Health

Proportion of Babies with Low Birth Weight

Significance

• Canada has seen an increase in low birth weight babies in the last decade.

• Not only can this have negative implications for the health care system and the families affected, but it can have long-term implications for low birth weight babies who have a higher risk of health and developmental problems later on.

Core Indicator

• Low birth weight babies are usually the result of poor nutrition, smoking, and drinking during pregnancy.

• The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) recorded a growing proportion of babies born with low birth weight in Canada (see following chart) between 2001/2002 and 2009/2010.

Proportion of Babies Born with Low Birth Weight in Canada, April 1 2001/March

31 2002 to April 1 2010/March 31 2011

Source: CIHI, Discharge Abstract and Hospital Morbidity databaseshttps://secure.cihi.ca/estore/productSeries.htm?pc=PCC226

.

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-20105.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.3

Canada vs. OECD Countries

• Although the proportion of babies with low birth weight has increased, Canada still has a relatively low proportion when compared to other countries who are part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (see following chart).

• Canada, tied with Denmark, had the fifth lowest low birth weight rate among the twenty OECD countries, at 6.1%.

Proportion of Babies Born with Low Birth Rate for OECD Countries,

2009

Source: OECD Stats, OECD Health Data acquired from national statistics departments.

Greece

Japan

Portuga

l

United St

ates

Spain

Austria

United Kingd

omIta

ly

Belgium*

German

y

Switz

erlan

d

Netherl

ands*

France*

Australi

a

Canad

a

Denmark

Norway

Irelan

d

Finlan

d

Swed

en0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Canada’s Major CMAs

• In 2010/2011 the proportion of babies with low birth weight in most of Canada’s major census metropolitan areas (CMAs) tended to hover around the national average (6.2%).

• The range was from 5.6 percent in Sudbury to 7.8 % in Calgary, representing a gap of 2.2 percentage points (see following chart).

• Toronto had the second highest rate at 7.3 %, followed by Kingston at 6.8 %.

Proportion of Babies with Low Birth Weight in Major CMAs, April 2010/March 31 2011

Source: CIHI, Discharge Abstract and Hospital Morbidity databases.

Calgary

Toron

to

Kings

ton

St. J

ohn's

Edmon

ton

Win

nipe

g

Ottawa

Hamilt

on

Canad

a

Victor

ia

Londo

n

Kitche

ner

Vanco

uver

Halifax

Québe

c

Mon

tréal

Sudb

ury

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

CMA Trends (2000 to 2011)

• The proportion of babies with low birth weight has increased in almost all major CMAs between 2001/2002 and 2009/2010 (see following chart).

• Sudbury was the only exception, with a decrease of 0.1 percentage point.

• The highest increase was in Kingston. The rate increased 1.4 % from 5.4% in 2001/2002 to 6.8% in 2010/2011.

Percentage Point Increase in Low Birth Weight Rates in Major CMAs,

April 1 2001/March 31 2002 to April 1 20`0/March 31 2011

Source: CIHI, Discharge Abstract and Hospital Morbidity databases.

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6