RESUMO
Public health remains acutely affected by the historical legacy and ongoing processes of colonization. Although scholars have advocated for decolonization of public health systems, the principles and processes of decolonization have not been explicitly elaborated nor applied broadly within the field. To map these concepts, we conducted a scoping review of decolonization of the Indigenous-focused health behavior and education literature. Following the JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) scoping review framework, we conducted searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science using key search terms: "health education," "health behavior," "health promotion," "health practice" AND "decolonization" or "decolonial." We also conducted targeted searches of key journals to ensure review completeness. For selected articles, we examined the article content, focal population, country context and health condition(s). We assessed for the definition of decolonization (if provided), descriptions of decolonial processes used (if stated), and the application of the decolonial processes (e.g., for research, intervention, or critique, etc.). Characteristics of decolonial processes were grouped by those that were similarly described leading to the generation of common themes of reflection, action, and planning. Our review suggests that no clear norms exist in conceptualizing the definitions and processes of decolonization in the reviewed literature. A small proportion of the articles articulate decolonial processes in manners that are consistent, cohesive and attentive to the goals of decolonization. We believe that this review will encourage public health practitioners to consider meaningful approaches to challenging colonizing structures and engage with community partners to advance the visions of social justice and health equity.
Assuntos
Equidade em Saúde , Promoção da Saúde , Humanos , Justiça SocialRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Most states with 24-h waiting periods prior to abortion provide state resource directories to women seeking abortion. Our objective was to evaluate the information on abortion provided on the websites of crisis pregnancy centers listed in these resource directories. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a survey of the websites of crisis pregnancy centers referenced in state resource directories for pregnant women. We searched for these state-provided resource directories online. We contacted state Departments of Health and Human Services for a print copy when a directory could not be found online. The crisis pregnancy center websites were evaluated for the information provided on abortion. Standardized data collection tools were used. Descriptive statistics were generated. RESULTS: Resource directories of 12 states were procured. A total of 254 websites referring to 348 crisis pregnancy centers were identified. Overall, a total of 203/254 [80%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 75%-84%] of websites provided at least one false or misleading piece of information. The most common misleading or false information included on the websites were a declared link between abortion and mental health risks (122/254 sites; 48%, 95% CI 42%-54%), preterm birth (54/254; 21%, 95% CI 17%-27%), breast cancer (51/254; 20%, 95% CI 16%-25%) and future infertility (32/254; 13%, 95% CI 9%-17%). CONCLUSION: Most crisis pregnancy centers listed in state resource directories for pregnant women provide misleading or false information regarding the risks of abortion. States should not list agencies that provide inaccurate information as resources in their directories.