Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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 ).

SUBMITTER: Rieger KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7640994 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Indigenous mothers and birthing parents experience significant inequities during the perinatal period, with mental health distress causing adverse outcomes for mothers/birthing parents and their infants. Limited literature is available to inform our understanding of solutions to these issues, with research primarily focusing on inequities. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of Indigenous approaches to treatment of perinatal mental health illness. Following the PRISMA guidelines for systematic literature reviews, an electronic search of CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, OVID Nursing, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was conducted in January and February 2022 and repeated in June 2022. Twenty-seven studies were included in the final review. A critical interpretive synthesis informed our approach to the systematic review. The work of (Yamane and Helm J Prev 43:167-190, 2022) was drawn upon to differentiate studies and place within a cultural continuum framework. Across the 27 studies, the majority of participants were healthcare workers and other staff. Mothers, birthing parents, and their families were represented in small numbers. Outcomes of interest included a reduction in symptoms, a reduction in high-risk behaviours, and parental engagement/attachment of mothers/birthing parents with their babies. Interventions infrequently reported significant reductions in mental health symptoms, and many included studies focused on qualitative assessments of intervention acceptability or utility. Many studies focused on describing approaches to perinatal mental health distress or considered the perspectives and priorities of families and healthcare workers. More research and evaluation of Indigenous interventions for perinatal mental health illness is required. Future research should be designed to privilege the voices, perspectives, and experiences of Indigenous mothers, birthing parents, and their families. Researchers should ensure that any future studies should arise from the priorities of the Indigenous population being studied and be Indigenous-led and designed.

Project description:IntroductionParticipatory research involving community engagement is considered the gold standard in Indigenous health research. However, it is sometimes unclear whether and how Indigenous communities are engaged in research that impacts them, and whether and how engagement is reported. Indigenous health research varies in its degree of community engagement from minimal involvement to being community-directed and led. Research led and directed by Indigenous communities can support reconciliation and reclamation in Canada and globally, however clearer reporting and understandings of community-led research is needed. This scoping review assesses (a) how and to what extent researchers are reporting community engagement in Indigenous health research in Atlantic Canada, and (b) what recommendations exist in the literature regarding participatory and community-led research.MethodsEleven databases were searched using keywords for Indigeneity, geographic regions, health, and Indigenous communities in Atlantic Canada between 2001-June 2020. Records were independently screened by two reviewers and were included if they were: peer-reviewed; written in English; health-related; and focused on Atlantic Canada. Data were extracted using a piloted data charting form, and a descriptive and thematic analysis was performed. 211 articles were retained for inclusion.ResultsFew empirical articles reported community engagement in all aspects of the research process. Most described incorporating community engagement at the project's onset and/or during data collection; only a few articles explicitly identified as entirely community-directed or led. Results revealed a gap in reported capacity-building for both Indigenous communities and researchers, necessary for holistic community engagement. Also revealed was the need for funding bodies, ethics boards, and peer review processes to better facilitate participatory and community-led Indigenous health research.ConclusionAs Indigenous communities continue reclaiming sovereignty over identities and territories, participatory research must involve substantive, agreed-upon involvement of Indigenous communities, with community-directed and led research as the ultimate goal.

Project description:The pervasive nature and colonial foundations of neoliberalism has significant ramifications for Indigenous health, globally. Not only does neoliberalism undermine Indigenous collectivist values by emphasising personal autonomy, but the exploitation of natural resources has unique implications for Indigenous wellbeing. Therefore, this scoping review aims to synthesise evidence that articulates the impacts of neoliberalism on global Indigenous health inequities. Two reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest Central to identify records eligible for inclusion. The search was not restricted by geographic location or language. Using principles of qualitative meta-aggregation, generative mechanism summaries and illustrations were extracted from each of the included articles, synthesised into broader categories, then considered in the context of neoliberal ideologies. The systematic search identified 9952 unique records, of which 38 fully satisfied the inclusion criteria. Findings represented 23 Indigenous communities across 12 countries and considered the impacts of neoliberalism across 16 health outcomes. Eighty-eight generative mechanisms of neoliberalism and 12 generative mechanisms of resistance were extracted from the included articles and mapped against four core principles of neoliberalism: competitive and private markets, reduced public expenditure on infrastructure, personal autonomy, and deregulation that facilitates economic activity. Overwhelmingly, neoliberalism has manifest impacts, through various pathways, on poor health outcomes and experiences for Indigenous communities included in this review. Importantly, Indigenous communities continue to resist the impacts of neoliberalism through advocacy, reclamation of traditional practices, and opposition to industrial development. Consideration and investigation of neoliberal structures and ideologies must become common practice in health equity scholarship. Actors within neoliberal societies must resist dominant epistemological, ontological, and praxiological stances that reinforce the supremacy of colonial values and subalternation of Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing to begin effectively addressing Indigenous health inequities.

Project description:Background: Multiple factors, including experiences with unethical research practices, have made some Indigenous groups in the United States and Canada reticent to participate in potentially beneficial health-related research. Yet, Indigenous peoples have also expressed a willingness to participate in research when certain conditions related to the components of data management-including data collection, analysis, security and storage, sharing, dissemination, and withdrawal-are met. A scoping review was conducted to better understand the terms of data management employed in health-related research involving Indigenous communities in the United States and Canada. Methods: PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and Web of Science were searched using terms related to the populations and topics of interest. Results were screened and articles deemed eligible for inclusion were extracted for content on data management, community engagement, and community-level research governance. Results: The search strategy returned 734 articles. 31 total articles were extracted, of which nine contained in-depth information on data management and underwent detailed extraction. All nine articles reported the development and implementation of data management tools, including research ethics codes, data-sharing agreements, and biobank access policies. These articles reported that communities were involved in activities and decisions related to data collection (n=7), data analysis (n=5), data-sharing (n=9), dissemination (n=7), withdrawal (n=4), and development of data management tools (n=9). The articles also reported that communities had full or shared ownership of (n=5), control over (n=9), access to (n=1), and possession of data (n=5). All nine articles discussed the role of community engagement in research and community-level research governance as means for aligning the terms of data management with the values, needs, and interests of communities. Conclusions: There is need for more research and improved reporting on data management in health-related research involving Indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada. Findings from this review can provide guidance for the identification of data management terms and practices that may be acceptable to Indigenous communities considering participation in health-related research.

Project description:Background: There is a wide variety of participatory approaches to involve stakeholders in the development of medical devices, but there is no comprehensive overview of these approaches. We therefore studied what participatory approaches are used in the development of medical devices as well as the most important characteristics and challenges of these approaches. Methods: We conducted a scoping review and searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for articles published between July 2014 and July 2019. Papers were included if they presented original research featuring any form of stakeholder participation in the development of medical devices. We used The Spectrum of Public Participation to categorise the approach of each paper. Subsequently, we described the characteristics of each approach: the stakeholders involved, data collection methods, and topics addressed. We also identified challenges of the approaches as reported by researchers. Results: 277 papers were included, which could be categorised into three levels of participation: collaboration, involvement, and consultation. Patients and healthcare professionals are frequently engaged in all approaches. The most often used methods are workshops in the collaboration approach papers, and interviews in the involvement and consultation approach papers. Topics addressed in all approaches are: the problem, device requirements, design choices, testing, and procedural aspects of involvement. Reported challenges entail issues related to sampling, analysis, social dynamics, feasibility, and the limited number of topics that can be addressed. Conclusion: Participatory approaches reported in literature can be categorised in three overarching approaches that have comparable methodological characteristics. This suggests that if researchers want to apply a participatory approach it is not necessary to adopt a pre-determined approach, such as ‘participatory action research’ (PAR). Instead, they can independently determine the degree of participation, stakeholders, methods, topics, and strategies to account for challenges, making sure the participatory approach fits their research question and context.

Project description:Background Health care has evolved to support the involvement of individuals in decision making by, for example, using mobile apps and wearables that may help empower people to actively participate in their treatment and health monitoring. While the term "participatory health informatics" (PHI) has emerged in literature to describe these activities, along with the use of social media for health purposes, the scope of the research field of PHI is not yet well defined.Objective This article proposes a preliminary definition of PHI and defines the scope of the field.Methods We used an adapted Delphi study design to gain consensus from participants on a definition developed from a previous review of literature. From the literature we derived a set of attributes describing PHI as comprising 18 characteristics, 14 aims, and 4 relations. We invited researchers, health professionals, and health informaticians to score these characteristics and aims of PHI and their relations to other fields over three survey rounds. In the first round participants were able to offer additional attributes for voting.Results The first round had 44 participants, with 28 participants participating in all three rounds. These 28 participants were gender-balanced and comprised participants from industry, academia, and health sectors from all continents. Consensus was reached on 16 characteristics, 9 aims, and 6 related fields.Discussion The consensus reached on attributes of PHI describe PHI as a multidisciplinary field that uses information technology and delivers tools with a focus on individual-centered care. It studies various effects of the use of such tools and technology. Its aims address the individuals in the role of patients, but also the health of a society as a whole. There are relationships to the fields of health informatics, digital health, medical informatics, and consumer health informatics.Conclusion We have proposed a preliminary definition, aims, and relationships of PHI based on literature and expert consensus. These can begin to be used to support development of research priorities and outcomes measurements.