Search

Background: Participation in on-the-land programs that encourage traditional cultural activities may improve health and well-being. The Income Security Program (ISP) - a financial incentive-based on-the-land program - for Eeyouch (Cree) hunters and trappers in Eeyou Istchee was created as a result of the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to help mitigate the effects of hydroelectric development on the Cree people of northern Quebec, Canada. Beyond the ISP's financial incentives, little is known about the health measures of those who are eligible to participate in the ISP (i.e. spent ≥120 days on-the-land during the previous year). Therefore, this paper's objective was to assess the health measures of northern Quebec Cree, who were eligible for participation in the ISP.Methods: Using participant data (n = 545) compiled from the Nituuchischaayihtitaau Aschii Multi-Community Environment-and-Health Study, we assessed 13 different health measures in generalized linear models with the independent variable being the eligibility to participate in the ISP.Results: Participants in the present study who were eligible for the ISP had significantly higher levels of vigorous and moderate activity per week, and higher concentrations of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in the blood compared to those ineligible for the ISP (i.e. spent ≤119 days on-the-land during the previous year). Encouragingly, following model adjustment for age and sex, participants eligible for the ISP did not have higher blood concentrations of mercury than those who were not eligible for the ISP.Conclusions: Our results suggest that the participants eligible for participation in the ISP are likely to be healthier than those who are ineligible to participate - and are promising for on-the-land programs for Indigenous peoples beyond a financial incentive - with no apparent higher risk of increasing contaminant body burden through traditional on-the-land-activities (e.g. fish consumption). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lyme disease control strategies may include tick control interventions in high risk areas. Public authorities may be interested to assess how these types of interventions are perceived by the public which may then impact their acceptability. The aims of this paper are to compare socio-cognitive factors associated with high acceptability of tick control interventions and to describe perceived issues that may explain their low acceptability in populations living in two different regions, one being an endemic region for LD since the last 30 years, the Neuchâtel canton, in Switzerland, and another where the disease is emerging, the Montérégie region, in Canada.Methods: A mixed methods' design was chosen. Quantitative data were collected using web-surveys conducted in both regions (n = 814). Multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare socio-cognitive factors associated with high acceptability of selected interventions. Qualitative data were collected using focus group's discussions to describe perceived issues relative to these interventions.Results: Levels of acceptability in the studied populations were the lowest for the use of acaricides and landscaping and were under 50 % in both regions for six out of eight interventions, but were higher overall in Montérégie. High perceived efficacy of the intervention was strongly associated with high acceptability of tick control interventions. A high perceived risk about LD was also associated with a high acceptability of intervention under some models. High level of knowledge about LD was negatively associated with high acceptability of the use of acaricides in Neuchâtel. Perceived issues explaining low acceptability included environmental impacts, high costs to the public system, danger of individual disempowerment and perceptions that tick control interventions were disproportionate options for the level of LD risk.Conclusion: This study suggests that the perceived efficacy and LD risk perception may be key factors to target to increase the acceptability of tick control interventions. Community-level issues seem to be important considerations driving low acceptability of public health interventions. Results of this study highlight the importance for decision-makers to account for socio-cognitive factors and perceived issues that may affect the acceptability of public health interventions in order to maximize the efficacy of actions to prevent and control LD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]