable modified Poisson regression identified individual characteristics associated with healthcare utilization and examined the trends over time.

Results:

Annually, 8.1 million Canadians aged 12 years and older (29.8%) reported participation and activity limitations. Most common health conditions were back problems (37%) and arthritis (34%). Predominant healthcare providers were medical doctors (88.8%; 95% CI = 88.6-89.0), nurses (16.3%; 95% CI = 16.1-16.6), physiotherapists (15.0%; 95% CI = 14.7-15.2), and chiropractors (14.4%; 95% CI = 14.2-14.7). Overall, males, older adults, immigrants, those with lower education, lower income, recent employment, and better general health were less likely to consult providers. Over time, utilization of most non-medical providers increased.

Conclusion:

Participation and activity limitations are prevalent in Canada, and most consulted medical doctors. Disadvantaged groups reported lower utilization of most providers, emphasizing access challenges and the need for equitable and integrated healthcare policies. Improving access to rehabilitation services and their inclusion within universal healthcare coverage should be a priority.

Keywords

disability limitation of activity functional status health care Canada

Highlights

8.1 million Canadians (29.8%) experienced participation and activity limitations annually (2001-2010); back problems (37.0%) and arthritis (34.1%) were most prevalent conditions.

29.2% of Canadians with limitations attributed their limitations to causes other than injury, disease, or aging.

Most healthcare consultations were with medical doctors (88.8%), followed by nurses (16.3%), physiotherapists (15.0%), chiropractors (14.4%), and other providers (<10%).

Lower education and better general health were associated with lower healthcare utilization.

Biennially (2001-2010), healthcare utilization increased for nurses (7%), physiotherapists (5%), chiropractors (3%), psychologists (9%), and speech/audiology/occupational therapists (18%). Social worker consultations decreased by 4%, while medical doctor consultations remained stable.

Introduction

Human functioning encompasses biological health and lived experiences within the environment.¹ The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) defines functioning as the interaction of personal and environmental factors with body functions, activities, and participation.² According to the ICF, activities involve tasks executed at the level of the person, while participation involves engagement with life situations and societal activities.²

Participation and activity limitations are important health outcomes, extending beyond disease management to encompass overall functioning and quality of life.^1,3
-5 In 2017, WHO identified functioning as the third key health indicator, alongside mortality and morbidity, to better monitor the effectiveness of health strategies within health systems.⁶ Given the aging global population, the rise of multimorbidity, changing lifestyles, and the evolving concept of wellness, measuring participation and activity limitations is critical for understanding population health and furthering healthcare systems.^3,7

Despite growing methodological support for measuring these limitations as health outcomes,^8
-11 research remains in its early stages. Studies have thus far focused primarily on diseases and risk factors associated with participation and activity limitations within specific populations, such as those with cancer,¹² stroke,¹³ cerebral palsy,¹⁴ HIV,¹⁵ leprosy,¹⁶ arthritis,¹⁷ dysmenorrhea,¹⁸ spinal cord injury,¹⁹ and COPD.²⁰ While recent studies have explored the impact of sociodemographic and environmental factors on participation and activity limitations,^12,21
-23 there remains a significant gap in population-based evidence regarding the burden these limitations place on healthcare systems and the associated healthcare needs in most countries.^5,24
-27

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals focus on promoting healthy lives and well-being for all ages, prompting the need for public health measures and health system strengthening. However, health system reforms are progressing slowly.³ In fact, most healthcare systems struggle to effectively address the multifaceted needs of people with participation and activity limitations, particularly limitations without a specific medical diagnosis or disease impairment.^5,26,28 Consequently, poor physical and mental health, participation limitations, and activity restrictions all lead to complex health issues, high-risk health behaviors, and diminished quality of life.^5,29
-31 In Canada, the universal health system covers visits to medical doctors, essential prevention and rehabilitation services often require additional funding.^26,32 Historically, Canada has allocated fewer resources to community and long-term care compared to peers in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).³³ The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated unmet healthcare needs among Canadians with long-term conditions and disabilities.³⁴ However, the absence of comprehensive pre-pandemic population-based evidence on healthcare utilization of the population with limitations and the associated characteristics hinders healthcare system improvements.³

Our study provides a historical and national overview of healthcare utilization among Canadians with participation and activity limitations using 2001 to 2010 data. Specifically, we aimed to: (1) describe the characteristics of Canadians living with participation and activity limitations from 2001 to 2010; (2) determine the prevalence of healthcare utilization in this population; (3) identify factors associated with utilization of 7 different healthcare professionals (medical doctor, nurse, chiropractor, physiotherapist, psychologist, social worker/counselor, and speech/audiology/occupational therapist); and (4) examine trends in healthcare utilization from 2001 to 2010. This investigation aims to shed light on evolving healthcare needs and barriers faced by this population within the Canadian healthcare system.

Methods

Data Source

We used population-based cross-sectional data from Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) collected by Statistics Canada biennially from 2001 to 2007 and annually thereafter.³⁵ Through a multistage stratified cluster-sampling strategy, the CCHS achieved representation of approximately 98% of the target population (ie, Canadians aged 12 years and older residing in private dwellings of the 10 provinces and 3 territories).³⁵ Further details on the survey methodology are described by Statistics Canada.³⁶

We accessed CCHS Public Use Microdata Files via the secure Ontario Data Documentation, Extraction Services and Infrastructure (ODESI) digital data service.³⁷

Study Sample

All CCHS participants identified as having participation and activity limitations related to long-term condition(s) or problem(s) that lasted or were expected to last at least 6 months were eligible for inclusion. To assess these limitations, Statistics Canada developed the “Restriction of Activities” survey module for the CCHS using the WHO ICF framework. This module included 5 questions on the frequency of restrictions (ie, sometimes, often, never) in daily activities and participation across various settings, including hearing, seeing, communicating, walking, climbing stairs, bending, learning, and activities performed at home, school, work, and other settings (Supplemental Appendix 1).^38
-43 We classified individuals reporting “sometimes” or “often” to any of these questions as having participation and activity limitations.

We pooled 5 CCHS cycles from 2001 to 2010 to enhance sample size and statistical power, offering a comprehensive historical overview.⁴⁴ Cycle selection for pooled analysis prioritized data availability across all provinces and territories of Canada and consistency in survey frames and content, particularly regarding participation and activity limitations (study population) and consultations with healthcare providers (outcome variable).^39
-43

Measures

We used 8 questions from the “Healthcare Utilization” survey module to capture the self-reported utilization of healthcare services in the past 12 months from 7 professionals: medical doctor (including family physician and specialist), nurse, chiropractor, physiotherapist, psychologist, social worker/counselor, and speech/audiology/occupational therapist.^39
-43 Responding “yes” to each question indicated consultation with the respective professional.

Based on previous literature,⁴⁵ we used all relevant variables available (sociodemographic, behavioral, health-related) across all 5 CCHS cycles to explore characteristics associated with healthcare utilization. Sociodemographic variables included age, sex, residential province, cultural/racial background, immigration status, education level, household income level, marital status, and working status last week. Behavioral variables included type of smoker, type of drinker, and physical activity. Health-related characteristics included BMI, self-perceived general health, cause of the health problem that limits daily activity and participation, and self-reported chronic health conditions (Supplemental Appendix 2)

For variables with inconsistent categorization across 5 cycles (ie, cause of participation and activity limitations), we retained the relatively consistent and broader categories in most cycles, and regrouped them accordingly in the remaining cycles. Further details on variable categories are provided in Supplemental Appendix 2.

Statistical Analysis

We pooled 5 cycles of CCHS 2001 to 2010 data using rescaled sampling weights to ensure representativeness of the study population on an annual basis. Original sampling weights were divided by 5 for the pooled average population, yielding new weights for the pooled average population.⁴⁴

We described the study sample’s characteristics and healthcare provider consultation using weighted frequencies and proportions. To determine healthcare utilization prevalence, we divided the weighted number of users (respondents with participation and activity limitations reporting consultations with a certain healthcare professional) by the weighted number of Canadians with participation and activity limitations.

We studied the association between personal characteristics (explanatory variable) and utilization of each healthcare professional (outcome variable) using univariable and multivariable modified Poisson regression models with robust variance estimation.⁴⁶ We used modified Poisson regression to obtain direct and robust estimates of relative risk for binary outcomes, which is particularly advantageous for its interpretability compared to odds ratios when the outcome is common.⁴⁶ In the model for a particular healthcare professional, each personal characteristic was initially modeled individually to estimate its bivariable association with the healthcare utilization (crude Prevalence Ratio (cPR) with 95% CI). Subsequently, we built a multivariable model with all characteristics (including the survey cycle as a continuous variable representing the 5 CCHS cycles) to obtain adjusted Prevalence Ratios (aPR) with 95% CI. Chronic health conditions were not included in the models due to their high correlation with the self-reported causes of participation and activity limitations. Participants with missing data for any variables in the multivariable models were excluded from the analysis. However, response of “not applicable” due to the restricted universe was treated as a valid category to preserve sample size and the information they convey. The analyses for this study were generated using SAS software v9.4 (Copyright© 2012-2018, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.)

Results

Sample Characteristics of Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitation

Annually between 2001 and 2010, 29.8% of community-dwelling Canadians aged 12 years or older (representing an estimated 8.1 million persons) reported limitations in daily activity and participation (Figure 1). The most common self-ascribed cause of participation and activity limitations was disease (31.3%), injury (20.9%), aging (18.6%), and other causes (eg, existed from birth or related to work, 27.5%). The most prevalent chronic health conditions were back problems (37%) and arthritis (34.1%), followed by high blood pressure (25.1%), mood disorder (12.7%), asthma (12.3%), and heart disease (10.9%), with prevalence lower than 10% for all other conditions. Notably, 20.6% of the population with participation and activity limitations did not report any of the twelve common health conditions covered by CCHS. (Table 1)

Figure 1.

Flow diagram for study sample of Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) respondents from 2001 to 2010.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitations and Those Who Consulted Health Professionals: Pooled Analysis of Canadian Community Health Survey 2001 to 2010.

Characteristics	Canadians living with participation and activity limitations	Canadians living with participation and activity limitations who consulted healthcare professionals
Characteristics		Medical doctor (incl. specialist)	Nurse	Physiotherapist	Chiropractor	Social worker/counselor	Psychologist	Speech/audiology/occupational therapist
Weighted sample, N (%)	8 123 871 (100.0)	7 216 193 (100.0)	1 325 780 (100.0)	1 217 319 (100.0)	1 172 069 (100.0)	666 019 (100.0)	415 262 (100.0)	357 756 (100.0)
Age group (years)
12-19	7.3%	6.5%	8.0%	5.9%	5.8%	16.9%	13.4%	8.7%
20-34	15.2%	14.5%	18.1%	15.7%	17.8%	21.9%	22.7%	12.1%
35-49	24.6%	24.2%	23.5%	29.7%	31.5%	29.8%	35.6%	20.5%
50-64	26.6%	27.3%	23.6%	28.8%	28.4%	18.6%	22.3%	24.7%
65-79	18.8%	19.7%	17.3%	15.0%	13.3%	7.4%	4.9%	22.0%
80+	7.5%	7.8%	9.5%	4.9%	3.2%	5.4%	1.2%	12.1%
Sex
Male	46.7%	44.9%	40.6%	42.6%	44.7%	39.9%	39.3%	53.5%
Female	53.3%	55.1%	59.4%	57.4%	55.3%	60.1%	60.7%	46.5%
Province of residence
Newfoundland	1.7%	1.8%	1.6%	1.2%	0.8%	1.4%	1.2%	1.7%
Prince Edward Island	0.4%	0.5%	0.5%	0.4%	0.2%	0.5%	0.2%	0.4%
Nova Scotia	3.7%	3.8%	3.2%	3.7%	1.5%	3.2%	3.3%	3.5%
New Brunswick	2.6%	2.6%	2.7%	2.2%	1.2%	2.7%	2.1%	2.8%
Quebec	20.5%	20.1%	28.2%	18.1%	14.9%	19.0%	33.3%	28.3%
Ontario	39.4%	39.7%	35.8%	39.0%	38.7%	39.2%	31.6%	33.8%
Manitoba	3.7%	3.7%	3.3%	4.1%	5.3%	3.6%	2.5%	3.7%
Saskatchewan	3.2%	3.2%	2.9%	2.9%	4.3%	3.2%	2.1%	3.0%
Alberta	10.5%	10.4%	10.1%	11.6%	15.9%	10.3%	12.0%	9.6%
British Columbia	13.9%	14.1%	11.1%	16.4%	17.0%	16.5%	11.5%	12.9%
Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut	0.3%	0.2%	0.6%	0.2%	0.2%	0.5%	0.2%	0.3%
Cultural/racial background
White	84.8%	85.1%	87.3%	84.2%	88.1%	81.5%	84.4%	88.7%
Non-white	12.6%	12.4%	10.2%	13.3%	9.8%	15.7%	12.8%	8.7%
Unknown	2.6%	2.5%	2.5%	2.5%	2.1%	2.8%	2.8%	2.6%
Immigrant status
Non-immigrant	79.0%	78.7%	84.0%	77.8%	82.8%	84.6%	84.5%	83.4%
Immigrant (0-9 years)	2.8%	2.7%	1.8%	3.3%	2.5%	3.0%	2.6%	1.6%
Immigrant (10+ years)	16.0%	16.5%	12.1%	16.9%	13.0%	10.3%	10.7%	12.9%
Unknown	2.2%	2.1%	2.1%	2.1%	1.7%	2.1%	2.2%	2.1%
Highest level of education—respondents
<Secondary school	28.3%	27.8%	27.8%	19.7%	19.1%	34.3%	22.8%	28.0%
Secondary school graduate	15.7%	15.6%	13.8%	14.9%	16.4%	14.2%	13.5%	12.9%
Some post-secondary education	7.7%	7.7%	8.4%	7.7%	8.8%	10.0%	10.1%	7.7%
Post-secondary grad/university degree	45.8%	46.5%	47.7%	55.6%	53.9%	38.5%	51.2%	48.6%
Unknown	2.4%	2.3%	2.3%	2.2%	1.7%	2.9%	2.6%	2.7%
Total household income
1st quintile	14.6%	14.7%	17.1%	10.7%	9.3%	26.0%	17.6%	15.2%
2nd quintile	14.1%	14.1%	14.6%	12.5%	12.3%	15.1%	13.7%	15.8%
3rd quintile	18.3%	18.4%	18.2%	17.0%	18.1%	17.8%	18.0%	18.5%
4th quintile	20.6%	20.6%	19.6%	23.0%	23.9%	15.6%	20.8%	21.0%
5th quintile	17.7%	17.8%	16.3%	23.3%	23.4%	11.2%	17.2%	16.2%
Unknown/NS^b	14.7%	14.4%	14.2%	13.6%	13.0%	14.3%	12.7%	13.3%
Working status last week
Working	43.5%	42.3%	37.1%	47.4%	57.0%	33.1%	42.8%	31.8%
Absent	4.7%	4.9%	6.9%	8.1%	6.3%	5.5%	9.8%	5.5%
No job	28.4%	28.9%	28.6%	25.8%	23.3%	33.1%	29.6%	27.2%
Unable/permanent	6.0%	6.4%	8.4%	6.3%	3.6%	13.1%	9.0%	9.9%
NA^b (age <15 or >75 years)	15.7%	16.0%	17.5%	10.8%	8.3%	13.5%	6.9%	24.0%
Unknown	1.6%	1.5%	1.6%	1.7%	1.5%	1.7%	1.9%	1.6%
Marital status
Married	51.1%	52.3%	45.2%	54.6%	56.5%	27.7%	34.9%	49.0%
Common-law	8.2%	7.9%	9.3%	8.6%	9.4%	7.8%	11.5%	7.8%
Widowed/divorced/separated	18.2%	18.7%	20.5%	16.0%	14.3%	22.1%	16.6%	20.1%
Single	22.3%	20.8%	24.9%	20.5%	19.7%	42.1%	36.8%	23.0%
Unknown	0.2%	0.1%	0.2%	0.2%	0.1%	0.2%	0.2%	0.1%
Type of smoker
Daily	20.8%	20.0%	20.6%	17.3%	17.7%	28.8%	26.6%	16.2%
Occasional	4.3%	4.2%	4.6%	4.1%	4.6%	6.1%	6.5%	3.8%
Not at all	74.6%	75.5%	74.6%	78.3%	77.4%	64.8%	66.7%	79.8%
Unknown	0.2%	0.2%	0.2%	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	0.2%	0.2%
Type of drinker
Regular	54.2%	53.9%	50.1%	59.2%	61.9%	44.2%	55.1%	50.8%
Occasional	19.2%	19.5%	21.1%	17.8%	18.3%	22.9%	19.0%	18.0%
Did not drink	25.3%	25.4%	27.4%	21.8%	18.6%	31.1%	24.5%	29.5%
Unknown	1.4%	1.3%	1.4%	1.3%	1.2%	1.7%	1.4%	1.7%
Physical activity
Active	19.3%	18.8%	18.5%	22.2%	22.9%	21.0%	20.5%	17.1%
Moderate active	21.5%	21.5%	20.9%	23.2%	24.4%	19.4%	21.7%	18.9%
Inactive	53.7%	54.2%	54.0%	50.4%	49.7%	48.9%	51.5%	50.4%
Unknown	5.6%	5.6%	6.5%	4.2%	3.0%	10.7%	6.3%	13.6%
BMI classification—International standard^c
Underweight	2.7%	2.7%	3.2%	2.6%	2.1%	4.0%	3.3%	2.8%
Normal weight	32.7%	32.5%	32.2%	35.1%	34.4%	32.2%	37.3%	29.5%
Overweight (incl. obese)	48.7%	49.4%	47.6%	50.3%	52.2%	39.7%	42.4%	46.8%
NA	11.4%	11.0%	11.7%	8.7%	8.0%	17.3%	12.5%	12.7%
Unknown	4.4%	4.4%	5.3%	3.3%	3.4%	6.8%	4.4%	8.2%
Perceived general health
Poor	8.2%	8.7%	13.3%	8.9%	5.5%	15.4%	12.4%	10.8%
Fair	19.4%	20.4%	23.7%	19.3%	16.1%	23.5%	22.6%	22.9%
Good	35.4%	35.5%	33.8%	34.3%	36.6%	32.5%	34.3%	33.3%
Very good	27.5%	26.8%	22.8%	27.8%	31.5%	21.4%	23.1%	22.8%
Excellent	9.3%	8.5%	6.3%	9.6%	10.2%	7.1%	7.5%	10.1%
Unknown	0.1%	0.1%	0.2%	0.2%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%
Cause of difficulty with activities
Injury	20.9%	20.7%	20.3%	36.7%	29.6%	18.8%	23.2%	20.7%
Disease	31.3%	32.8%	38.3%	28.4%	26.4%	32.6%	30.2%	30.4%
Aging	18.6%	18.6%	14.4%	12.9%	14.4%	8.3%	5.9%	16.5%
Other (existed at birth/work conditions/other)	27.5%	26.3%	25.6%	20.7%	27.8%	38.8%	39.7%	31.3%
Unknown	1.7%	1.5%	1.5%	1.3%	1.8%	1.5%	1.0%	1.1%
CCHS survey cycle
2001	19.3%	19.5%	17.2%	19.0%	18.9%	20.5%	17.6%	16.0%
2003	20.4%	20.2%	19.1%	19.9%	20.3%	19.3%	18.6%	16.0%
2005	19.8%	19.7%	20.1%	18.8%	19.7%	19.3%	18.2%	16.7%
2007	20.7%	20.7%	20.7%	20.9%	20.5%	20.6%	21.4%	21.6%
2009	19.8%	20.0%	22.9%	21.4%	20.6%	20.3%	24.1%	29.6%
Chronic health conditions (CHC)^a
Number of CHC
0	20.6%	15.3%	14.4%	16.2%	18.1%	14.2%	16.5%	18.8%
1	28.1%	28.9%	31.5%	24.0%	27.6%	23.1%	22.9%	24.5%
2	23.5%	26.0%	25.7%	23.3%	24.5%	23.7%	21.9%	23.3%
3	14.6%	15.3%	16.2%	17.1%	15.6%	17.0%	16.4%	15.8%
4	7.6%	8.1%	7.2%	10.5%	8.2%	10.8%	10.6%	8.5%
5	3.5%	3.7%	3.3%	5.0%	3.8%	6.0%	6.2%	4.8%
6	1.4%	1.6%	1.1%	2.4%	1.5%	3.3%	3.3%	2.5%
7	0.5%	0.7%	0.3%	1.0%	0.5%	1.1%	1.2%	1.1%
8	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.3%	0.2%	0.4%	0.5%	0.5%
9	0.1%	0.1%	0.0%	0.1%	0.1%	0.2%	0.2%	0.1%
10	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.1%	0.0%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%
11	0.0%	0.0%	. %	0.0%	0.0%	0.1%	0.1%	. %
CHC—Back problems	37.0%	37.9%	37.3%	51.6%	59.2%	38.7%	41.5%	38.0%
CHC—Arthritis	34.1%	36.1%	35.6%	39.2%	32.7%	27.9%	23.5%	37.1%
CHC—High blood pressure	25.1%	26.8%	27.7%	22.5%	19.4%	19.0%	16.2%	28.1%
CHC—Migraine headache	15.0%	15.4%	18.8%	17.8%	18.1%	22.8%	25.4%	16.0%
CHC—Mood disorder	12.7%	12.6%	12.6%	18.2%	13.6%	45.0%	36.3%	16.7%
CHC—Asthma	12.3%	12.8%	15.5%	12.5%	12.3%	17.7%	16.1%	12.5%
CHC—Heart disease	10.9%	11.8%	14.8%	8.5%	6.7%	9.6%	7.3%	14.0%
CHC—Diabetes	9.4%	10.1%	14.0%	8.1%	6.4%	8.6%	6.4%	10.5%
CHC—Anxiety disorder	9.4%	8.9%	8.6%	13.4%	9.9%	32.4%	26.1%	12.0%
CHC—Intestinal/stomach ulcers	5.7%	6.0%	7.3%	5.7%	5.4%	7.8%	7.4%	6.4%
CHC—Cancer	3.5%	3.8%	6.7%	3.4%	2.7%	4.4%	3.6%	5.3%
CHC—Stroke	2.9%	3.1%	4.5%	3.2%	1.5%	4.7%	2.5%	6.6%
Health care utilization (HCU)
Number of health professionals consulted in the past 12 months
0	7.9%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
1	49.9%	53.2%	4.0%	2.5%	7.0%	4.4%	2.2%	3.0%
2	28.7%	31.7%	50.9%	48.4%	50.9%	36.8%	30.7%	37.8%
3	10.1%	11.2%	30.0%	33.3%	30.0%	34.7%	35.2%	32.1%
4	2.6%	2.9%	11.2%	11.2%	8.8%	16.3%	20.6%	16.8%
5	0.6%	0.7%	3.0%	3.2%	2.4%	5.6%	7.7%	6.5%
6	0.1%	0.2%	0.7%	0.9%	0.7%	1.5%	2.5%	2.6%
7	0.0%	0.1%	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	0.6%	1.0%	1.1%
HCU—Medical doctors	88.8%	—	94.1%	95.6%	90.9%	92.4%	94.4%	94.3%
HCU—Nurse	16.3%	17.3%	—	21.4%	16.5%	32.4%	30.7%	27.6%
HCU—Chiropractor	14.4%	14.8%	14.6%	23.3%	—	15.2%	20.1%	16.1%
HCU—Physiotherapist	15.0%	16.1%	19.6%	—	24.2%	19.7%	24.9%	29.4%
HCU—Psychologist	5.1%	5.4%	9.6%	8.5%	7.1%	19.4%	—	12.8%
HCU—Social worker or counselor	8.2%	8.5%	16.3%	10.8%	8.7%	—	31.1%	18.1%
HCU—Speech/audiology/occupational therapist	4.4%	4.7%	7.5%	8.6%	4.9%	9.7%	11.0%	—

Data source: Public Use Microdata File of Canadian Community Health Survey produced by Statistics Canada and accessed via the Ontario Data Documentation, Extraction Services, and Infrastructure (ODESI) digital data service. The results or views expressed are those of the authors and are not those of Statistics Canada.

Data processing: 5 cycles from Canadian Community Health Survey 2001 to 2010 were pooled to obtain a single sample representing an average annual population from 2001 to 2010; Original sampling weights within each cycle were rescaled by dividing 5 (the number of survey cycles) to obtain a new weight in the newly pooled average population. All statistics are based on the rescaled sampling weights.

A total of 12 chronic health conditions was included in our analysis. Estimates for mood disorder (eg, depression, bipolar disorder, mania, or dysthymia) and anxiety disorder (eg, phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or a panic disorder) were based on 4 CCHS cycles from 2003 to 2010 due to their unavailability in 2001 CCHS.

NA = not applicable according to population exclusions; NS = not stated or responses without enough information for classification.

BMI = Weight (kg)/squared height (m), weight and height are self reported. The BMI categories are adopted from a body weight classification system recommended by Health Canada and the World Health Organization (WHO) which has been widely used internationally. In CCHS 2001, NA: age <20 or age >64 years or pregnant; In CCHS 2004, NA: age <20 years or pregnant; in CCHS 2005 to 2010, NA: age <18 years or pregnant.

Most participants with participation and activity limitations consulted 1 (50%) or 2 (28.7%) healthcare professionals in the previous 12 months (Table 1). Medical doctors were the most commonly consulted (88.8%, 95% CI = 88.6-89.0), followed by nurses (16.3%, 95% CI = 16.1-16.6), physiotherapists (15.0%, 95% CI = 14.7-15.2), chiropractors (14.4%, 95% CI = 14.2-14.7), social workers/counselors (8.2%, 95% CI = 8.0-8.4), psychologists (5.1%, 95% CI = 5.0-5.3), and speech/audiology/occupational therapists (4.4%, 95% CI = 4.3-4.5).

Over 50% of Canadians with participation and activity limitations were aged 35 to 64 years, white, non-immigrant, resides of Ontario and Quebec, with at least average household income, non-smokers, regular alcohol drinkers, married, and physically inactive. A significant portion had a post-secondary education (45.8%), were working (43.5%) in the past week, overweight (48.7%), and reported good general health (35.4%).

Sociodemographic Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization Among Canadians With Participation and Activity Limitations

Our multivariable regression analyses suggest that individuals with less than a secondary school education were less likely to consult all healthcare providers than those who completed post-secondary education. Older participants were less likely than those 12 to 19 years to consult chiropractors, social workers/counselors, or psychologists. Females were more likely than males to consult every type of healthcare provider except for speech/audiology/occupational therapists (Table 2).

Table 2.

Regression Analysis of the Association Between Personal Characteristics and Self-reported Consultations With Health Professionals Among Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitations: Pooled Analysis of Canadian Community Health Survey 2001 to 2010.

Characteristics	Medical doctor (including specialist)	Nurse	Physiotherapist	Chiropractor	Social worker /counselor	Psychologist	Speech/audiology/occupational therapist
	PR (95%CI)^a	PR (95%CI)	PR (95%CI)	PR (95%CI)	PR (95%CI)	PR (95%CI)	PR (95%CI)
Age group (years)
12-19	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
20-34	1.03 (1.01-1.05)	1.04 (0.94-1.15)	0.91 (0.82-1.02)	1.05 (0.94-1.18)	0.82 (0.72-0.93)	0.84 (0.69-1.02)	0.98 (0.77-1.25)
35-49	1.04 (1.02-1.06)	0.81 (0.73-0.90)	1.01 (0.90-1.14)	1.09 (0.97-1.23)	0.78 (0.69-0.89)	0.87 (0.71-1.07)	1.05 (0.82-1.35)
50-64	1.07 (1.05-1.09)	0.68 (0.61-0.75)	0.96 (0.86-1.08)	0.99 (0.88-1.12)	0.41 (0.36-0.47)	0.49 (0.40-0.61)	1.08 (0.84-1.38)
65-79	1.09 (1.07-1.11)	0.70 (0.64-0.78)	0.90 (0.81-1.00)	0.85 (0.76-0.95)	0.19 (0.16-0.22)	0.15 (0.12-0.19)	1.30 (1.02-1.65)
80+	1.11 (1.09-1.13)	0.98 (0.88-1.10)	0.89 (0.78-1.02)	0.61 (0.52-0.70)	0.30 (0.25-0.36)	0.11 (0.08-0.15)	1.61 (1.25-2.08)
Sex
Male	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Female	1.07 (1.07-1.08)	1.22 (1.18-1.26)	1.33 (1.28-1.38)	1.22 (1.17-1.26)	1.27 (1.21-1.33)	1.39 (1.29-1.49)	0.78 (0.73-0.83)
Province of residence
Newfoundland	1.02 (1.01-1.03)	0.95 (0.87-1.04)	0.83 (0.75-0.92)	0.46 (0.40-0.52)	0.64 (0.55-0.74)	0.83 (0.67-1.04)	1.14 (0.95-1.36)
Prince Edward Island	1.02 (1.00-1.03)	1.03 (0.93-1.14)	1.10 (0.98-1.23)	0.42 (0.34-0.51)	0.98 (0.84-1.14)	0.56 (0.40-0.79)	1.07 (0.84-1.35)
Nova Scotia	1.02 (1.01-1.03)	0.85 (0.79-0.92)	1.06 (0.98-1.14)	0.42 (0.37-0.48)	0.81 (0.73-0.90)	1.05 (0.89-1.23)	1.08 (0.94-1.25)
New Brunswick	1.00 (0.99-1.01)	1.05 (0.98-1.13)	0.97 (0.89-1.05)	0.48 (0.43-0.54)	0.89 (0.80-0.99)	1.01 (0.86-1.18)	1.25 (1.08-1.44)
Quebec	0.97 (0.97-0.98)	1.43 (1.37-1.49)	0.96 (0.91-1.01)	0.76 (0.71-0.81)	0.79 (0.73-0.85)	1.95 (1.78-2.13)	1.59 (1.44-1.75)
Ontario	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Manitoba	0.98 (0.97-0.99)	0.96 (0.88-1.03)	1.20 (1.11-1.29)	1.40 (1.31-1.49)	0.96 (0.86-1.06)	0.85 (0.71-1.03)	1.14 (0.96-1.36)
Saskatchewan	1.00 (0.99-1.01)	0.94 (0.89-1.01)	0.99 (0.91-1.06)	1.33 (1.25-1.41)	1.06 (0.96-1.17)	0.88 (0.75-1.03)	1.04 (0.90-1.19)
Alberta	0.99 (0.98-1.00)	1.05 (0.99-1.11)	1.11 (1.04-1.18)	1.43 (1.36-1.51)	1.02 (0.94-1.10)	1.35 (1.20-1.52)	1.10 (0.97-1.24)
British Columbia	1.01 (1.00-1.02)	0.89 (0.84-0.94)	1.15 (1.09-1.21)	1.20 (1.15-1.26)	1.23 (1.15-1.31)	1.03 (0.92-1.15)	1.09 (0.99-1.21)
Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut	0.93 (0.91-0.95)	2.66 (2.47-2.87)	1.03 (0.92-1.15)	0.69 (0.60-0.80)	1.62 (1.44-1.83)	0.96 (0.76-1.21)	2.09 (1.69-2.58)
Cultural/racial background
White	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Non-white	1.00 (0.99-1.01)	0.87 (0.82-0.93)	1.02 (0.96-1.10)	0.76 (0.70-0.82)	1.06 (0.98-1.15)	0.98 (0.86-1.11)	0.73 (0.62-0.85)
Immigrant status
Non-immigrant	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Immigrant(0-9 years)	0.98 (0.96-1.01)	0.64 (0.54-0.77)	1.21 (1.06-1.39)	0.93 (0.78-1.10)	0.80 (0.66-0.96)	0.78 (0.57-1.06)	0.69 (0.47-1.02)
Immigrant(10+ years)	1.01 (1.00-1.01)	0.77 (0.72-0.83)	1.07 (1.01-1.13)	0.85 (0.80-0.91)	0.75 (0.68-0.83)	0.89 (0.77-1.02)	0.84 (0.75-0.94)
Highest level of education-respondents
<Secondary	0.97 (0.96-0.97)	0.79 (0.76-0.82)	0.72 (0.69-0.76)	0.86 (0.81-0.90)	0.88 (0.82-0.94)	0.64 (0.58-0.70)	0.65 (0.60-0.72)
Secondary grad	0.98 (0.97-0.98)	0.82 (0.79-0.86)	0.85 (0.81-0.89)	0.96 (0.91-1.01)	0.83 (0.78-0.90)	0.74 (0.67-0.82)	0.77 (0.70-0.85)
Some post-secondary education	0.99 (0.98-1.00)	0.94 (0.89-1.00)	0.86 (0.81-0.92)	1.03 (0.96-1.10)	1.01 (0.93-1.10)	0.94 (0.83-1.06)	0.96 (0.85-1.09)
Post-secondary grad/university degree	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Total household income
First quintile	0.97 (0.96-0.98)	0.95 (0.89-1.01)	0.60 (0.56-0.65)	0.74 (0.69-0.80)	1.91 (1.73-2.11)	0.86 (0.76-0.97)	0.81 (0.70-0.92)
Second quintile	0.97 (0.96-0.98)	0.93 (0.87-0.98)	0.74 (0.69-0.80)	0.92 (0.86-0.99)	1.42 (1.28-1.57)	0.86 (0.76-0.97)	0.91 (0.81-1.03)
Third quintile	0.98 (0.97-0.99)	0.97 (0.91-1.02)	0.79 (0.75-0.84)	0.97 (0.92-1.03)	1.36 (1.24-1.50)	0.96 (0.85-1.08)	0.95 (0.85-1.07)
Fourth quintile	0.99 (0.98-1.00)	0.98 (0.93-1.04)	0.92 (0.88-0.97)	1.02 (0.97-1.07)	1.11 (1.01-1.22)	0.99 (0.89-1.10)	1.08 (0.97-1.20)
Fifth quintile	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
NA/NS^b	0.97 (0.96-0.98)	0.89 (0.83-0.95)	0.78 (0.73-0.84)	0.94 (0.88-1.00)	1.22 (1.10-1.36)	0.82 (0.72-0.95)	0.79 (0.69-0.91)
Working status last week
Working	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Absent	1.05 (1.04-1.06)	1.53 (1.43-1.64)	1.46 (1.37-1.55)	1.02 (0.95-1.10)	1.51 (1.36-1.67)	1.88 (1.68-2.11)	1.55 (1.35-1.79)
No job	1.02 (1.01-1.03)	1.14 (1.09-1.19)	1.01 (0.96-1.06)	0.81 (0.77-0.85)	1.56 (1.46-1.67)	1.33 (1.21-1.45)	1.32 (1.20-1.46)
Unable/permanent	1.06 (1.05-1.06)	1.33 (1.25-1.42)	1.15 (1.06-1.25)	0.69 (0.62-0.76)	1.91 (1.75-2.09)	1.55 (1.35-1.77)	1.90 (1.63-2.21)
NA(age <15 or >75 years)	1.03 (1.01-1.04)	1.13 (1.05-1.21)	0.93 (0.85-1.01)	0.75 (0.68-0.81)	1.41 (1.27-1.58)	1.19 (1.00-1.41)	1.71 (1.47-1.99)
Marital status
Married	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Common-law	0.97 (0.96-0.98)	1.04 (0.98-1.11)	0.96 (0.90-1.02)	0.96 (0.90-1.02)	1.29 (1.17-1.43)	1.18 (1.04-1.35)	0.97 (0.84-1.12)
Widowed/divorced/separated	0.99 (0.98-0.99)	1.12 (1.08-1.17)	0.99 (0.94-1.04)	0.93 (0.88-0.97)	1.93 (1.80-2.08)	1.61 (1.46-1.77)	1.10 (1.00-1.19)
Single	0.97 (0.96-0.98)	1.09 (1.04-1.15)	0.99 (0.93-1.04)	0.81 (0.77-0.86)	1.70 (1.58-1.83)	1.47 (1.34-1.62)	1.00 (0.89-1.13)
Type of smoker
Daily	0.96 (0.96-0.97)	0.92 (0.88-0.96)	0.77 (0.73-0.81)	0.77 (0.73-0.80)	1.17 (1.11-1.24)	1.01 (0.93-1.09)	0.82 (0.75-0.90)
Occasional	0.98 (0.97-1.00)	1.01 (0.93-1.09)	0.84 (0.77-0.92)	0.88 (0.81-0.97)	1.19 (1.08-1.31)	1.17 (1.03-1.33)	0.97 (0.79-1.20)
Not at all	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Type of drinker
Regular	1.01 (1.01-1.02)	0.94 (0.90-0.98)	1.12 (1.07-1.17)	1.11 (1.05-1.17)	0.96 (0.90-1.03)	1.00 (0.92-1.10)	0.93 (0.86-1.01)
Occasional	1.01 (1.01-1.02)	1.03 (0.98-1.08)	1.00 (0.95-1.06)	1.05 (1.00-1.12)	1.09 (1.02-1.16)	0.94 (0.85-1.03)	1.02 (0.92-1.12)
Did not drink	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Physical activity
Active	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Moderate active	1.00 (0.99-1.01)	0.98 (0.94-1.03)	0.94 (0.90-0.99)	0.96 (0.92-1.01)	0.93 (0.87-0.99)	1.02 (0.92-1.12)	0.98 (0.89-1.09)
Inactive	1.00 (0.99-1.00)	0.93 (0.89-0.97)	0.87 (0.83-0.91)	0.90 (0.86-0.95)	0.91 (0.86-0.96)	0.98 (0.90-1.07)	1.01 (0.92-1.11)
BMI classification—International standard
Underweight	1.01 (1.00-1.02)	1.05 (0.96-1.15)	0.94 (0.84-1.04)	0.86 (0.76-0.96)	0.97 (0.86-1.09)	0.85 (0.73-0.99)	1.10 (0.89-1.37)
Normal weight	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Overweight (incl. obese)	1.01 (1.00-1.01)	1.01 (0.98-1.05)	0.97 (0.93-1.00)	1.00 (0.96-1.04)	0.94 (0.89-0.99)	0.86 (0.80-0.92)	1.01 (0.94-1.09)
NA (age <18 years or pregnant)^c	1.00 (0.99-1.01)	1.06 (0.99-1.14)	0.94 (0.86-1.03)	0.97 (0.89-1.06)	1.04 (0.92-1.17)	1.01 (0.83-1.22)	1.17 (0.99-1.38)
Perceived general health
Poor	1.15 (1.13-1.16)	2.42 (2.23-2.62)	1.45 (1.32-1.58)	1.06 (0.96-1.17)	2.41 (2.12-2.74)	2.80 (2.36-3.32)	1.12 (0.94-1.33)
Fair	1.13 (1.12-1.14)	1.87 (1.73-2.01)	1.25 (1.16-1.34)	1.08 (1.01-1.17)	1.75 (1.56-1.98)	2.15 (1.84-2.52)	1.04 (0.89-1.21)
Good	1.09 (1.07-1.10)	1.46 (1.36-1.56)	1.07 (1.01-1.15)	1.12 (1.05-1.19)	1.27 (1.13-1.43)	1.45 (1.25-1.68)	0.86 (0.75-0.99)
Very good	1.06 (1.05-1.08)	1.26 (1.17-1.36)	1.01 (0.95-1.08)	1.08 (1.01-1.15)	1.08 (0.96-1.21)	1.13 (0.97-1.31)	0.78 (0.68-0.90)
Excellent	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Cause of difficulty with activities
Injury	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Disease	1.01 (1.00-1.02)	1.13 (1.08-1.18)	0.50 (0.48-0.52)	0.66 (0.63-0.69)	1.10 (1.03-1.18)	0.90 (0.82-1.00)	0.82 (0.74-0.90)
Aging	0.97 (0.96-0.97)	0.83 (0.78-0.88)	0.43 (0.40-0.46)	0.66 (0.62-0.70)	0.82 (0.73-0.91)	0.61 (0.52-0.71)	0.70 (0.63-0.78)
Other(existed at birth/work conditions/other)	0.97 (0.96-0.98)	0.94 (0.89-0.98)	0.44 (0.42-0.46)	0.74 (0.70-0.77)	1.35 (1.26-1.44)	1.21 (1.11-1.33)	1.03 (0.93-1.14)
CCHS survey cycle
Every 2-year increase	1.00 (1.00-1.00)	1.07 (1.06-1.09)	1.05 (1.03-1.06)	1.03 (1.01-1.04)	0.96 (0.94-0.98)	1.09 (1.06-1.12)	1.18 (1.15-1.22)

Data source: Public Use Microdata File of Canadian Community Health Survey produced by Statistics Canada and accessed via the Ontario Data Documentation, Extraction Services and Infrastructure (ODESI) digital data service. The results or views expressed are those of the authors and are not those of Statistics Canada.

PR (95%CI): adjusted prevalence ratio and 95% confidence interval were obtained from multivariable Poisson regression (with robust error variance estimate). All of the 14 personal characteristics listed in the table were entered in the multivariable regression model. Crude prevalence ratio and 95% confidence interval obtained from bivariate Poisson regression (with robust error variance estimate) between the consultation with a specific health care provider (yes or no) and each of the personal characteristics can be found in Supplemental Appendix 3.

NA = not applicable according to population exclusions. NS = not stated or responses without enough information for classification. For Total Household Income, Not Stated was merged with Not Applicable and treated as 1 category together.

In CCHS 2001, NA: age <20 or age >64 years or pregnant; In CCHS 2004, NA: age <20 years or pregnant; in CCHS 2005 to 2010, NA: age <18 years or pregnant.

Non-white individuals and immigrants were less likely to consult nurses, chiropractors, and speech/audiology/occupational therapists. In addition, immigrants were less likely to consult social workers/counselors but more likely to consult physiotherapists. Lower household income was associated with a decreased likelihood of consulting most healthcare providers but an increased likelihood of consulting social workers/counselors. Married individuals were less likely to consult nurses, social workers/counselors, and psychologists, but more likely to consult medical doctors and chiropractors compared to those with other marital statuses. Individuals not currently working, in comparison to those employed in the past week, showed a higher likelihood of utilizing most healthcare services, except for a lower likelihood of consulting chiropractors.

Across the 10 provinces and 3 territories of Canada, individuals from Quebec or the territories were least likely to consult medical doctors but most likely to consult nurses and speech/audiology/occupational therapists. In contrast, those from Nova Scotia and British Columbia were least likely to consult nurses. Following Quebec and the territories, residents of New Brunswick also showed greater likelihood of consulting speech/audiology/occupational therapists than those from other provinces. Psychologists were least likely to be consulted by those from Prince Edward Island but more likely consulted by those from Quebec and Alberta.

For physiotherapists, chiropractors, and social worker/counselor consultations, individuals from eastern provinces, including Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Quebec showed lower likelihood of consultation, with Newfoundland and Labrador exhibiting the lowest likelihood of consulting physiotherapists and social workers/counselors. In addition to these eastern provinces, chiropractors were also less likely to be consulted by those from the territories. (Table 2)

Behavioral Factors Associated With Healthcare Utilization Among Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitations

Daily smokers compared to non-smokers were more likely to consult social workers/counselors and psychologists but less likely to consult the other 5 healthcare providers. Regular alcohol drinkers compared to non-drinkers were more likely to consult medical doctors, physiotherapists, and chiropractors but less likely to consult nurses. Physically inactive individuals compared to physically active individuals were less likely to consult nurses, physiotherapists, chiropractors, and social workers/counselors (Table 2).

Health-Related Characteristics Associated With Healthcare Utilization Among Canadians With Participation and Activity Limitations

Self-rated poorer general health was associated with a higher likelihood of consulting all healthcare providers. Compared to those with self-ascribed injury-caused participation restrictions and activity limitations, those attributing limitations to aging were less likely to consult any healthcare provider, while disease-caused limitations were associated with higher likelihood of consulting nurses and social workers/counselors. Individuals with other causes of limitations were more likely to consult social workers/counselors and psychologists (Table 2).

Healthcare Utilization Over Time

The results of our multivariable regression analyses suggest trends in healthcare utilization varied from 2001 to 2010. Utilization of medical doctors remained stable while consultations with nurses, physiotherapists, chiropractors, psychologists, and speech/audiology/occupational therapists increased, with increases ranging from 3% to 18% every 2 years. Consultations with social workers/counselors decreased by 4% every 2 years (Table 2).

Discussion

Our study provides a historical overview of the characteristics and healthcare utilization of Canadians with participation and activity limitations from 2001 to 2010, representing an annual population of 8.1 million individuals (30% of the national population). We observed an increasing consultation trend with most healthcare providers from 2001 to 2010. While most consulted medical doctors, disadvantaged groups exhibit lower utilization rates across most healthcare providers. Notably, 20.6% did not report any of the 12 common conditions covered by the CCHS, and 29.2% did not attribute their limitations to injury, disease, or aging-related conditions, suggesting potential unaccounted limiting conditions in the current healthcare system metrics.³ Musculoskeletal conditions, notably back pain (37.0%) and arthritis (34.1%), were prevalent among this population. However, only 14% to 15% sought consultation with rehabilitation professionals like physiotherapists and chiropractors, revealing a crucial gap in access to rehabilitation services.

Factors Associated With Healthcare Utilization

Factors associated with healthcare utilization showed variations by provider, highlighting the complexity of healthcare-seeking behaviors and disparities in access to different services. Lower education levels were consistently associated with reduced healthcare utilization across all providers, possibly due to limited health literacy,⁴⁷ cultural influences favoring self-care,⁴⁸ and systemic barriers related to socioeconomic status.^49,50

Older individuals were more likely to consult medical doctors than younger individuals, potentially due to trust and familiarity with medical doctors,^51
-54 while facing limited acceptability and accessibility to alternative health providers.^49,50 Males showed lower healthcare utilization overall, possibly attributed to their lower perceived needs and reluctance for non-severe issues.^55
-57 However, males showed a higher likelihood of consulting speech/audiology/occupational therapists, likely linked to their higher labor participation⁵⁸ and occupational risks compared to females.^59,60 Immigrants demonstrated lower overall healthcare utilization but increased physiotherapy consultations, suggesting diverse healthcare needs, affordability, cultural factors, and system accessibility.^27,61
-68

Regional variations in healthcare utilization reflected diverse preferences and access challenges, necessitating tailored healthcare policies. Quebec and the territories exhibited lower medical doctor utilization but higher likelihood of consultation with nurses and speech/audiology/occupational therapists, potentially due to more severe physician shortages⁶⁹ and integrated role of alternative providers. Alberta and Quebec exhibited higher psychologist consultation rates, reflecting regional mental health disparities and service availability.^70
-72 Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, showed lower likelihood of consulting chiropractors and social workers/counselors despite their high prevalence of chronic back problem and disability.^73,74 Barriers may include variations in healthcare infrastructure, referral practices, insurance coverage, awareness, and regional cultural factors.⁷⁵ For example, while Ontario and western provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) provided varying levels of public insurance coverage for physiotherapy and chiropractic care, most eastern provinces and 3 territories lacked coverage for chiropractic care, and physiotherapy was often only covered when administered in hospital settings.^76,77

We found disparities in healthcare utilization related to smoking status and alcohol consumption, like in other studies.^78
-81 Compared to occasional consumers and abstainers, daily smokers were more likely to consult social workers/counselors and psychologists, possibly related to mental health implications.^82,83 Conversely, regular drinkers were more likely to consult medical doctors, physiotherapists, and chiropractors. Previous studies showed mixed results, likely influenced by variations in study populations and alcohol intake classifications.^80,81,84

Implications

Our findings have important implications for healthcare policy and practice. First, the population with participation and activity limitations is diverse and includes individuals with multifaceted healthcare needs.^85
-87 Second, the increasing trend of consulting non-medical providers, conflated with significant challenges with access to rehabilitation services, highlights the need for inclusion of rehabilitation in our universal health system.⁸⁵ Policymakers should consider integrating rehabilitation services within primary care to enhance equitable accessibility.^5,34,88 The recent WHO resolution on strengthening health systems supports this approach.⁸⁹ Finally, the disparities in healthcare utilization experienced by disadvantaged groups suggest targeted interventions need to be developed to remove access barriers rooted in sociodemographic inequities.^49,50 Policy reforms could also focus on improving health literacy, increasing affordability of services, and ensuring equitable access across different regions. Tailored strategies for different jurisdictional regions, reflecting local healthcare needs and resource availability, could help address regional variations in service utilization.

Strengths and Limitations

Our study’s strength lies in its use of large, comprehensive, and representative population-based data from 5 cycles of the CCHS, focusing on Canadians with participation and activity limitations. This provides a crucial historical overview of their healthcare utilization, essential for future planning and research. Additionally, employing both univariable and multivariable modified Poisson regression enhances methodological rigor by thoroughly exploring associations between personal characteristics and healthcare use. Limitations include potential biases with self-reported data, the study’s timeframe not fully capturing current healthcare needs, and the cross-sectional nature of the survey not allowing for causal inference.

Conclusion

Approximately 8.1 million (30%) Canadians aged 12 years and older experience participation and activity limitations annually between 2001 and 2010. About 30% of this population did not attribute their restrictions and limitations to injury, disease, or aging related conditions. Although the most common health reasons for participation and activity limitations are musculoskeletal disorders, we found that consultations with rehabilitation providers (eg, physiotherapists and chiropractors) were low. Our historical overview of healthcare utilization provides crucial insights for addressing diverse healthcare needs in this population and informing evidence-based strategies for implementing integrated and equitable healthcare. Improving access to rehabilitation services and integrating them into universal healthcare coverage should be a priority. Future research could benefit from adopting a cohort study design and using more reliable measures of healthcare utilization, such as electronic health records, to provide more accurate and current insights.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319241284971 – Supplemental material for Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization of Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitations (2001-2010): A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319241284971 for Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization of Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitations (2001-2010): A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study by Dan Wang, Jessica J. Wong, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Silvano A. Mior and Pierre Côté in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-jpc-10.1177_21501319241284971 – Supplemental material for Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization of Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitations (2001-2010): A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-jpc-10.1177_21501319241284971 for Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization of Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitations (2001-2010): A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study by Dan Wang, Jessica J. Wong, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Silvano A. Mior and Pierre Côté in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-3-jpc-10.1177_21501319241284971 – Supplemental material for Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization of Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitations (2001-2010): A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-3-jpc-10.1177_21501319241284971 for Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization of Canadians Living With Participation and Activity Limitations (2001-2010): A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study by Dan Wang, Jessica J. Wong, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Silvano A. Mior and Pierre Côté in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to the participants of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) cycles from 2001 to 2010, as well as to Statistics Canada, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and Health Canada for their contributions to the development and implementation of the CCHS survey. We are grateful for members of the advisory committee (ie, Canadian Chiropractic Association, Ontario Chiropractic Association, Chiropractors’ Association of Saskatchewan, Chiropractic Association of Alberta, and British Columbia Chiropractic Association). Their expertise and guidance were instrumental in shaping the methodology, interpreting the results, and ensuring the rigor of our study. We would like to clarify that the advisory committee provided advice and insights without intervention in the research process, and there were no conflicts of interest.

Author’s Note

Jessica J. Wong is also affiliated to Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada and Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a research grant from the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation (CCRF) and by the following organizations (Canadian Chiropractic Association, Ontario Chiropractic Association, Chiropractors’ Association of Saskatchewan, Chiropractic Association of Alberta, and British Columbia Chiropractic Association). The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dan Wang’s contribution to this project was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship at Ontario Tech University (funded by Ontario Tech University and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College). Pierre Côté’s contribution to the project was supported, in part, by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—Canada Research Chair Program.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Board at Ontario Tech University (Reference# 15791-130103). Informed consent was obtained from all CCHS respondents by Statistics Canada. “Statistics Canada is prohibited by law from releasing any information it collects that could identify any person, business, or organization, unless consent has been given by the respondent or as permitted by the Statistics Act. Various confidentiality rules are applied to all data that are released or published to prevent the publication or disclosure of any information deemed confidential. If necessary, data are suppressed to prevent direct or residual disclosure of identifiable data.” [From: https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3226].

ORCID iD

Dan Wang

Data Availability Statement

Statistics Canada makes available the CCHS public use microdata file (PUMF), which is designed to improve statistical analytic capabilities using publicly accessible Canadian data resources while ensuring respondent confidentiality.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Bickenbach

Rubinelli

Baffone

Stucki

The human functioning revolution: implications for health systems and sciences. Front Sci. 2023;1:1118512.

World Health Organization. ICF Beginner’s Guide: Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health. 2002. ICF - The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Accessed October 1, 2022. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/classification/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf?sfvrsn=eead63d3_4&download=true

World Health

World

. World Report on Disability 2011. World Health Organization; 2011.

Goodridge

Lawson

Marciniuk

Rennie

A population-based profile of adult Canadians living with participation and activity limitations. CMAJ. 2011;183:E1017-E1024.

McColl

Jarzynowska

Shortt

SED

. Unmet health care needs of people with disabilities: population level evidence. Disabil Soc. 2010;25(2):205-218. doi:10.1080/09687590903537406

Stucki

Bickenbach

Functioning: the third health indicator in the health system and the key indicator for rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;53:134-138.

Netuveli

Wiggins

Hildon

Montgomery

Blane

Functional limitation in long standing illness and quality of life: evidence from a national survey. BMJ. 2005;331(7529):1382-1383. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7529.1382

Resnik

Plow

MA.

Measuring participation as defined by the international classification of functioning, disability and health: an evaluation of existing measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(5):856-866.

Gray

Hollingsworth

Stark

Morgan

KA.

Participation survey/mobility: psychometric properties of a measure of participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(2):189-197.

10.

Darzins

Imms

Di Stefano

Measurement of activity limitations and participation restrictions: examination of ICF-linked content and scale properties of the FIM and PC-PART instruments. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(10):1025-1038.

11.

Cabrero-García

Rico-Juan

Oliver-Roig

Does the global activity limitation indicator measure participation restriction? Data from the European Health and Social Integration Survey in Spain. Qual Life Res. 2022;31(5):1335-1344.

12.

Wilkie

Peat

Thomas

Croft

Factors associated with participation restriction in community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and over. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1147-1156.

13.

Ezekiel

Collett

Mayo

Pang

Field

Dawes

Factors associated with participation in life situations for adults with stroke: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(5):945-955.

14.

Mutlu

Büğüsan

Kara

ÖK.

Impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions of the international classification of functioning, disability, and health model in children with ambulatory cerebral palsy. Saudi Med J. 2017;38(2):176.

15.

Rusch

Nixon

Schilder

Braitstein

Chan

Hogg

RS.

Impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions: prevalence and associations among persons living with HIV/AIDS in British Columbia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:46.

16.

van Veen

Hemo

Bowers

, et al. Evaluation of activity limitation and social participation, and the effects of reconstructive surgery in people with disability due to leprosy: a prospective cohort study. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(8):667-674.

17.

Hootman

Helmick

Barbour

Theis

Boring

MA.

Updated projected prevalence of self-reported doctor-diagnosed arthritis and arthritis-attributable activity limitation among US adults, 2015–2040. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(7):1582-1587.

18.

Brito dos Santos

Ferreira

CWS

Gonçalves

, et al. Association among dysmenorrhea and activity limitation and participation restrictions in adult women: a cross-sectional study, Brazil-2017. Arch Public Health. 2021;79:1-7.

19.

Barclay

McDonald

Lentin

Social and community participation following spinal cord injury: a critical review. Int J Rehabil Res. 2015;38(1):1-19.

20.

O’Shea

Taylor

Paratz

JD.

Measuring changes in activity limitation and participation restriction in people with COPD. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2005;12(6):264-268.

21.

Lim

Kim

Cha

YJ.

Effects of environmental modification on activities of daily living, social participation and quality of life in the older adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(2):132-140.

22.

Kader

Perera

Sohrab Hossain

Islam

Socio-demographic and injury-related factors contributing to activity limitations and participation restrictions in people with spinal cord injury in Bangladesh. Spinal Cord. 2018;56(3):239-246.

23.

Hand

Howrey

BT.

Associations among neighborhood characteristics, mobility limitation, and social participation in late life. J Gerontol Ser B. 2019;74(3):546-555.

24.

Lawson

Goodridge

Rennie

Zhao

Marciniuk

DD.

Profile of a national sample of Canadian children with participation and activity limitations. J Child Health Care. 2017;21(2):201-211.

25.

Müllersdorf

Söderback

Assessing health care needs: the actual state of self-perceived activity limitation and participation restrictions due to pain in a nationwide Swedish population. Int J Rehabil Res. 2000;23):201-207.

26.

European Observatory on Health S, Policies, Marchildon

Allin

Merkur

. Canada: Health system review. vol 22. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2020.

27.

Lum

Swartz

Kwan

MYW

. Accessibility and use of primary healthcare for immigrants living in the Niagara Region. Soc Sci Med. 2016;156:73-79. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.024

28.

Rockwood

Howlett

MacKnight

, et al. Prevalence, attributes, and outcomes of fitness and frailty in community-dwelling older adults: report from the Canadian study of health and aging. J Gerontol Ser A: Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59(12):1310-1317.

29.

Rimmer

Chen

Hsieh

A conceptual model for identifying, preventing, and managing secondary conditions in people with disabilities. Phys Ther. 2011;91(12):1728-1739.

30.

Sullivan

PM.

Violence against children with disabilities: prevention, public policy, and research implications. In: Marge

ed. A Call to Action: Ending Crimes of Violence Against Children and Adults With Disabilties. State University of New York, Upstate Medical University Duplicating and Printing Services; 2003:127.

31.

Prince

Patel

Saxena

, et al. No health without mental health. Lancet. 2007;370(9590):859-877.

32.

Martin

Miller

Quesnel-Vallée

Caron

Vissandjée

Marchildon

GP.

Canada’s universal health-care system: achieving its potential. Lancet. 2018;391(10131):1718-1735.

33.

Sullivan-Taylor

Suter

Laxton

Oelke

Park

Integrated people-centred care in Canada: policies, standards, and implementation tools to improve outcomes. Int J Integr Care. 2022;22(1):8.

34.

DeSouza

Wang

Wong

, et al. Prevalence of unmet rehabilitation needs among canadians living with long-term conditions or disabilities during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2024;105(2):268-279.

35.

Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) – Annual component. 2011. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getInstanceList&Id=81424

36.

Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey 2003: User Guide for the Public Use Microdata File. Statistics Canada; 2005. (Catalogue no. 82M0013GPE).

37.

Ontario Data Documentation ESaIO. Statistics Canada Public Use Microdata Files, Canadian Community Health Survey. 2021. Accessed October, 2022. https://odesi.ca/en

38.

Mont

Measuring Disability Prevalence. Vol. 706. Citeseer; 2007.

39.

Canada

Data from: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2001: Cycle 1.1, General File [Public use microdata file]. Public use microdata file.

40.

Canada

Data from: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2003: Cycle 2.1: General File [Public use microdata file]. Public use microdata file.

41.

Canada

Data from: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2005: Cycle 3.1, Main File [Public use microdata file]. Public use microdata file.

42.

Canada

. Data from: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2007-2008: Annual Component [Public use microdata file]. Public use microdata file.

43.

Canada

Data from: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2009-2010: Annual Component [Public use microdata file]. Public use microdata file.

44.

Thomas

Wannell

Combining cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey. Health Rep. 2009;20(1):53-58.

45.

National Academies of Sciences. Factors that affect health-care utilization. In: Medicine National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Care Services, Committee on Health Care Utilization and Adults with Disabilities. National Academies Press; 2018:21-38.

46.

Zou

A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702-706. doi:10.1093/aje/kwh090

47.

Andrus

Roth

MT.

Health literacy: a review. Pharmacotherapy. 2002;22(3):282-302. doi:10.1592/phco.22.5.282.33191

48.

Vaughn

Jacquez

Bakar

RC.

Cultural health attributions, beliefs, and practices: effects on healthcare and medical education. Open Med Educ J. 2009;2(1):64-74.

49.

Lavingia

Jones

Asghar-Ali

AA.

A systematic review of barriers faced by older adults in seeking and accessing mental health care. J Psychiatr Pract. 2020;26(5):367-382. doi:10.1097/pra.0000000000000491

50.

Mohd Rosnu

Singh

DKA

Mat Ludin

Ishak

Abd Rahman

Shahar

Enablers and barriers of accessing health care services among older adults in South-East Asia: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:7351.

51.

Nabalamba

Millar

WJ.

Going to the doctor. Health Rep. 2007;18(1):23-35.

52.

Simile

Hardy

. Utilization of complementary and alternative medicine by United States adults: results from the 1999 national health interview survey. Med Care. 2002:353-358.

53.

Babitsch

Gohl

von Lengerke

Re-revisiting Andersen’s behavioral model of health services use: a systematic review of studies from 1998-2011. Psychosoc Med. 2012;9:Doc11.

54.

Berkelmans

Berendsen

Verhaak

van der Meer

Characteristics of general practice care: what do senior citizens value? A qualitative study. BMC Geriatr. 2010;10:1-8.

55.

Pinkhasov

Wong

Kashanian

, et al. Are men shortchanged on health? Perspective on health care utilization and health risk behavior in men and women in the United States. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64(4):475-487. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02290.x

56.

Galdas

Cheater

Marshall

Men and health help-seeking behaviour: literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;49(6):616-623. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03331.x

57.

Glaesmer

BrÄHler

Martin

Mewes

Rief

Gender differences in healthcare utilization: the mediating effect of utilization propensity. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2012;42(5):1266-1279. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00888.x

58.

Quinn

Harper

Rydz

Smith

Koehoorn

Peters

CE.

Men and women at work in Canada, 1991–2016. Labour Ind. 2020;30(4):401-412. doi:10.1080/10301763.2021.1872841

59.

Khan

Jansson

Risk level assessment and occupational health insurance expenditure: a gender imbalance. J Soc Econ. 2001;30(6):539-547. doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00125-1

60.

Seccombe

Employer sponsored medical benefits: the influence of occupational characteristics and gender. Sociol Q. 1993;34(4):557-580. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00106.x

61.

Newbold

KB.

Health care use and the canadian immigrant population. Int J Health Serv. 2009;39(3):545-565. doi:10.2190/HS.39.3.g

62.

Ahmed

Shommu

Rumana

Barron

Wicklum

Turin

TC.

Barriers to access of primary healthcare by immigrant populations in canada: a literature review. J Immigr Minor Health. 2016;18(6):1522-1540. doi:10.1007/s10903-015-0276-z

63.

Sarría-Santamera

Hijas-Gómez

Carmona

Gimeno-Feliú

LA.

A systematic review of the use of health services by immigrants and native populations. Public Health Rev. 2016;37(1):28. doi:10.1186/s40985-016-0042-3

64.

Wang

Rosenberg

Ethnicity and utilization of family physicians: a case study of Mainland Chinese immigrants in Toronto, Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(9):1410-1422. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.06.012

65.

McDonald

Kennedy

Insights into the ‘healthy immigrant effect’: health status and health service use of immigrants to Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(8):1613-1627. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.02.004

66.

Kennedy

Kidd

McDonald

Biddle

. The healthy immigrant effect: patterns and evidence from four countries. J Int Migr Integr. 2015;16:317-32.

67.

Gushulak

Pottie

Hatcher Roberts

Torres

DesMeules

; Canadian Collaboration for Immigrant and Refugee Health. Migration and health in Canada: health in the global village. CMAJ. 2011;183(12):E952-E958.

68.

Paul

Mullerpatan

Review of physiotherapy awareness across the globe. Int J Health Sci Res. 2015;5(10):294-301.

69.

Frumkin

Magrill

Newton

Biopsy of Canada’s family physician shortage. Fam Med Community Health. 2023;11(2):e002236. doi:10.1136/fmch-2023-002236

70.

McDonald

Kulkarni

Andkhoie

, et al. Determinants of self-reported mental health and utilization of mental health services in Canada. Int J Mental Health. 2017;46(4):299-311. doi:10.1080/00207411.2017.1345045

71.

Diaz-Granados

Georgiades

Boyle

MH.

Regional and individual influences on use of mental health services in Canada. Can J Psychiatry. 2010;55(1):9-20.

72.

Bauldry

Szaflarski

Immigrant-based disparities in mental health care utilization. Socius. 2017;3:2378023116685718. doi:10.1177/2378023116685718

73.

Schopflocher

Taenzer

Jovey

The prevalence of chronic pain in Canada. Pain Res Manag. 2011;16:876306. doi:10.1155/2011/876306

74.

Arim

A Profile of Persons With Disabilities Among Canadians Aged 15 Years or Older, 2012. Statistics Canada; 2015.

75.

Andersen

Davidson

. Improving access to care in America: individual and contextual indicators. In: RM Andersen, TH Rice, GF Kominski, ed. Changing the US Health Care System: Key Issues in Health Services Policy and Management. 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass; 2007:3-31.

76.

Prout

. Canada’s Provincial Health Plans – Quick Links Highlight What’s Covered Where You Are. 2023. Accessed 2023. https://sbis.ca/canadas-provincial-health-plans.html

77.

Coulter

Schneider

Egan

Murphy

Mior

Jacob

. Back pain: chiropractor’s view. In: Cheng

, ed. Handbook of Spine Technology. Springer International Publishing; 2020:1-29.

78.

Kahende

Adhikari

Maurice

Rock

Malarcher

Disparities in health care utilization by smoking status – NHANES 1999-2004. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(3):1095-1106.

79.

Azagba

Sharaf

Xiao Liu

Disparities in health care utilization by smoking status in Canada. Int J Public Health. 2013;58(6):913-925.

80.

Zarkin

Bray

Babor

Higgins-Biddle

JC.

Alcohol drinking patterns and health care utilization in a managed care organization. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(3):553-570.

81.

Vals

Kiivet

R-A

Leinsalu

Alcohol consumption, smoking and overweight as a burden for health care services utilization: a cross-sectional study in Estonia. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):772. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-772

82.

Leung

Chan

SSC

Johnston

, et al. Effectiveness of an elderly smoking cessation counseling training program for social workers: a longitudinal study. Chest. 2007;131(4):1157-1165. doi:10.1378/chest.06-1975

83.

Jorm

Rodgers

Jacomb

Christensen

Henderson

Korten

AE.

Smoking and mental health: results from a community survey. Med J Aust. 1999;170(2):74-77. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1999.tb126887.x

84.

Bares

Kennedy

Alcohol use among older adults and health care utilization. Aging Mental Health. 2021;25(11):2109-2115. doi:10.1080/13607863.2020.1793903

85.

Stucki

Ewert

Cieza

Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(17):932-938. doi:10.1080/09638280210148594

86.

Teper

Tsai

Complementary and alternative medicine use by Canadian university students. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;15(1):e5-e14.

87.

Kelly

Hardwick

Moritz

Kelner

Rickhi

Quan

Towards integration: opinions of health policy makers on complementary and alternative medicine. Evid Based Integ Med. 2005;2:79-86.

88.

Casey

Disability and unmet health care needs in Canada: a longitudinal analysis. Disabil Health J. 2015;8(2):173-181.

89.

World Health Organization. Strengthening rehabilitation in health systems. 152nd session, Agenda item 8; EB152(10), 2023. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB152/B152%2810%29-en.pdf.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB

0.33 MB

0.28 MB