Community engagement approaches for Indigenous health research: recommendations based on an integrative review.

OBJECTIVE: Community engagement practices in Indigenous health research are promoted as a means of decolonising research, but there is no comprehensive synthesis of approaches in the literature. Our aim was to assemble and qualitatively synthesise a comprehensive list of actionable recommendations to enhance community engagement practices with Indigenous peoples in Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand. DESIGN: Integrative review of the literature in medical (Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Embase) and Google and WHO databases (search cut-off date 21 July 2020). ARTICLE SELECTION: Studies that contained details regarding Indigenous community engagement frameworks, principles or practices in the field of health were included, with exclusion of non-English publications. Two reviewers independently screened the articles in duplicate and reviewed full-text articles. ANALYSIS: Recommendations for community engagement approaches were extracted and thematically synthesised through content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 63 studies were included in the review, with 1345 individual recommendations extracted. These were synthesised into a list of 37 recommendations for community engagement approaches in Indigenous health research, categorised by stage of research. In addition, activities applicable to all phases of research were identified: partnership and trust building and active reflection. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a comprehensive list of recommendations for Indigenous community engagement approaches in health research. A limitation of this review is that it may not address all aspects applicable to specific Indigenous community settings and contexts. We encourage anyone who does research with Indigenous communities to reflect on their practices, encouraging changes in research processes that are strengths based.

Obesity in adults: a clinical practice guideline

Obesity is a complex chronic disease in which abnormal or excess body fat (adiposity) impairs health, increases the risk of long-term medical complications and reduces lifespan.1 Epidemiologic studies define obesity using the body mass index (BMI; weight/height2), which can stratify obesity-related health risks at the population level. Obesity is operationally defined as a BMI exceeding 30 kg/m2 and is subclassified into class 1 (30­34.9), class 2 (35­39.9) and class 3 (≥ 40). At the population level, health complications from excess body fat increase as BMI increases.2 At the individual level, complications occur because of excess adiposity, location and distribution of adiposity and many other factors, including environmental, genetic, biologic and socioeconomic factors.

Obesity management and indigenous peoples

Exploring obesity within the context of multiple co-occurring health, socioeconomic, environmental and cultural factors, and situating these within policy/jurisdictional structures specific to Indigenous populations (e.g., federal versus provincial health funding), can facilitate emerging opportunities for obesity management. These contexts highlight a tension that providers must navigate, between drivers of obesity embedded in social- and system-level inequities and protective factors that promote healing through relationships and culturally contextualized approaches to care. Healthcare professionals should consider the following contextual factors when providing obesity care for Indigenous peoples: Structural inequities (i.e., social and systemic in origin) are embedded in health, education, social services and other systems, and they maintain social disadvantage for a large segment of the Indigenous population. These inequities influence food security, for example, through lower wages perpetuated by inaccessible education and high food costs in urban and remote areas, or through limited access to activity-based resources at individual and community levels. Indigenous people have experienced systemic disadvantage throughout their lifespan and those of their family members, producing a cumulative effect on obesity. In Indigenous contexts, obesity is therefore deeply affected by responses to pervasive stressors, as individuals navigate social and systemic barriers to meeting their goals. Overwhelming stress from social (e.g., discrimination) and systemic exclusion (e.g., poor or absent primary healthcare) can disempower Indigenous people in maintaining healthy behaviours. Patients may appear to be resistant to healthcare recommendations, where together with healthcare providers they may come to feel fatalistic toward their capacity to address obesity. Healthcare professionals often interpret such patient incongruity with recommendations in a deficit lens, labeling it as patient non-compliance or non-adherence. This non-concordance, or seeming apathy, may actually be a sense of paralysis in the face of overwhelming stress. Exploration of the patient's social reality can open opportunities for contextualized approaches to obesity management. Reflection on assumptions about seeming apathy may contextualize patient motivations, where deep exploration of one's own perceptions, attitudes and behaviours toward Indigenous patients may uncover anti-Indigenous sentiment implicit in healthcare practices or systems. Validation of a patient's experiences of inequity can empower both patients and providers to identify steps to address social factors that influence health behaviours. Culture and relationships facilitate learning of complex knowledge. The interaction of obesity with co-occurring structural factors represents complex knowledge that is critical for patients to gain deep understanding of their health. Non-Indigenous healthcare providers may have ways of knowing and doing that are inconsistent with Indigenous patient perspectives on health knowledge and how it should be exchanged. Obesity management in this context requires a longitudinal, relationship-centred approach that engages and explores interactions with co-existing factors to build both knowledge and trust, in a manner aligned with Indigenous principles for communication. Connection: When patients connect with healthcare providers around their co-occurring health needs, there are complex linkages between wider structures and their health. The therapeutic relationship may be critically supportive when knowledge is delivered in a relevant way and makes sense to the patient. Trust-building: Healing of the therapeutic relationship is itself fundamental to engaging and supporting patients within contexts of multi-generational trauma to explore complex intersections in relation to health and health behaviour change. Differing worldviews: Western concepts of healthy behaviours related to obesity management, including preferences for body size, activity and food, may be dis­cordant with Indigenous perspectives. Patients may not identify with provider perspectives, and providers must not assume that patients share provider worldviews or principles around how to communicate health knowl­edge. Discordant perspectives may involve a distinct sense of locus of control, self-efficacy and modes for speaking about the pathways into and out of obesity. An Indigenous approach to knowledge exchange in­cludes contextualizing knowledge within the world of the patient and employing a narrative-based and indi­rect approach to sharing knowledge.

Therapeutic Environments and the Religious Society of Friends.

The work of members of the Religious Society of Friends, also known as Quakers, in therapeutic environments has often been commented on but not discussed in detail. While several of the pioneers of planned environment therapy, therapeutic education and therapeutic communities have discussed their Quaker faith in the context of their work, very little of the practical role of Quaker governors and trustees for therapeutic environments has been written about. This paper aims to explore some of the reasons why therapeutic environment work and Quaker principles are compatible, and how Quakers and non-Quakers have been able to work together to establish and maintain effective social-based methods of therapy and management.