Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Oct 21;15(10):e0240083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240083

An examination of difficulties accessing surgical care in Canada from 2005-2014: Results from the Canadian Community Health Survey

Jordana Liyat Sommer 1,2, Edward Noh 3, Eric Jacobsohn 1, Chris Christodoulou 1, Renée El-Gabalawy 1,2,4,5,*
Editor: Itamar Ashkenazi6
PMCID: PMC7577481  PMID: 33085681

Abstract

Background

Difficulties accessing surgical care (e.g., related to wait times, cancellations, cost, receiving a diagnosis) are understudied in Canada. Using population-based data, we studied difficulty accessing non-emergency surgical care, including (1) the incidence and annual changes in incidence, (2) types of difficulties, and (3) associated factors (e.g., sociodemographics, surgery characteristics).

Methods

Cross-sectional data from the Canadian Community Health Survey annual components were analyzed from 2005–2014. Weighted frequencies established the annual incidence of difficulty accessing surgical care, and total incidence of types of difficulties. Chi-square analyses, independent samples t-tests, and a multivariable logistic regression examined sociodemographic and surgery-related characteristics associated with difficulty accessing surgical care.

Results

Among individuals who required past-year non-emergency surgery between 2005–2014 (weighted n = 3,052,072), 15.6% experienced difficulty accessing surgical care. The most common difficulty was “waited too long for surgery” (58.5%). There were significant differences in the incidence of difficulty according to year (Χ2 = 83.50, p < .001) from 2005–2014. The incidence of difficulty accessing surgery varied according to sex (Χ2 = 4.02, p < .05), surgery type (Χ2 = 96.09, p < .001), party responsible for cancellation/postponement (Χ2 range: 4.36–19.01, p < .05), and waiting time (t = 10.59, p < .001). In particular, males, orthopedic surgery, and surgery cancelled by the surgeon or hospital had the highest rates of difficulty.

Conclusion

Results provide insight into the difficulties experienced by patients accessing elective surgery, and the associated factors. These results may inform targeted healthcare interventions and resource reallocation to reduce these occurrences.

Introduction

There are worldwide difficulties for patients in accessing elective surgery [19], and an estimated 5–44% of patients experience surgical cancellations [47,10]. However, these rates greatly vary from country to country. According to the Fraser Institute’s National Waiting List Survey, Canadians often experience longer wait times for elective surgery than is considered “clinically reasonable” [2,3]; for example, orthopedic surgery patients are required to wait nearly 12 weeks longer than is “clinically reasonable” (23.8 weeks versus 12 weeks [3]).

Difficulties accessing surgical care are problematic as they are associated with increased morbidity, including impaired mobility, increased pain, reduced quality of life, deterioration in general health status, greater length of hospital stay, and increased mortality [1113]. The implications of cancellations for health care organizations include increased hospital expenditures, reduced staff morale, and decreased operating room efficiency (e.g., greater unused operating room opportunities [11,1416]). Several strategies have been employed to reduce the frequency of these difficulties, including increased health services funding, human resource policies in health care organizations, and modifications to pre-surgical screening and scheduling procedures [17]. However, despite these efforts, frequent short-notice cancellations and lengthy waiting times persist in Canada [13].

While some studies have estimated rates of difficulties accessing surgical care [36], they have largely focused on cancellations and wait times. For example, although the Fraser Institute releases annual data on waiting times for surgery (and other health services) across Canada [2,3], this research initiative does not investigate other types of difficulties associated with accessing surgical care, nor does it identify which subgroups among the population are most commonly affected by these difficulties. Similar to the Fraser Institute reports, extant research is lacking on other difficulties including issues with scheduling appointments, receiving a diagnosis, transportation, and cost, among others. Furthermore, although certain reasons for specific difficulties, such as cancellations, have been explored (e.g., hospital bed or operating room unavailability, changes in patient medical status [58,10]), there is limited research understanding sociodemographic characteristics associated with experiencing difficulties. It is essential to understand which subpopulations are most greatly affected by these difficulties so that targeted strategies can be developed for equal healthcare opportunities. Finally, though population-based estimates of surgical cancellations have been assessed in other countries [4,6], to our knowledge there is no research that has established a Canadian population-based estimate of cancellations or other difficulties, or that has examined changes in estimates over time.

Using Canadian population-based data, the aims of this study are to examine difficulty accessing non-emergency surgical care, including: 1) the annual and overall incidence, and changes in incidence over approximately a decade; 2) types of difficulties experienced; and 3) person-specific (e.g., sex, age) and surgery-related (e.g., type of surgery, wait time) factors associated with difficulty accessing surgical care.

Materials and methods

Sample

Data were extracted from the annual components of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) for the years 2005–2014. The CCHS is an annual cross-sectional population-based survey conducted by Statistics Canada. It is administered annually to a nationally representative sample of approximately 65,000 Canadians, aged 12 years and older (prior to 2007, the data were collected every two years). Trained lay interviewers, using computer-assisted software, interview consenting participants. The exclusion criteria include Canadians living on reserves, Canadian Armed Forces members, and institutionalized individuals. The response rates range from 65.6%-78.9%, depending on the year (see S1 Appendix for annual response rates). The primary variables for the current study were drawn from the CCHS access to health care services (ACC) and waiting times (WTM) modules. These modules were optional, allowing provinces to choose to opt out from participating (see S1 Table). Only individuals who reported that they required non-emergency surgery in the past-year were included in primary analyses. In order to ensure representation of the population, the data were weighted annually using Statistics Canada weights, based on census data for that year. The full details regarding the survey methodology and sampling procedures have been published elsewhere [18].

This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement guidelines. In order to access these data at the Manitoba Research Data Centre, this study received clearance from Statistics Canada, and was exempt from institutional ethical approval due to Statistics Canada’s procedures for mitigating risk to respondents [19].

Measures

Non-emergency surgery and difficulty accessing surgical care

As part of the CCHS module on access to health care services (ACC), past-year non-emergency surgery was assessed by self-report to a single item included in the survey: “In the past 12 months, did you require any non-emergency surgery?”; this included both participants who received their surgery, and those who are still waiting for their surgery. If participants answered “yes”, they were subsequently asked: “In the past 12 months, did you ever experience any difficulties getting the surgery you needed?” (i.e., any difficulty). If they had answered “yes” to this, they were then asked: “What types of difficulties did you experience?”. Participants were provided with a list of response options, and were permitted to endorse multiple types of difficulties. We categorized the reasons for difficulties in the following groups: physician/systemic reasons (i.e., waited too long for surgery, difficulty getting an appointment, waited too long for a diagnostic test, still waiting, difficulty getting a diagnosis, waited too long for a hospital bed, appointment cancelled/deferred, service not available); patient reasons (i.e., deterioration of health, cost, difficulty acquiring transportation, unable to leave house due to health, personal/family responsibility, language barrier); and other reasons.

Sociodemographics

We assessed age continuously, and categorized sex (male, female), household income ($29,999 or less, $30,000–59,999, $60,000+), racial origin (White, Other), urbanicity (urban, rural), and marital status (married/common-law, widowed/separated/divorced, single), in accordance with prior research [20,21].

Surgery-related characteristics

As part of the waiting times (WTM) module, respondents who required a past-year non-emergency surgery were subsequently asked: 1) the type of surgery (i.e., cardiac, cancer, hip/knee, cataract/eye, hysterectomy, gall bladder, other [i.e., any other surgery that is not already specified]); 2) the party responsible for cancelling or postponing the surgery (if applicable; i.e., yourself, the surgeon, the hospital [no other alternatives, such as anesthesiologist, were provided]); and 3) whether their surgery required an overnight hospital stay (yes/no).

Waiting times

Also as part of the WTM module, respondents who reported requiring a past-year non-emergency surgery were asked how long they waited for surgery, whether or not they thought this was an acceptable waiting time, and what they would consider an acceptable waiting time in their particular case. We converted all waiting times to days (see S2 Appendix for specific waiting times questions).

Analytic strategy

The protected health data were analyzed at the Research Data Centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Weighted frequencies established the incidence of past-year non-emergency surgery. Among those individuals who required a non-emergency surgery, weighted frequencies established the annual incidence of difficulty accessing surgical care. A chi-square analysis determined whether the incidence of difficulty accessing surgical care differed according to year (2005–2014).

In order to examine sociodemographic and surgery-related characteristics in the subsample of patients who required a past-year non-emergency surgery, we merged the individual (biannual/annual) CCHS data files to form a single aggregate dataset. Weighted frequencies determined the incidence of each type of difficulty accessing surgical care. Chi-square analyses and independent samples t-tests identified sociodemographic and surgery-related characteristic associated with difficulty accessing surgical care compared to no difficulty. A multivariable logistic regression examined independent associations between sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, marital status, income, racial origin, urbanicity) and surgery-related characteristics (i.e., type of surgery, required overnight stay) and difficulty accessing surgical care, in a single model. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS and Stata statistical software [22,23] and we employed appropriate weighting and bootstrapping techniques (developed by Statistics Canada); the latter was included in the regression analysis for variance estimation.

Results

Sample characteristics

The annual incidence of past-year non-emergency surgery and any difficulty accessing surgical care from 2005 to 2014 are reported in Fig 1. Results of the chi-square analysis showed a significant difference in the incidence of difficulty accessing surgical care according to year (Χ2 = 83.50, p < .001), ranging from 14.5% in 2005/2006 to 17.8% in 2014; the lowest incidence was in 2009 (12.6%) and the highest was in 2013 (22.8%). In the collapsed CCHS dataset for the combined years (weighted N = 42,245,996; includes only respondents who participated in the modules of interest), 7.2% (weighted n = 3,052,072) of Canadians reported that they required non-emergency surgery in the past-year. Among those who required non-emergency surgery, 15.6% experienced difficulty accessing surgical care.

Fig 1. Plotted weighted incidence of past-year non-emergency surgery and difficulties accessing surgical care.

Fig 1

Types of difficulties accessing surgical care

Among those who required a past-year non-emergency surgery and experienced difficulty accessing surgical care, the most common types of difficulties endorsed were physician or systemic reasons, including: “waited too long for surgery” (58.5%); “difficulty getting an appointment” (30.7%); and “waited too long for a diagnostic test” (16.2%). Only 8.0% of respondents endorsed patient reasons for difficulty and 10.7% endorsed other reasons (Table 1).

Table 1. Weighted incidence of reported reasons for difficulty accessing surgical care.

Past-year non-emergency surgery (n = 3,052,072; 7.2%)
n(%)
Any difficulty accessing surgical care (n = 476,371; 15.6%)
Physician/systemic reasons 443,663 (93.2)
 Waited too long for surgery 278,824 (58.5)
 Difficulty getting an appointment with a surgeon 146,362 (30.7)
 Waited too long for a diagnostic test 77,250 (16.2)
 Still waiting 56,283 (11.8)
 Difficulty getting a diagnosis 49,907 (10.6)
 Waited too long for a hospital bed 46,423 (9.7)
 Appointment cancelled/deferred 36,405 (7.6)
 Service not available 20,190 (4.2)
Patient reasons 38,190 (8.0)
 Deterioration of health 19,691 (4.1)
 Cost 14,608 (3.1)
 Difficulty acquiring transportation 5,474 (1.1)
 Unable to leave house due to health 1,836 (0.4)
 Personal/family responsibility 1,561 (0.3)
 Language barrier 400 (0.1)
Other reasons 51,086 (10.7)

Values represent weighted n(%); Participants were allowed to endorse more than one reason for experiencing difficulty accessing surgical care.

Sociodemographic disparities

The incidence of difficulty accessing surgical care significantly differed according to sex (Χ2 = 4.02, p = .045). In line with a higher prevalence of females undergoing non-emergency surgery compared to males (i.e., 55.0% versus 45.0%), those who endorsed eΧperiencing difficulty were primarily female (52.4%). However, males had a higher incidence of difficulty (16.5%) compared to females (14.9%). No other significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics emerged (Table 2).

Table 2. Patient and surgery characteristics with and without difficulty accessing surgical care.

Past-year non-emergency surgery (n = 3,052,072; 7.2%)
Chi-square/t-test
Experienced difficulty Did not experience difficulty
(n = 476,371; 15.6%) (n = 2,574,886; 84.4%)
n % of difficultya % of characteristicb n % of no difficultya % of characteristicb
Sociodemographic characteristics
Agec 50.79 0.02 49.25 0.01 0.38
Sex 4.02*
 Male 226,669 16.5 47.6 1,145,838 83.5 44.5
 Female 249,702 14.9 52.4 1,429,048 85.1 55.5
Household income 0.16
 $29,999 or less 76,300 16.8 22.8 377,927 83.2 22.6
 $30,000–59,999 108,608 15.2 32.5 608,094 84.8 36.3
 $60,000+ 149,095 17.8 44.6 687,080 82.2 41.1
Racial origin 0.08
 White 379,739 15.1 84.8 2,142,637 84.9 87.1
 Other 67,981 17.6 15.2 318,374 82.4 12.9
Urbanicity 0.96
 Urban 375,164 15.3 78.8 2,075,692 84.7 80.6
 Rural 101,207 16.9 21.2 499,194 83.1 19.4
Marital status 2.35
 Married/common-law 315,382 15.8 66.2 1,677,898 84.2 65.3
 Widowed/separated/divorced 78,721 17.0 16.5 385,243 83.0 15.0
 Single 81,947 13.9 17.2 505,773 86.1 19.7
Surgery characteristics
Type of surgery 96.09***
 Hip/knee 33,969 24.3 11.4 105,903 75.7 5.7
 Cataract/eye 15,952 6.5 5.3 227,834 93.5 12.2
 Cancer 15,538 12.6 5.2 108,063 87.4 5.8
 Cardiac 7,708 11.9 2.6 57,252 88.1 3.1
 Gall bladder 5,758 12.6 1.9 39,801 87.4 2.1
 Hysterectomy 5,094 12.7 1.7 34,944 87.3 1.9
 Other 214,857 14.2 71.9 1,300,515 85.8 69.4
Required overnight hospital stay 99,571 16.3 42.4 509,600 83.7 28.2 15.39***
Surgery cancelled or postponed by
 Surgeon 39,945 35.1 52.4 73,747 64.9 41.4 4.36*
 Hospital 28,124 42.1 36.9 38,669 57.9 21.7 9.86**
 Respondent 12,621 14.2 16.6 76,202 85.8 42.8 19.01***
Waiting time was acceptable 109,399 6.1 37.4 1,694,317 93.9 91.1 1261.16***
Acceptable wait time (days)c 53.93 4.69 37.01 4.40***
Total time waited for surgery (days)c 130.83 10.98 54.27 10.59***

Values represent weighted n(%); Patients were allowed to endorse more than one reason for surgery cancellation.

aRepresents the incidence of difficulty (or no difficulty) accessing surgery, according to the specified patient/surgery characteristic.

bRepresents the prevalence estimates of each patient/surgery characteristic among those who did/did not experiencing difficulty accessing surgery.

cValues represent M(SE) and t-statistic.

*p < .05,

**p < .01,

***p < .001.

Characteristics of surgery

The surgery-related characteristics are shown in Table 2. Differences in surgery type emerged between those who experienced difficulty and those who did not (Χ2 = 96.09, p < .001); “other” surgery (71.9%) and hip/knee surgery (11.4%) were the most common types of surgeries among those who experienced difficulty, whereas “other” surgery (69.4%) and cataract/eye surgery (12.2%) were the most common types among those who did not experience difficulty. Those who had hip/knee surgery had the highest incidence of difficulty (24.3%), whereas those who had cataract/eye surgery had the lowest incidence of difficulty (6.5%).

Those who experienced difficulty were also more likely to have required an overnight hospital stay compared to those who did not experience difficulty (Χ2 = 15.39, p < .001; 42.4% versus 28.2%); 16.3% of those who required an overnight stay endorsed experiencing difficulty. Those who experienced difficulty were also more likely to have their surgery cancelled or postponed by a surgeon (Χ2 = 4.36, p < .05; 52.4% versus 41.4%) or the hospital (Χ2 = 9.86, p < .05; 36.9% versus 21.7%), but less likely to cancel or postpone it themselves (Χ2 = 19.01, p < .001; 16.6% versus 42.6%). Across all surgery-related characteristics, those who had their surgery cancelled or postponed by the hospital experienced the highest incidence of difficulty accessing surgical care (42.1%).

Correlates of difficulty accessing surgical care

Results of the multivariable logistic regression including sociodemographic and surgery-related characteristics are displayed in Table 3. Results revealed that requiring an overnight hospital stay was independently associated with increased odds of endorsing any difficulty accessing surgical care (adjusted odds ratio = 1.96, 95% confidence interval [1.17–3.29], p < .05). No other characteristics were independently associated with difficulty accessing surgical care in the multivariable model.

Table 3. Associations between sociodemographic and surgery-related characteristics with any difficulty accessing surgical care.

Any difficulty
AOR (95% CI)
Age 1.00 (0.99–1.01)
Sex
 Male 1.33 (0.87–2.03)
 Female 1.00
Household income
 $29,999 or less 1.00
 $30,000–59,999 1.07 (0.66–1.71)
 $60,000+ 1.41 (0.83–2.39)
Racial origin
 White 0.48 (0.22–1.06)
 Other 1.00
Urbanicity
 Urban 1.03 (0.72–1.48)
 Rural 1.00
Marital status
 Married/common-law 1.00
 Widowed/separated/divorced 0.90 (0.56–1.42)
 Single 0.71 (0.42–1.19)
Type of surgery
 Hip/knee 1.17 (0.63–2.17)
 Cataract/eye 0.58 (0.29–1.16)
 Cancer 0.46 (0.18–1.13)
 Cardiac 0.53 (0.14–1.95)
 Gall bladder 1.17 (0.46–2.98)
 Hysterectomy 0.49 (0.05–5.10)
 Other 1.00
Required overnight hospital stay
 Yes 1.96 (1.17–3.29)*
 No 1.00

Reference categories are indicated by “1.00”; AOR = adjusted odds ratio (all characteristics entered into a single model); CI = confidence interval;

*p < .05.

Waiting times

With respect to waiting times, those who experienced difficulty accessing surgical care were less likely to rate their waiting time as “acceptable” compared to those who did not experience difficulty (Χ2 = 1,261.16, p < .001; 37.4% versus 91.1%), despite indicating a higher mean acceptable waiting time in their particular case (t = 4.40, p < .001; M = 53.93 days versus M = 37.01 days, respectively); only 6.1% of those who rated their waiting time as “acceptable” endorsed experiencing difficulty. Those who experienced difficulty also had significantly longer waiting times compared to those who did not experience difficulty (t = 10.59, p < .001; M = 130.83 days versus M = 54.27 days).

Discussion

The current study represents a descriptive examination of difficulty accessing non-emergency surgical care in Canada from 2005–2014. This study extends the work by the Fraser Institute through establishing the first Canadian population-based estimate of a wide variety of types of difficulties accessing surgical care over an extended duration and examining personal and surgery-related factors associated with difficulties accessing surgical care. Over 15% of individuals who required non-emergency surgery reported difficulty accessing that surgery, and rates of experiencing difficulty significantly increased across the study duration. Further, nearly 60% of individuals who experienced difficulty accessing surgical care cited a lengthy waiting time for their surgery. Those who endorsed difficulty waited on average 75 days longer for surgery than those who did not, in line with prior research indicating surgical patients commonly wait longer than is recommended [24,25]. Finally, individuals who experienced difficulty were more likely to have their surgery cancelled or postponed by a surgeon or the hospital compared to those who did not experience difficulty.

The largest increase in difficulty accessing surgery occurred between 2010 (13.5%) and 2011 (21.8%). Since 2011, approximately 1 in 5 Canadians requiring non-emergency surgery experienced difficulty. Although speculative, this increase may relate to changes in health care expenditures, including a reduction in annual funding as part of the Wait Times Reduction Fund portion of Canada’s 10-year Plan to Strengthen Health Care [17,26,27] and the Patient Wait Times Guarantee [28]. Both initiatives aimed to establish benchmarks for acceptable waiting times and allocate funds to increase healthcare resources, and both ended between 2010–2011. The termination of these initiatives may have influenced the increase in difficulty accessing surgical care beginning in 2011, considering the most common reason cited was “waited too long for surgery”. The increase in difficulties experienced following the termination of these initiatives may highlight their potential efficacy. The incidence of difficulties also gradually increased across the study duration. Researchers suggest there is an increasing demand for healthcare associated with the growing aging population [29]. This may translate to greater burden on the healthcare system, and subsequently, increased endorsement of difficulties accessing care.

A difference emerged in the rates of difficulty accessing surgery according to sex. Despite the majority of non-emergency surgery patients being female, males had a higher incidence of difficulty accessing surgical care than females (i.e., 16.5% versus 14.9%). Research has shown that females have greater healthcare consumption [30], and males delay in seeking medical care [31]; as a result, males may experience greater difficulty accessing care. Differences may also be related to biases in self-report. A recent study showed that males experience less satisfaction after surgery compared to females, which may also contribute to perceptions of increased difficulty [32]. However, these hypotheses are speculative; future research should aim to understand factors that may be driving the emergent sex difference (e.g., healthcare utilization, type and complexity of surgery).

A greater proportion of Canadians who experienced difficulty accessing surgery required an overnight hospital stay compared to those who did not experience difficulty (42.4% versus 28.2%, respectively) and this was the only characteristic significantly associated with any difficulty accessing surgery in the multivariable model. A recent study of over 30,000 orthopedic surgery patients found the severity of preoperative health status predicted requiring an overnight stay [33]. This may suggest that individuals who experience difficulty have more severe health presentations preoperatively, and thus require additional healthcare resources (i.e., overnight hospital stay versus same-day discharge), which may impact access. Alternatively, experiencing difficulty accessing surgery may be associated with poorer postoperative health outcomes, and thus these patients might require additional medical attention after surgery, lengthening their hospital stay. In support, increased surgical wait time is associated with poorer postoperative outcomes including myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and mortality [34].

Results also demonstrated that “other” surgery and orthopedic (i.e., hip/knee) surgery were more prevalent among those who experienced difficulty and nearly one quarter of those who underwent orthopedic surgery endorsed difficulty accessing their surgery. This is in line with the Fraser Institute Canadian National Waiting List Survey, which found that across surgery types, there is the greatest disparity between the clinically reasonable wait time and actual wait time for orthopedic surgery (12.7 vs. 23.3 weeks, respectively), followed by neurosurgery (5.4 vs. 9.6 weeks) and head/neck surgery (8.3 vs. 11.4 weeks [35]); the latter two would be classified as “other” surgery in the current study.

Results should be considered alongside some limitations. First, although we utilized nationally representative data, only some provinces responded to the optional CCHS modules of interest; results may therefore not be generalizable and may be impacted by selection biases. Second, due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, causal inferences cannot be made. Third, this study utilized self-report data, which may be subject to response biases; however, research suggests that patient perceptions are robust and appropriate for health research [36]. Additionally, only past-year difficulties were examined and therefore are less susceptible to recall bias. Fourth, the sample excluded institutionalized individuals, Canadians living on reserves, and deceased individuals, which may have resulted in conservative estimates. Fifth, although we examined various types of surgeries and reasons for difficulty accessing surgical care, the range of categories included was limited according to the content of the CCHS. For example, we could not identify specific surgery types within each category, or explore additional types of difficulties (e.g., waiting for a medical device). Future research should examine a more comprehensive selection of surgery and difficulty types. Finally, the survey did not assess indicators of surgery risk or illness severity, which may have provided further insights as to why individuals endorse experiencing difficulty accessing surgical care.

Despite these limitations, the strengths of this study lie in its use of Canadian population-based data, spanning nearly a decade. This study outlines the increase in incidence of difficulty accessing surgical care over the course of approximately a decade and highlights the importance of targeted initiatives to improve patients’ access to health services. Results provide insights toward the types of difficulties experienced by surgical patients and associated factors.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Provinces that completed the ACC and WTM modules according to survey cycle.

(DOC)

S1 Appendix. Appendix A response rates.

(DOC)

S2 Appendix. Appendix B access to health care services (ACC) and waiting times (WTM) questions.

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

Although the research and analysis are based on data from Statistics Canada, the opinions expressed do not represent the views of Statistics Canada or the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN).

Data Availability

Data from this study cannot be shared publicly. Restrictions are in place to protect the privacy of survey respondents. Data are protected through Statistics Canada, and researchers may request access through their Research Data Centre (https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/microdata/data-centres/access). Some elements of the survey are accessible online (see CCHS public use micro data files). The authors had no special access privileges to the data others would not have.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by University of Manitoba Start-Up Funding (El-Gabalawy) and Max Rady College of Medicine and Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba BSc(Med) program.

References

  • 1.Azari-Rad S, Yontef AL, Aleman DM, Urbach DR. Reducing elective general surgery cancellations at a Canadian hospital. Can J Surg. 2013;56:113–8. 10.1503/cjs.018411 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Barua B, Esmail N. Waiting Your Turn—Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2013 Report [Internet]. Fraser Institute. 2013. http://bit.ly/1P38SP6.
  • 3.Barua B. Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2017 Report [Internet]. Fraser Institute. 2017. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/waiting-your-turn-2017.pdf.
  • 4.Caesar U, Karlsson J, Olsson LE, Samuelsson K, Hansson-Olofsson E. Incidence and root causes of cancellations for elective orthopaedic procedures: A single center experience of 27,625 executive cases. Patient Saf Surg. 2014;8:24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Desta M, Manaye A, Tefera A, Worku A, Wale A, Mebrat A, et al. Incidence and causes of cancellations of elective operation on the intended day of surgery at a tertiary referral academic medical center in Ethiopia. Patient Saf Surg. 2018;12:25 10.1186/s13037-018-0171-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dimitriadis PA, Iyer S, Evgeniou E. The challenge of cancellations on the day of surgery. Int J Surg. 2013;11:1125–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Huda F. A retrospective analysis of reasons for cancellation of elective surgery in a teaching hospital. Int J Sci Stud. 2014;2:28–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Prin M, Eaton J, Mtalimanja O, Charles A. High elective surgery cancellation rate in Malawi primarily due to infrastructural limitations. World J Surg. 2018;42:1597–602. 10.1007/s00268-017-4356-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rahimi SA, Dexter F, Gu X. Prioritizations of individual surgeons’ patients waiting for elective procedures: A systematic review and future directions. Perioperative Care and Operating Room Management. 2018;10:14–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yu K, Xie X, Luo L, Gong R. Contributing factors of elective surgical case cancellation: A retrospective cross-sectional study at a single-site hospital. BMC Surg. 2017;17:100 10.1186/s12893-017-0296-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.McIsaac DI, Abdulla K, Yang H, Sundaresan S, Doering P, Vaswani SG, et al. Association of delay of urgent or emergency surgery with mortality and use of health care resources: a propensity score-matched observational cohort study. CMAJ. 2017;189: E905–12. 10.1503/cmaj.160576 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Oudhoff JP, Timmermans DR, Bijnen AB, van der Wal G. Waiting for elective general surgery: Physical, psychological and social consequences. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74: 361–7. 10.1111/j.1445-1433.2004.02998.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Oudhoff JP, Timmermans DR, Knol DL, Bijnen AB, van der Wal G. Waiting for elective general surgery: Impact on health related quality of life and psychosocial consequences. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:164 10.1186/1471-2458-7-164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mangan JL, Walsh C, Kernohan WG, Murphy JS, Mollan RA, McMillen R, et al. Total joint replacement: Implication of cancelled operations for hospital costs and waiting list management. Qual Health Care. 1992;1(1):34–7. 10.1136/qshc.1.1.34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Perroca MG, Jericó MC, Facundin SD. Surgery cancelling at a teaching hospital: Implications for cost management. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2007;15:1018–24. 10.1590/s0104-11692007000500021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Robb WB, O’Sullivan MJO, Brannigan AE, Bouchier-Hayes DJ. Are elective surgical operations cancelled due to increasing medical admissions? Ir J Med Sci. 2004;173:129–32. 10.1007/BF03167925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Health Care in Canada 2012: A Focus on Wait Times [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2019 Nov 13]. https://secure.cihi.ca/estore/productFamily.htm?locale=en&pf=PFC1984.
  • 18.Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey–Annual Component. Canadian Community Health Survey: Ottawa, ON; 2015.
  • 19.Statistics Canada. Mitigation of risk to respondents of Statistics Canada’s surveys. Statistics Canada; 2010. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/rdc/mitigation.
  • 20.Afifi TO, McTavish J, Turner S, MacMillan HL, Wathen CN. The relationship between child protection and mental health outcomes among Canadian adults with a child abuse history. Child Abuse Negl. 2018;79:22–30. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mahmood B, Bhatti JA, Leon A, Gotay C. Leisure time physical activity levels in immigrants by ethnicity and time since immigration to Canada: Findings from the 2011–2012 Canadian Community Health Survey. J Immigr Minor Health. 2018;[in press]. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 22.IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0 Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.StataCorp., 2017. Stata statistical software. College Station, TZ: StataCorp LP. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wright JG, Menaker RJ. Canadian Paediatric Surgical Wait Times Study Group. Waiting for children’s surgery in Canada: The Canadian Paediatric Surgical Wait Times project. CMAJ. 2011;183:E559–64. 10.1503/cmaj.101530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wilcox S, Seddon M, Dunn S, Edwards RT, Pearse J, Tu JV. Measuring and reducing waiting times: A cross-national comparison of strategies. Health Aff. 2007;26:1078–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Health Canada. ARCHIVED–A 10-year plan to strengthen health care. Government of Canada; 2006 [Internet]. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-care-system/health-care-system-delivery/federal-provincial-territorial-collaboration/first-ministers-meeting-year-plan-2004/10-year-plan-strengthen-health-care.html.
  • 27.Health Canada. New federal investments on health commitments on 10-year action plan on health. Government of Canada; 2004 [Internet]. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-care-system/health-care-system-delivery/federal-provincial-territorial-collaboration/first-ministers-meeting-year-plan-2004/new-federal-investments-health-commitments-10-year-action-plan.html.
  • 28.Government of Canada. Patient wait times guarantees [Internet]. Government of Canada. 2012. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/quality-care/wait-times/patient-wait-times-guarantees.html.
  • 29.Etzioni DA, Beart RW Jr, Madoff RD, Ault GT. Impact of the aging population on the demand for colorectal procedures. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:590–1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Osika Friberg I, Krantz G, Maatta S, Jabrink K. Sex differences in health care consumption in Sweden: A register-based cross-sectional study. Scand J Public Health 2016;44:264–73. 10.1177/1403494815618843 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Galdas PM, Cheater F, Marshall P. Men and help-seeking behaviour: Literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;49:616–23. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03331.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chan AK, Bisson EF, Bydon M, Glassman SD, Foley KT, Potts EA, et al. Women fare best following surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: A comparison of the most and least satisfied patients utilizing data from the Quality Outcomes Database. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;44:E3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Boddapati V, Fu MC, Schairer WW, Ranawat MD, Dine DM, Taylor SA, et al. Increased shoulder arthroscopy time is associated with overnight hospital stay and surgical site infection. Arthroscopy. 2018;34:363–368. 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pincus D, Ravi B, Wasserstein D, Huang A, Paterson JM, Nathens AB, et al. Association between wait time and 30-day mortality in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. JAMA. 2017;318:1994–2003. 10.1001/jama.2017.17606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Barua B, Fathers F. Waiting your turn: Wait times for health care in Canada, 2014 report. Fraser Institute; 2014.
  • 36.Manary MP, Boulding W, Staelin R, Glickman SW. The patient experience and health outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:201–3. 10.1056/NEJMp1211775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Itamar Ashkenazi

13 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-14535

An Examination of Difficulties Accessing Surgical Care in Canada from 2005-2014: Results from the Canadian Community Health Survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. El-Gabalawy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Though only one reviewer out of many approached has agreed to review the paper, I agree with the comments provided. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Itamar Ashkenazi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"This work was supported by University of Manitoba Start-Up Funding (El-Gabalawy), and the Max Rady College of Medicine and Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba BSc(Med) program (Noh)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The authors received no specific funding for this work."

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This well written manuscript examining the difficulties associated with accessing surgical care in Canada from 2005-2014. The study is strong as it presents a decade data from Canadian community health survey, however, is cross sectional and is limited by the nature of data (self -reported by patients). The authors analyzed data using Chi-square and t-test to show the differences in factors associated with difficulties accessing surgical care and ran a regression analysis of the factors in the final model.

They showed the factors (males, orthopedic surgery, and surgery cancelled by the surgeon or hospital) had the highest rates of difficulty, but not in their final regression model. However, they have provided a lengthy discussion on each individual factor.

For example, in page 11, authors stating that males have a higher incidence of difficulty accessing surgical care vs female, in spite that women are higher users of the health care system. The authors need to consider that the type of surgery may be different between male and female. Maybe it is easier to have hysterectomy compared to hip surgery (with the longest wait time). The regression model did not show any significant effect of Sex of difficulties accessing surgical care. This is true for other factors except staying overnight in hospital.

The discussion part is very lengthy, I suggest the authors make it more summarized and to the point.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Oct 21;15(10):e0240083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240083.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Sep 2020

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We have now modified the manuscript formatting and file naming in accordance with the specified guidelines.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"This work was supported by University of Manitoba Start-Up Funding (El-Gabalawy), and the Max Rady College of Medicine and Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba BSc(Med) program (Noh)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The authors received no specific funding for this work."

Response: We have now removed funding information from the manuscript document (i.e., on the title page). We will change the Funding Statement within the online submission form to reflect the funding received from the Max Rady College of Medicine and Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba BSc(Med) program for this project.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Response: There are restrictions on sharing a de-identified dataset, imposed by Statistics Canada. The CCHS data utilized in the current study may be accessed via submitting a proposal and receiving security clearance through a Canadian Research Data Centre (this is now clarified in the methods section). Restrictions are in place to protect the privacy of survey respondents. Please see application and guidelines website for information on applying to access Research Data Centre protected data.

Additional Clarifications:

Thank you for requesting to update your Financial Disclosure:

"This work was supported by Max Rady College of Medicine and Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba BSc(Med) program."

We note the following funder that was mentioned in your manuscript is not included in this statement:

"This work was supported by University of Manitoba Start-Up Funding (El-Gabalawy)."

Please explain why this funder was removed from your funding disclosure statement and whether you did indeed receive funding from them during the course of your study. If they were a source of funding for your study, please confirm this and we will add them to your Financial Disclosure statement.

Response: We initially removed the University of Manitoba Start-Up Funding (El-Gabalawy) as it was unclear whether or not to include funding received by an investigator that is not specific to this study. The BSc(Med) funding was allocated specifically to support the current study, which is why that funding source was retained.

Please add the University of Manitoba Start-Up Funding back in.

The funding statement should now read,

“This work was supported by University of Manitoba Start-Up Funding (El-Gabalawy) and Max Rady College of Medicine and Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba BSc(Med) program.”

Reviewer 1

Reviewer #1: This well written manuscript examining the difficulties associated with accessing surgical care in Canada from 2005-2014. The study is strong as it presents a decade data from Canadian community health survey, however, is cross sectional and is limited by the nature of data (self -reported by patients). The authors analyzed data using Chi-square and t-test to show the differences in factors associated with difficulties accessing surgical care and ran a regression analysis of the factors in the final model. They showed the factors (males, orthopedic surgery, and surgery cancelled by the surgeon or hospital) had the highest rates of difficulty, but not in their final regression model. However, they have provided a lengthy discussion on each individual factor.

For example, in page 11, authors stating that males have a higher incidence of difficulty accessing surgical care vs female, in spite that women are higher users of the health care system. The authors need to consider that the type of surgery may be different between male and female. Maybe it is easier to have hysterectomy compared to hip surgery (with the longest wait time). The regression model did not show any significant effect of Sex of difficulties accessing surgical care. This is true for other factors except staying overnight in hospital.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. Regarding the sex difference, although it is possible this could be influenced by type of surgery, we included type of surgery in our multivariable regression and it did not emerge as a significant correlate of endorsing difficulty accessing surgical care. However, we have now added to our discussion on this matter. Page 19 now reads,

“future research should aim to understand factors that may be driving the emergent sex difference (e.g., healthcare utilization, type and complexity of surgery)”

The discussion part is very lengthy, I suggest the authors make it more summarized and to the point.

Response: We have now shortened the length of the discussion.

Sincerely,

Renée El-Gabalawy PhD

Assistant Professor at the University of Manitoba

Departments of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine and Clinical Health Psychology

E-mail: renee.el-gabalawy@umanitoba.ca

Decision Letter 1

Itamar Ashkenazi

21 Sep 2020

An Examination of Difficulties Accessing Surgical Care in Canada from 2005-2014: Results from the Canadian Community Health Survey

PONE-D-20-14535R1

Dear Dr. El-Gabalawy,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Itamar Ashkenazi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Itamar Ashkenazi

25 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-14535R1

An examination of difficulties accessing surgical care in Canada from 2005-2014: Results from the Canadian Community Health Survey

Dear Dr. El-Gabalawy:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Itamar Ashkenazi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Provinces that completed the ACC and WTM modules according to survey cycle.

    (DOC)

    S1 Appendix. Appendix A response rates.

    (DOC)

    S2 Appendix. Appendix B access to health care services (ACC) and waiting times (WTM) questions.

    (DOC)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data from this study cannot be shared publicly. Restrictions are in place to protect the privacy of survey respondents. Data are protected through Statistics Canada, and researchers may request access through their Research Data Centre (https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/microdata/data-centres/access). Some elements of the survey are accessible online (see CCHS public use micro data files). The authors had no special access privileges to the data others would not have.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES