Impact of being taken into out-of-home care: a longitudinal cohort study of First Nations and other child welfare agencies in Manitoba, Canada.

Background: Across Canada, Child Protection Services (CPS) disrupt Indigenous families by apprehending their children at alarmingly high rates. The harms borne by children in out-of-home care (OoHC) have been extensively documented. We examined the impact of OoHC on Manitoba children's health and legal system outcomes to provide rigorous evidence on how discretionary decision-making by CPS agencies can affect these outcomes. Methods: In partnership with First Nations researchers, we used linked administrative data to identify Manitoba children (born 2007-2018) served by First Nations and other Manitoba CPS agencies. We compared those taken into OoHC (n = 19,324) with those never in care but with an open CPS file due to child protection concerns (n = 27,290). We used instrumental variable analysis (CPS agency rates of OoHC as the instrument) to obtain odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals adjusted for child, maternal, and family factors. Findings: Mean age (yrs ± standard deviation) at first CPS contact for children taken into OoHC was 2.8 ± 3.7 (First Nations) and 3.0 ± 3.8 (other), and for children never in care was 4.5 ± 4.5 (First Nations) and 5.1 ± 4.7 (other). Among children served by a First Nations agency, males made up 50.6% (n = 5496) in OoHC and 51.0% (n = 6579) never in care. Among children served by other agencies, males made up 51.0% (n = 4324) in OoHC and 51.0% (n = 7428) never in care. Odds of teen pregnancy (First Nations aOR 3.69, 1.40-9.77; other aOR 5.10, 1.83-14.25), teen birth (First Nations aOR 3.23, 1.10-9.49; other aOR 5.06, 1.70-15.03), and sexually transmitted infections (other aOR 7.21, 3.63-14.32) were higher for children in care than children never in care, as were odds of being accused (other aOR 2.71, 1.27-5.75), a victim (other aOR 1.68, 1.10-2.56), charged with a crime (other aOR 2.68, 1.21-5.96), or incarcerated (First Nations aOR 3.64, 1.95-6.80; other aOR 1.19, 1.19-8.04). Interpretation: Being in OoHC worsened children's health and legal system outcomes. The importance of reducing the number of children taken into care was emphasized in briefings to provincial and First Nations governments. The government response will be monitored. Funding: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (no. 890-2018-0029).

Infant rates of child protective services contact and termination of parental rights by first nations status from 1998 to 2019: An example of intergenerational transmission of colonial harm.

BACKGROUND: Rates of child removal by child protective services (CPS) in Manitoba are the highest in Canada with a profoundly disproportionate impact on First Nations families. Despite infants constituting the highest proportion of children affected, no research has examined population-level rates of infant contact with CPS. OBJECTIVE: We examined the incidence of infant contact with different levels of CPS, including termination of parental rights (TPR), according to First Nations status. PARTICIPANTS: We identified 217,261 infants (47,416 First Nations; 169,845 non-First Nations) born between 1998 and 2014 in Manitoba, Canada and residing in the province until at least age 5. METHODS: We used linked administrative data to calculate population-level rates of contact with different levels of CPS by First Nations status, including an open file before age 1, out-of-home placement before age 1, and TPR before age 5. RESULTS: Overall 35.8 % of First Nations infants had an open file, 8.5 % experienced out-of-home placement, and 5.4 % experienced TPR. Among other infants, 8.5 % had an open file, 1.3 % experienced out-of-home placement and 0.7 % experienced TPR. The rate of early-stage contact increased the fastest among First Nations infants, with a rise of 22.4 % in our study period, compared to a rise of 1.7 % among all other infants. CONCLUSIONS: CPS contact was exceptionally high among First Nations infants compared to other infants, with early-stage contact accelerating most dramatically over time. Findings support calls to greatly reduce the disruption of system contact in the lives of First Nations families.

Identifying newborn discharge to child protective services: Comparing discharge codes from birth hospitalization records and child protection case files.

PURPOSE: Newborn removal by North America's child protective services (CPS) disproportionately impacts Indigenous and Black families, yet its implications for population health inequities are not well understood. To guide this as a domain for future research, we measured validity of birth hospitalization discharge codes categorizing newborns discharged to CPS. METHODS: Using data from 309,260 births in Manitoba, Canada, we compared data on newborns discharged to CPS from hospital discharge codes with the presumed gold standard of custody status from CPS case reports in overall population and separately by First Nations status (categorization used in Canada for Indigenous peoples who are members of a First Nation). RESULTS: Of 309,260 newborns, 4562 (1.48%) were in CPS custody at hospital discharge according to CPS case reports and 2678 (0.87%) were coded by hospitals as discharged to CPS. Sensitivity of discharge codes was low (47.8%), however codes were highly specific (99.8%) with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 81.4%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.2%. Sensitivity, PPV and specificity were equal for all newborns but NPV was lower for First Nations newborns. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian hospital discharge records underestimate newborn discharge to CPS, with no difference in misclassication based on First Nations status.

Digital Storytelling as a Patient Engagement and Research Approach With First Nations Women: How the Medicine Wheel Guided Our Debwewin Journey.

When research is conducted from a Western paradigm alone, the findings and resultant policies often ignore Indigenous peoples' health practices and fail to align with their health care priorities. There is a need for decolonized approaches within qualitative health research to collaboratively identify intersecting reasons behind troubling health inequities and to integrate Indigenous knowledge into current health care services. We engaged with First Nations women to explore to what extent digital storytelling could be a feasible, acceptable, and meaningful research method to inform culturally safe health care services. This novel approach created a culturally safe and ethical space for authentic patient engagement. Our conversations were profound and provided deep insights into First Nations women's experiences with breast cancer and guidance for our future qualitative study. We found that the digital storytelling workshop facilitated a Debwewin journey, which is an ancient Anishinabe way of knowing that connects one's heart knowledge and mind knowledge.

Elevating the uses of storytelling approaches within Indigenous health research: a critical and participatory scoping review protocol involving Indigenous people and settlers.

BACKGROUND: There is a complicated and exploitative history of research with Indigenous peoples and accompanying calls to meaningfully and respectfully include Indigenous knowledge in healthcare. Storytelling approaches that privilege Indigenous voices can be a useful tool to break the hold that Western worldviews have within the research. Our collaborative team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers, and Indigenous patients, Elders, healthcare providers, and administrators, will conduct a critical participatory, scoping review to identify and examine how storytelling has been used as a method in Indigenous health research. METHODS: Guided by two-eyed seeing, we will use Bassett and McGibbon's adaption of Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology. Relevant articles will be identified through a systematic search of the gray literature, core Indigenous health journals, and online databases including Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AgeLine, Academic Search Complete, Bibliography of Native North Americans, Canadian Reference Centre, and PsycINFO. Qualitative and mixed-methods research articles will be included if the researchers involved Indigenous participants or their healthcare professionals living in Turtle Island (i.e., Canada and the USA), Australia, or Aotearoa (New Zealand); use storytelling as a research method; focus on healthcare phenomena; and are written in English. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full-text articles. We will extract data, identify the array of storytelling approaches, and critically examine how storytelling was valued and used. An intensive collaboration will be woven throughout all review stages as academic researchers co-create this work with Indigenous patients, Elders, healthcare professionals, and administrators. Participatory strategies will include four relational gatherings throughout the project. Based on our findings, we will co-create a framework to guide the respectful use of storytelling as a method in Indigenous health research involving Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. DISCUSSION: This work will enable us to elucidate the extent, range, and nature of storytelling within Indigenous health research, to critically reflect on how it has been and could be used, and to develop guidance for the respectful use of this method within research that involves Indigenous peoples and settlers. Our findings will enable the advancement of storytelling methods which meaningfully include Indigenous perspectives, practices, and priorities to benefit the health and wellbeing of Indigenous communities. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/rvf7q ).