Centre For Local Research into Public Space (CELOS)
Show search options
You are on the [CHIRPP Correspondemce] page of folder [Playgrounds Notebooks]
For the cover page of this folder go to the Correspondence about CHIRPP's injury data
May 27, 2017, request to see CHIRRP data
Sent to Jennifer Crain, MA, Data/Research Management, Injury and Healthy Living Section | Section des blessures et de la vie saine, Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research | Centre de la surveillance et de la recherche appliquée, Public Health Agency of Canada | Agence de la santé publique du Canada, 785 Carling Avenue, 7th floor, AL 6807B, Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9. Jennifer.Crain@phac-aspc.gc.ca. Telephone | Téléphone (613) 799-4096 Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
For your information, please find a CHIRPP Injury Brief about playground injuries that was prepared about 10 years ago.
Regarding your interest in CHIRPP data about playground injuries, we ask all requesters of CHIRPP data to provide a with a study proposal. We just want to ensure that prior to the study investigator and a PHAC analyst investing much time into a project, that CHIRPP data are in fact useful for the study objectives.
We also want to ensure that study the investigator(s) has the guidance and support they need from a PHAC analyst once they roll up their sleeves to analyze the data, since it's common for there to be some back-and-forth questions, and even co-authorship depending on their level of involvement.
And of course the participating hospitals who provide us with their data entrust the Government of Canada to ensure that any information that's released for use by external researchers is not only compliant with patient privacy laws, but that it is also used in an appropriate manner whereby published CHIRPP information is not taken out of context.
The proposal should contain the following information:
• the background/context of the topic, including existing knowledge, and knowledge gaps which warrant the study;
• the research question(s) to be explored;
• the variables needed to examine this research question(s) (for example, age, sex, injury date, location, type of injury, safety equipment use, etc.);
• how you intend to analyse the data (it's very helpful for us to know which tables/figures will be created);
• how you intend to share the findings (peer reviewed paper? conference poster? etc.); and
• your project timeline (when do you need the data by?)
Additional important information on the proposal requirements is found in the attached document, which I ask that you read carefully.
Note that release of CHIRPP data is at the discretion of the Public Health Agency of Canada, and a proposal submission does not guarantee the provision of data.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Response, June 1, 2017
Thank you for your very helpful and detailed response. My request would be as a non-institutional researcher. I am part of a small charitable NGO called "The Centre for Local research into Public Space" (CELOS). I see from your attachment that "Private consultants and contractors may be eligible if: They are under contract to a researcher or organization meeting the above requirements, or They are contracted to an organization working in partnership with the Injury Section or working on a project supported by or endorsed by the Public Health Agency of Canada."
I'm guessing that this last part is a bit like the requirement of getting an engineer's stamp on a building project. I'd like to explain how I came to my inquiry to CHIRPP. If on the basis of this description, accreditation for me to be allowed to read the narratives is highly unlikely, I won't take up your or my own time with the larger, formal part of the application.
I first found out about the narrative field of the playground injury reports that are in CHIRPP data from Prof. Mariana Brussoni at UBC, who sent me this:
regarding CHIRPP data....the front of the form – where the event information is captured – is supposed to be filled out by the patient or their guardian. This is not the case in every hospital, but certainly most of them. That means, then that the narrative field of the event description could be quite rich and detailed, depending on what the patient chose to write. If it is too long, it does get truncated to fit the narrative field length, but it does generally have useful data that can be searched to find details that are not available in other datasets.
In later correspondence, Prof.Brussoni mentioned the shortage of researchers who might have the time to take on this possibly quite helpful research. When one looks at the 2008 CHIRPP Injury Brief that you attached (and with which I was familiar), the questions raised are more numerous than the answers offered, because of the necessarily limited detail. It's no wonder that media, government policy makers, school and municipal administrators, and playground manufacturers are led to making assumptions that can then have consequences.
Re consequences: for instance, the replacement of playgrounds with what may be seen as "safer" playgrounds seems to have had the can't-win consequence of steadily increasing injury rates (recent CIHI tables). And there is widespread (and international) concern about the effect on child development as play has become more restricted.
About 15 years ago I began to study what was happening to playgrounds in Toronto parks. I then wrote a 41-page account tracing the roles of the various players. But I got too busy with my own work, particularly in Dufferin Grove Park, to continue. Now I have some time to carry on with my account (and lots more has happened since I took my break).
I have already read through a lot of material, and am willing to add the narrative accounts in the CHIRPP files to my task list. For my story, I doubt I would get more than a short paragraph out of that reading -- I mainly want to confirm or put into question some of my conclusions so far. But I can make notes that would conceivably be useful to other researchers as well, if I am given specific (quantity rather than quality) questions. So I can approach some academics and see if they feel they can back my bona fides. Or even partner with PHAC, although PHAC's record in the playground story is not unmixed.
But before I work on making such connections, could you let me know whether it's so unlikely that I would be accredited by CHIRPP or PHAC that there's no point for me to talk this up to other contacts?
June 12, 2017, from Jennifer Crain
Thank you for taking the time to provide additional information about your work. It's clear that you have a passion for this interesting topic. After further assessment of our current projects, however, I'm afraid that the injury surveillance team at this time is not able to fulfil your request for CHIRPP data regarding playground injuries, due to multiple competing priorities.
June 27, 2017, from Jutta
Thank you for your response.
Several months ago I made a complaint/appeal to the federal Information Commissioner about the disconnect between detailed data and rumour leading to playground destruction. Yesterday I had a letter letting me know that they are about to assign an investigator, who will shortly be asking for additional information.
My complaint is about the role of Health Canada/ PHAC in creating this situation. Am I right that CHIRPP is within PHAC? Does this mean it is also subject to FOI? I assume not, but I want to make sure.
The limited data obtained by media and the playground industry from CHIRPP is also part of the story, so I will add that to the documentation. For that reason, it would be helpful if you could elaborate slightly on the reasons that led to your agency's decision to stay away from further research into the "narrative field of the event description" in playground injuries that Professor Brussoni mentioned. I hope you can take the time to flesh out your process a little more.
No response