Search

Young bisexual women experience worse mental and sexual health outcomes in comparison to their heterosexual and lesbian peers. These disparities are associated with stigma and devaluation of bisexual identities. The current paper addresses a community-based focus group project in which participants discussed bisexual stigma in regard to bisexual erasure and other stereotypes. Specifically, participants detailed experiences of feeling pressured to provide evidence of their bisexual identity, modifying their relationship or sexual behavior to conform to these expectations, as well as feeling excluded from queer community. Further, participants discussed how these experiences were related to decreased mental and sexual health. Future research should further investigate the relationship between bisexual stigma, pressure to provide evidence of bisexual identity, and negative mental and sexual health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The disappointing results of many public health interventions have been attributed in part to the lack of meaningful community engagement in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these initiatives. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged as an alternative research paradigm that directly involves community members in all aspects of the research process. Their involvement is often said to be an empowering experience that builds capacity. In this paper, we interrogate these assumptions, drawing on interview data from a qualitative study investigating the experiences of 18 peer researchers (PRs) recruited from nine CBPR studies in Toronto, Canada. These individuals brought to their respective projects experience of homelessness, living with HIV, being an immigrant or refugee, identifying as transgender, and of having a mental illness. The reflections of PRs are compared to those of other research team members collected in separate focus groups. Findings from these interviews are discussed with an attention to Foucault’s concept of ‘governmentality’, and compared against popular community-based research principles developed by Israel and colleagues. While PRs spoke about participating in CBPR initiatives to share their experience and improve conditions for their communities, these emancipatory goals were often subsumed within corporatist research environments that limited participation. Overall, this study offers a much-needed theoretical engagement with this popular research approach and raises critical questions about the limits of community engagement in collaborative public health research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Comprehensive agri-food policy includes food waste reduction as an important policy goal. Food bank donor indemnification is codified in law in several countries to support the charitable food sector. Other policy instruments to address waste reduction have emerged recently, among them tax measures to incentivize private sector action. These have been increasingly linked to the discourse on hunger in many jurisdictions. We asked 17 Canadian food insecurity policy entrepreneurs to comment on a vignette scenario featuring a hypothetical proposal for food waste diversion as a policy response to household food insecurity; the polarization in responses – ‘Not human garburators,’ vs. ‘everyone wins’ – was remarkable. This case of an unexpected divergence in the response to a policy idea in the food insecurity realm provides an opportunity to understand fundamental differences in societal perspectives that might be relevant to public health more generally. In particular we address the parallel humanist and ecological imperatives at work in contemporary public health practice. It appears that objections to food waste diversion for human consumption could be crystallized in terms of Mary Douglas’s theory of morality within particular worldviews. From a humanist viewpoint, the proposal was an indignity; for those with an ecological worldview, it was sensible and pragmatic. Public health has embraced ecosystem thinking and takes for granted that its ecological approach is sensitive to humanist perspectives but the two worldviews may differ and humanist ideals of dignity may raise moral rancor when considered in the context of ecological good. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In response to the mental health disparities experienced by Aboriginal peoples, and related inequities regarding the accessibility to appropriate mental health care, there has been a shift in health policy to endorse ‘By Indigenous for Indigenous’ health care delivery models. In Canada, this has resulted in the creation of new mechanisms for Aboriginal participation in health care planning by health authorities with the goal of fostering culturally safe mental health and addictions care. Yet, there is a growing concern about the effects of neo-liberal cost concerns in health policy on the effective implementation of such progressive reform ideas. Drawing on a critical policy review and ethnographic interviews with four community-based Aboriginal organisations and one health authority, this article uses ‘cultural safety’ as a critical lens to discuss emerging tensions within the context of regional Aboriginal mental health care reform in British Columbia. The findings of this study draw attention to the intersecting ways that dominant socio-historical and political ideologies undermine cultural safety in decision-making and funding practices, thereby creating situations of cultural risk for both Aboriginal people working within the area of Aboriginal mental health and by extension for Aboriginal people who are seeking mental health and addictions care. The insights gained from this research contribute to the ongoing dialogue regarding how to foster culturally safe mental health policy and practice, and for action in the political realm. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]