Disparities in prostate cancer screening, diagnoses, management, and outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous men in a universal health care system.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous Peoples have higher morbidity rates and lower life expectancies than non-Indigenous Canadians. Identification of disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous men regarding prostate cancer (PCa) screening, diagnoses, management, and outcomes was sought. METHODS: An observational cohort of men diagnosed with PCa between June 2014 and October 2022 was studied. Men were prospectively enrolled in the province-wide Alberta Prostate Cancer Research Initiative. The primary outcomes were tumor characteristics (stage, grade, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA]) at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were PSA testing rates, time from diagnosis to treatment, treatment modality, and metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survivals. RESULTS: Examination of 1,444,974 men for whom aggregate PSA testing data were available was performed. Men in Indigenous communities were less likely to have PSA testing performed than men outside of Indigenous communities (32 vs. 46 PSA tests per 100 men [aged 50-70 years] within 1 year; p < .001). Among 6049 men diagnosed with PCa, Indigenous men had higher risk disease characteristics: a higher proportion of Indigenous men had PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL (48% vs. 30%; p < .01), TNM stage ≥ T2 (65% vs. 47%; p < .01), and Gleason grade group ≥ 2 (79% vs. 64%; p < .01) compared to non-Indigenous men. With a median follow-up of 40 months (interquartile range, 25-65 months), Indigenous men were at higher risk of developing PCa metastases (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2; p < .01) than non-Indigenous men. CONCLUSIONS: Despite receiving care in a universal health care system, Indigenous men were less likely to receive PSA testing and more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive tumors and develop PCa metastases than non-Indigenous men.

Mâmawihitowin (bringing the camps together): Perinatal healthcare provider and staff participation in an Indigenous-led experiential intervention for enhancing culturally informed care-a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: In partnership with a Nehiyawak (Plains Cree) community of Maskwacîs,central Alberta (Canada), we implemented an Indigenous-led intervention to provide experiential learning opportunities for perinatal health care providers (HCPs) and staff. Our objective was to capture the impact of participating in cultural safety learning opportunities on perceived self-awareness for HCPs and staff to provide enhanced culturally informed care. METHODS: Perinatal HCPs and staff who work regularly with Indigenous women from our partnering community took part in a series of experiential learning activities designed by a Community Advisory Committee. We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach informed by community-based participatory research. We compared Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) and Maskwacîs-Specific Cultural Scale (MSCS) scores pre- and post-intervention using non-parametrical statistical analysis (Wilcoxon signed rank test). Post-intervention, we conducted a qualitative description study using semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 17 participants completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. Responses indicated a shift in perceived cultural and community knowledge and comfort levels, with positive gains in overall mean scores for both the CQS (p = 0.01) and MSCS (p = 0.01). Nine participants completed qualitative interviews. Overall, participants felt better equipped to provide more culturally informed care to their patients post-intervention. CONCLUSION: An Indigenous-led experiential learning intervention was effective in enhancing overall perceived cultural awareness and preparedness to provide culturally informed care for perinatal HCPs and staff. This study provides evidence for fostering relationships between Indigenous communities and health systems toward enhanced perinatal care.

Commentary: Developing Relationships through Trust in Indigenous Health Research.

Developing strong relationships between researchers and Indigenous partners and communities is crucial for mutually beneficial and appropriate Indigenous health research. However, explanations on the need for strong relationships and how they may be achieved are not often found within the research literature. Given the history of mistrust, exploitation and even unethical research practices with Indigenous populations, collaborative research partnerships necessitate good relationships. For our long-standing community-based participatory research partnership, trust in our relationships has been foundational. Several key elements are central to developing this trust, including coming together in ceremony, practising humility and becoming personally and emotionally invested in each other's lives. We also prioritize time, effort and flexibility to actively work on our relationships. To make effective and beneficial change within Indigenous health research compels reframing western perspectives and overcoming long-standing institutional barriers, such that enduring and trusting relationships are the focus and not a means to an end.