CCHS 2019-2020 PUMF

June 16, 2021

Question:

A researcher has inquired if there an estimated release date for a CCHS 2019-2020 PUMF? I know data collection was delayed in 2020 so recognize the file’s release would likely be later than typical, but it would be great to give an estimate to the researcher.

The researcher would also like to know the following in order to determine if the 2019-2020 PUMF will be useful to them (when it is released):

 

Our project will focus on the question “Thinking of the most recent time you felt this way, why didn’t you get care?- Transportation issue”. The variable code for the question is UCN_010J. Will this variable be included on the 2019-2020 PUMF, specifically with data for Ontario?

 

We can see from the questionnaires on Statcan’s website that the question was asked in both 2019 & 2020, but is it possible to confirm whether the variable will indeed be included on the PUMF for 2019-20? The 2017-18 PUMF only included data for certain provinces for this question, and we aren’t certain of the reason for that, or if it is safe to assume Ontario data will be included again.

Answer:

The CCHS questions are organized into thematic groups called ‘modules’ which are included either in all provinces and territories on an annual basis (core content such as smoking, height weight, general health, etc.. ), in all areas for certain years (theme content such as food security, mental health care needs, suicidal thoughts, etc..), or else are included in certain provinces/territories based on a selection by the relevant ministry of health as part of the ‘optional content’ selection process.  This process gives the ministries of health (and whatever extended consultation they do) the option to select up to 8 minutes of content from a bank of existing modules based on their particular data needs. The UCN content has only been offered as optional content in the past several years (2015 to 2020) with the last year being included as theme content being in 2014.

 

For the 2019-2020 PUMF, we only include content in a particular province/territory if the data was collected in both years in that area. For the case of UCN, here is the selection by province (O designating that it was selected and asked). The UCN variables will be included with valid answers for those provinces on the PUMF. I’m not listing the territories, even though the content was asked in Nunavut in both years. This is because we are not yet sure we’ll be able to include the territories on the next PUMF. The pandemic halted our collection from March to August 2020 and we only collected a limited sample from September to December with a very low response rate in Iqaluit (and the other capitals) only. With the lack of coverage of the full territory, at best we may be able to include the territorial capitals on the PUMF, but at worst, due to disclosure risk, the 2019-2020 CCHS PUMF will cover provinces only.  Work on the PUMF will begin soon with an expected release of sometime mid-fall (though this may be subject to change – things are very busy with data production for pandemic related data right now).

Help with Information about Results of Mental Health Treatment

Question:
I have a question from a student who would like to get stats on the number of patients who have seen a psychologist or other mental health professional or have receive treatment for a mental health condition who have then completed the treatment and are then better.  I don't know that one can say cured as some mental health situations are chronic. 

She is concerned about the effectiveness of the mental health system and whether treatment really works.

Are there any stats around this that you know of?  If so, where would I find them.  

I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on this.

Thanks you in advance.

Answer:

Mental Health Commission of Canada published this report in 2015 called Informing the Future: Mental Health Indicators for Canada https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/sites/default/files/Informing%252520the%252520Future%252520-%252520Mental%252520Health%252520Indicators%252520for%252520Canada_0.pdf

You might find some useful data in it.

--

Can't speak to any admin-type statistics or clinical data, but the 2014 (2012?) CCHS (Mental Health special topic) and even every annual CCHS has questions for self-reported mental health issues, interactions w/ health professionals/government agencies/various therapies tried/outcomes and perceptions, etc.

Transgender and intersex people in Canada

Question:

I have a student looking for demographic information on transgender and intersex people in Canada.

Is there any survey/census/reliable estimate or other sources of information I can point them to?

There was a similar question asked here in 2015 and the answer was that there is no information collected by StatCan, but maybe something has changed since then.

Answer:

There is no data available on the Intersex population in Canada from Statistics Canada.

However, the Survey on Safety in Public and Private Spaces did publish an estimate of 0.24% for Transgender Population in Canada in December 2019.

Here is the link to their analytical document:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00017-eng.htm

---

This isn’t the same concept that your researcher is looking for, but it may be helpful to bring up all the same.  (i.e., it won’t stand in as a proxy…)

The latest CCHS has Variable SDC_035, where R’s have the opportunity to state whether they consider themselves to be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. 

From the questionnaire:

SDC_Q035   Do you consider yourself to be...?


INTERVIEWER: Read categories to respondent.
1 Heterosexual (sexual relations with people of the opposite sex)
2 Homosexual, that is lesbian or gay (sexual relations with people of your own sex)
3 Bisexual (sexual relations with people of both sexes)
DK, RF


I don’t think this would hit the mark for your researcher as the Q specifically talks about “sexual relations” as opposed to gender and sexual fluidities and identities.  That said, I think this may be the one of the few times (or only time?) in recent memory that StatCan has posed a question on sex/gender and then released into a PUMF, perhaps partly because the concept can be difficult articulate into a categorical variable without misrepresenting R’s opinions on this very personal identity question..

CCHS variable CCS_185

Question:

I have a researcher working with multiple years of the CCHS (2007-2008 to 2015-2016) and a question has arisen - please see his message below:

In the CCHS documentation item CCS_185 (last time to have colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy); the response options include both a time range of "5 TO < 10YEARS" and another time range of "5 YEARS OR MORE". These options should not be mutually exclusive (although they are presented in the dataset as such). Do you have any explanation for this? 

The researcher has indicated that it is represented this way in the data itself as well and is present across all the years. My initial thoughts are that there is a typo and that the second option should perhaps be "10 years or more", as otherwise these two response options overlap each other.

Can you please advise?

Answer:

There are a couple previously identified format/label issues with CCS for multiple CCHS cycles, including the format for CCS_185. The error for CCS_185 is a label error and CCS_185=6 should be ‘10 years or more’ (errata item 19). I would encourage the researcher to consult the errata found in the documentation folders (two separate CCHS annual component Errata documents; one for the 2000 to 2014 reference period, and another for 2015 and later) , this document contains information for all known errors as well as information on correcting known errors.

This may have previously been mentioned to the researcher, but the CCHS annual component was redesigned for the 2015 reference period and onward cycles. 
As a result of the 2015 CCHS redesign, combining or comparing cycles of CCHS data from before and after the redesign (e.g., combining/comparing 2014 (and earlier files) with 2015 annual files) is not recommended, and caution should be taken when comparing estimates across those years. Even estimates derived from content that has remained unchanged, are subject to the potential impacts of the other major changes to the survey (i.e. new survey frames and collection methods) and may not necessarily be comparable with past cycles. It would be very difficult to ascertain whether any changes or consistencies between estimates pre and post redesign are a reflection of the true population characteristic being examined, or the effect of the significant methodological and operational changes made to the survey. Please review the 2015 CCHS Redesign Summary found with the 2015 and also with 2016 survey documentation.

Canadian Active Living Environments - Geographic Variable in CCHS 2015-16

Question:

I am helping a researcher with the CCHS 2015-16 dataset and we were wondering about the “Canadian Active Living Environments” geographic variable. I am struggling to find metadata for this variable in the accompanying documentation. The Data Dictionary points me toward the “Derived Variable (DV) Specifications”, but there is nothing in that document listed for “Canadian Active Living Environments”.

Can someone direct me towards a webpage or pdf file with information about how this variable is derived?

Answer:

Does this StatCan article help?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2019005/article/00002-eng.htm

or the Canadian Active Living Environments Database (Can-ALE) User Manual & Technical Document:

http://canue.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CanALE_UserGuide.pdf

Bootstrap Weights with the CCHS 2015-2016

Question:

A researcher is using the Bootstrap weights with the CCHS 2015-2016 and has the following question:

“I am conducting data analysis in STATA using the bootstrap weights, and one of the parameters for the function is bsn, which "specifies that # bootstrap replicate-weight variables were used to generate each bootstrap mean-weight variable specified in the bsrweight() option of svyset. The default is bsn(1)".  Do you know what the bsn number is for the CCHS 2015-2016 file?  I found documentation from CCHS 2013 which stated the bsn number was 500, but I cannot find any similar documentation for CCHS 2015-2016.”

Answer:

For the 2015-2016 CCHS file there are 1000 bootstrap replicates, this should be for your degrees of freedom (DOF) in STATA.

For the BSN, the CCHS uses the Rao-Wu-Yue bootstrap to estimate the variance. In this variant of the bootstrap, a single bootstrap weight is used to generate each bootstrap weight.

So the default value of 1 should be used. ( BSN(1) )

CCHS - Food security for City of Ottawa health region in 2016 (or more recent)

Question:
We have a graduate student who is looking for food security, he is specifically interested in insecurity, for the City of Ottawa (by health region). We found that CCHS 2015-2016 included a derived variable for food security, but it would appear that Ontario did not opt in for the food security module. Is there another data source for these data that we missed?

Also, does the CCHS 2017 or 2017-2018 documentation happen to indicate if Ontario opted in to the module for this latest cycle? If so, how soon could the student find the latest weighted number of people having food security (moderate or severe) compared to all respondents in the City of Ottawa health region?

Answer:
The CCHS 2017 and 2018 did include the food security content for Ontario. The PUMF for the two-year 17-18 data is currently in production and will be available early 2020. In the meantime, I am able to provide the information you need. For 2017-2018, in the City of Ottawa health unit (HR), 6.7% of people aged 12 or older lived in a household that was classified as food insecure. This estimate has a confidence interval of 4.7% to 8.6% and a coefficient of variation of 14.95%.

Food Allergy Data for Business Evaluation

Question:
Hi

I have a researcher from the School of Business looking for information about what areas of Canada, US, or worldwide, have the highest rate of food allergies. They are looking to see if there are areas of high concentration of ‘single-location full-service restaurants’ that have high prevalence of food allergies. The objective is to identify an opportunity in these concentrated service areas to focus on a 'food-allergy' customer group in order to gain a strategic advantage in a crowded market.

Does anyone have suggestions for finding prevalence of food allergies?

Answer:
I’ve received the following response from subject matter:

“In 2017, the Canadian Community Health Survey(CCHS) asked two questions on allergies. The first question asked if the respondent has ever been told by a health professional that they had allergies as a result of an allergy test. The following question asks what they are allergic to, with one of the categories being certain foods.

The data is available in a custom request.

It seems like the level of geography they would be interested in might be small, and because allergies were only available in 2017 the sample size might not be available. The feasibility of a custom request will depend on the sample size for the requested geography.”

Update: CCHS 2015-2016 PUMF

Update: 
For the CCHS 2015-2016 PUMF—released in January— a new geographic classification variable (ALECLASS) based on open source data was added to the file. This variable is a categorical measure of the favourability of active living environment of each respondent based on their dissemination area and its intersection/dwelling density, as well as points of interest. Due to the addition of this variable, further data suppression was applied on the 2015-2016 PUMF to avoid disclosure risks. We are looking for any feedback you may have on the usefulness of the ALECLASS variable to help us determine if it should be added to the 2017-2018 PUMF. For the 2017-2018 PUMF there will be data on both physical activity and sedentary behaviors, so we see a potential usefulness, but would like to get a sense of how much the concept has been used so far.

CCHS PUMFs and Sexual Orientation

Question:
I have a researcher wanting to use the CCHS PUMFs to look at the sexual identity variable, but even though the question has been asked in the Socio-Demographic portion of the questionnaire since Cycle 2.1 and reports have been published citing the data (such as https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/040615/dq040615b-eng.htm) neither of us can find this variable in any file other than the 2015-16 cycle. I hope we are not just missing something, but perhaps there is a reason this information was not made part of the PUMF files?

Answer:
I’ve received the following response from subject matter:

“In the past, the subject matter team preparing the PUMFs for release considered the sexual orientation concept as an indirect identifier and chose not to include it with the file. In 2015-2016, our team requested to the Microdata Release Committee to allow us to add the variable to our 2015-2016 PUMF. They agreed that the risk of disclosure was low and approved the addition of the variable. We will continue to assess the risk, but I imagine we will continue with the release of that variable going forward.”

Saskatchewan Self-harm Data

Question:
I have a researcher interested in a custom tab of data on Suicidal Thoughts & Attempts in SK from the 2015-16 CCHS. They’re hoping for two tabulations based on the following:

Meadow Lake and Surrounding Area

Meadow Lake (city)

Loon Lake (village)

Makwa (village)

Goodsoil (village)

Dorintosh (village)

Rapid View (village)

Green Lake (northern village)


La Ronge and Surrounding Area

La Ronge (northern town) 

Air Ronge (northern village)

Would a custom tab of data at the level of the two broad areas (not the individual communities) be possible?

Answer:
Unfortunately the number of respondents in the two requested geography groupings are too small to provide any estimates.

Follow-Up Answer:
Have you tried the Saskatchewan Coroners Service Northern Regional Office?

It could be worthwhile.  About four years ago I was able to obtain youth suicide numbers for some Ontario Indigenous communities by going to my regional supervising coroner office who then referred me to the right contact at the central office.  I am pretty sure I started out with a phone call to my regional office.  The contact I was referred to at the chief coroner’s office ran a special table for our researcher.

CCHS Master File - Chinese Immigrants

Question:
A researcher is looking at possibly submitting an application to the RDC to access the CCHS-IMDB around healthy immigrant effect on older Chinese immigrants. She is wondering if it was possible to find out what the sample size is for the variable born in China? I have checked the CCHS PUMF and this table but both only have general options of white, black, Asian, or other and not the specific country or ethnic origin she is looking for.

Answer:
I’ve spoken to one of the analysts at the RDC and although she would not be able to confirm sample sizes at the moment (as they do not have the data yet), she doesn’t anticipate there will be a problem with the proposal, given the sample size. Of course the proposal does go through institutional review, so if there are any problems anticipated for the researcher it would be flagged at that point.

CCHS 2015 and Applying Survey Weights

Question:
A graduate student has asked me where to find the survey weights for the CCHS 2015: Nutrition Component, Food and ingredient details.  In particular she’s interested in weighting the FIDDCON variable (Location of food consumption).  There is no survey weight variable for the ‘Food and ingredient details’ section of the CCHS on ODESI.  Variables often used for developing a sample/constructing weights were collected in the CCHS (age, gender, geography) and there is a Weights variable for the Canadian Community Health Survey, 2015-2016: Annual Component on ODESI, but age/gender/geo are not part of the ‘Food and ingredients details’ data set in which FIDDCON is included.  I don’t see a ‘key’/common variable that could connect the weights from the Annual Component dataset to the Food and ingredients details data set.  I’d appreciate any help figuring out how to obtain the survey weights for this part of the survey, or help understanding what I am missing about how survey weights are used.

Additionally, I’ve been reading through the documentation for CCHS2015 and having a hard time reconciling the various components and timelines and the numbers of respondents to each part of the survey.  If there’s someone on the list who is relatively familiar with this survey, I’d love to have a 30-minute phone chat about it, please just let me know a couple of times you’d be available this week or next.

Answer:
I’ve received the following response from subject matter:

“The survey weights are found in the HS file. The researcher will need to merge the FID file with the HS file in order to apply the survey weights.”

Optional modules for CCHS 2017 and 2018

Question:
Can you advise which modules were optional in the CCHS 2017 and 2018? Are these reported consistently somewhere?

Answer:
Please find attached the CCHS Content Selection. This document provides the different type of content (core, theme, optional and rapid response) selected over time by each provinces and territories.

 *Original e-mail included an attachment that is available upon request*

2017 CCHS Data for 18-29 Age Group

Question:
I have researcher from a smoking cessation project looking for data from the 2017 CCHS covering a different age range than the standard products report. We know the PUMF is probably a year away. Would this require a custom tabulation?

1. young adult (18-29) current smoking prevalence (past 30-days) in Ontario

2. and how this rate compares with the national average (or even other provinces) for the same age group, young adult (18-29)

3. young adult (18-29) daily smoking prevalence in Ontario

4. young adult (18-29) occasional smoking prevalence in Ontario

Answer:
We’ve received the following response from subject matter:
“We can run the numbers for the researcher, however, could you clarify with them if for the first estimate they would like the prevalence of current daily or occasional smokers or the prevalence of those who smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days?”

Follow-up Question:
I checked with the researcher, and here’s their reply:

For the first inquiry, primarily, I would like to know whether or not they have smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days.

However, I’d also be very interested to see the current smoking rate (daily + occasional), as well to compare the two data.

Looking at CCHS 2016 on ODESI, this would be question SMK_Q010 for the past 30 days, but also very interested in SMK_Q005, provided that these questions did not change for CCHS 2017.

Follow-up Answer:
Please see the following response from subject matter:

Here are the requested estimates:

Smoked cigarettes within the past 30 days, population aged 18 to 29, 2017
	Estimate (%)	95% CI
Ontario†	16.4	(13.9, 18.9)
Canada (Excluding territories)	19.1*	(17.7, 20.5)
By province
Newfoundland and Labrador	28.2*	(20.7, 35.6)
Prince Edward Island	18.3ᴱ	(10.2, 26.3)
Nova Scotia	22.5ᴱ	(15.6, 29.3)
New Brunswick	18.3ᴱ	(10.9, 25.7)
Quebec	22.8*	(20.1, 25.6)
Manitoba	22.0ᴱ	(15.5, 28.5)
Saskatchewan	26.3*	(19.6, 33.1)
Alberta	21.8*	(18.3, 25.3)
British Columbia	15.3	(12.1, 18.5)
† reference category
* significantly different from Ontario population (p-value < 0.05)
ᴱ use with caution (these data have a coefficient of variation between 15.1% and 35.0%)
Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2017

Current daily or occasional smokers, population aged 18 to 29, 2017
	Daily or occasional smokers		Daily smokers		Occasional smokers
	Estimate (%)	95% CI	Estimate (%)	95% CI	Estimate (%)	95% CI
Canada (Excluding territories)	19.1	(17.7, 20.5)	10.7	(9.6, 11.8)	8.4	(7.4, 9.3)
Ontario	16.2	(13.8, 18.7)	10.2	(8.0, 12.4)	6.0	(4.6, 7.5)
Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2017

CCHS Rapid Response Files

Question:
I have a student looking to access data from two of the rapid response components of the CCHS: 

Food skills – knowledge, planning and transference of skills (2012)
Food skills – mechanical skills and food conceptualization (2013)  
I'm thinking that they are likely not available as PUMFs, as via odeso I am only seeing documentation for the first, and nothing for the second, an no further luck on the EFT. Just want to throw it out there to the community though to see if anyone has insights and/or if anyone knows if they may perhaps be available instead via RDCs before I go any further. 

Answer:
Subject matter has responded with the following:
“These 2 Rapid response files are available via RDC request.”

Bootstrap Weights for CCHS 2104 Annual Component

Question:
A student here is looking for the bootstrap weights file (b5.txt) that  is described in the documentation for CCHS 2014 Annual. It does not appear on or on the EFT site; indeed, I cannot find any trace of CCHS 2014 on the EFT site. Any ideas as to where we might find this file?

Answer:
 The 2014 annual file can be found here: /MAD_PUMF_FMGD_DAM/Root/3226_CCHS-Ann_ESCC-Ann/2013-14/2014

I myself do not see any bootstrap datasets so I will need to go back to subject matter with this one.

Subject matter has responded with the following:

"Please note that the 2014 CCHS PUMF did not contain Boostrap weights data. It was not distributed because it did not exist at the time, we only started introducing the Boostraps with the 2015 Pumf."

2015 CCHS-Nutrition PUMFs and Master Files

Question:
I have a researcher who is interested in knowing the fruit and vegetable consumption of Canadians and wonders if either the PUMF's or Master Files from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS)-Nutrition will provide such data. The researcher would ideally like to know the amount consumed (e.g. number of apples), the variety (e.g. what kind of apple?), and whether the food item was organic.  

I have reviewed my notes from the Jan. 30, 2018 webinar on the 2015 CCHS-Nutrition​ and scanned the documentation for the eight files in ODESI. I have also had a quick look at the PUMF's in ODESI. It is clearly a very complex survey! As far as I can tell from the documentation, this type of data and level of detail is not available from the PUMF's. Is that correct? 

​​Slide # 23 from the webinar notes that questions about fruit and vegetable consumption were dropped from the Health Component module of the 2015 CCHS-Nutrition. I wasn't sure how to interpret the following information from the Reference Guide to Understanding and Using the Data:  2015 Canadian Community Health Survey -- Nutrition (June 2017):

"The PUMF for 2015 CCHS-Nutrition will include data on nutrients from foods, a summary of vitamin/mineral supplement use, and the health questionnaire data. Additional data at more detailed levels such as food, ingredient, and recipes along with Canada Food Guide tiers may be included depending upon the file structure and the results from a mandatory confidentiality review.” (p. 41)

If the information is not available from the PUMF's, would it be available through the Master Files which are in the RDC's? Unfortunately, metadata for these Master Files is not yet posted on Statcan's NESSTAR server. 

Answer:
We’ve received the following response from subject matter:

“The CCHS-Annual continues to have the Fruit and Vegetable consumption question module (FVC) as part of their core content asked every year.  The module asks about the frequency of eating fruit in the past month, but doesn’t get into the detail of what fruit.

The 2015 CCHS-Nutrition asked detail about what specific foods are eaten, but only for one day, a 24-hour dietary recall.  The goal of this is to get data on what nutrients are consumed – not to get estimates of what exact foods provide those nutrients.  However, since apples are frequently consumed throughout the population, it is possible to use the survey data to estimate how many apples are eaten on any given day, and the characteristics of people who eat them.  This is not recommended for less frequently consumed foods, say lasagna.

The survey coded each food reported by respondents with Health Canada’s Canadian Nutrient File (CNF) codes, a subset of which are included in the survey documentation known as the FDC file.  This file contains the name description of a food, ingredient or recipe, a code specific to it, and a string of nutrient values for one gram of that food.  The CNF is also available on Health Canada’s website, so the researcher can look at that until the Nesstar metadata are available.  The data are limited to the level of detail available there.  The CNF/FDC file does not have separate entries for any organic versus non-organic foods because there is little difference in the nutrient content. 

For apples, the following information is relevant to the researcher’s questions:

• There are data related to apples:
• a general code for apples (summary Bureau of Nutritional Science food group variable FDC_FGR = 40B),
• various detailed codes (variable FID_FID ) but these only differentiate when the nutrient content is different (e.g. fresh versus canned, dehydrated, frozen).
• There are no data related to specific varieties of apples (e.g. Spartan versus Gala, McIntosh, Pink Lady) because the differences in nutrients per gram of apple are not statistically important (i.e. the data for all fresh apples would be coded to one code)
• The code variable FID-FID has to be used in conjunction with the label attached to the code, which are located in two other variables on the FDC file:  FDC_DEN (Food name – CNF – English) and FDC_DFR (Food name – CNF – French).  For example: FID_FID = 1487 FDC_DEN = “Apple, canned, sweetened, sliced, heated” 
• All of these variables are available in both the master file and the PUMF.  The analysis using the PUMF might be a little easier because the PUMF HS file includes derived variables that aggregate the gram amount of food eaten that day for certain foods, and apple is one of those foods (the variable is BNSD40B – “Gram Weight – Apple”).”

Data on Intentional Self-harm

Question:
I have a researcher who is using data on suicide/intentional self-harm to develop models for prediction and prevention. The CCHS and the DAD has taken them most of the way, but they’re also hoping for aggregate data on whether or not someone who has self-harmed and survived intended to die. Apparently they were able to find this information for Australia, and they’re hoping the same is collected and disseminated in Canada (at the country-wide level). I haven’t been able to find anything. Does anyone know if this data available anywhere?

Answer:
Subject matter has responded with the following:

“The CCHS 2015 – 2016 does include a block of suicide-related questions. This was a theme for this survey. I have attached the questionnaire for the convenience of the client. Kindly have them review the entire SUI block of questions. I think the variables SUI_035 and SUI_040 may speak to their line of questioning. However, the only variables that are available for free through the PUMF are DOSUI, SUI_005 and SUI_010. The client could access data for SUI_035 and SUI_040 through a cost-recovery custom tabulation. 

*Note: The original email contained the CCHS 2015-2016 Questionnaire as an attachment.

CCHS and Colorectal Cancer Questions

Question:
I have a doctoral student who’s wondering whether colorectal cancer screening questions were asked of SK respondents. From the documentation, it appears that only NL, NB, PEI and AB are included, but I’d like to confirm that.

Also, she’s like to know if there’s a tentative release date for data from the 2017 survey. I see it’s available through the RDC programme; what about a PUMF?

Answer:
You are correct, Saskatchewan has not selected the Colorectal screening module (CCS) for 2015-2016.

As for the CCHS 2017 PUMF, unfortunately subject matter is unable to give us a foreseeable date of release. Typically it would be released 2 years after collection, and because the 2018 data is currently in collection (and taking into account the fact that the 2017-2018 will be released together), it is safe to say that it shouldn’t be expected before late 2020.