Search

The purpose of this paper is to examine the utility of linking systems between public health resource and user organizations for health promotion dissemination and capacity building, and to identify factors related to the success of linking systems. The design is a parallel-case study using key informant interviews and content analysis of project reports (synthesized qualitative and quantitative data) of three provincial dissemination projects of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative-Dissemination Phase. Each provincial project used linking activities with public health user groups including meetings, skill building, resources, collaboration, networking and research feedback to facilitate capacity building for and implementation of heart health promotion activities. This paper presents empirical examples of linking system designs, activities, and qualitative and quantitative changes in the public health user groups' health promotion capacity, program delivery and sustainability. The findings indicate enhanced health promotion skills, partnerships, resources, infrastructure, and increased programming and sustainability in the targeted public health organizations of all three provincial projects. Identified barriers to the success of linking systems included lack of appropriately skilled personnel, funds, buy-in and leadership. We conclude that linking systems can be flexibly used to build capacity and disseminate health promotion innovations, and suggest conditions for success.

We examined the perspectives of the Red River Métis citizens in Manitoba, Canada, during the H1N1 and COVID‐19 pandemics and how they interpreted the communication of government/health authorities' risk management decisions. For Indigenous populations, pandemic response strategies play out within the context of ongoing colonial relationships with government institutions characterized by significant distrust. A crucial difference between the two pandemics was that the Métis in Manitoba were prioritized for early vaccine access during H1N1 but not for COVID‐19. Data collection involved 17 focus groups with Métis citizens following the H1N1 outbreak and 17 focus groups during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Métis prioritization during H1N1 was met with some apprehension and fear that Indigenous Peoples were vaccine‐safety test subjects before population‐wide distribution occurred. By contrast, as one of Canada's three recognized Indigenous nations, the non‐prioritization of the Métis during COVID‐19 was viewed as an egregious sign of disrespect and indifference. Our research demonstrates that both reactions were situated within claims that the government does not care about the Métis, referencing past and ongoing colonial motivations. Government and health institutions must anticipate this overarching colonial context when making and communicating risk management decisions with Indigenous Peoples. In this vein, government authorities must work toward a praxis of decolonization in these relationships, including, for example, working in partnership with Indigenous nations to engage in collaborative risk mitigation and communication that meets the unique needs of Indigenous populations and limits the potential for less benign—though understandable—interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethical research practice within community-based research involves many dimensions, including a commitment to return results to participants in a timely and accessible fashion. Often, current Indigenous community-based research is driven by a partnership model; however, dissemination of findings may not always follow this approach. As a result, products may not be as useful to participants who were motivated to be involved in the research process. We conducted a seven-week workshop on three occasions with different First Nations and Metis women and girls (age 8-12) in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The workshop explored participants' perspectives around health, safety, and family wellbeing using a strength-based, participatory approach. Participants noted that a key challenge they face when interacting with researchers, policy makers, and program staff is the lack of tailored dissemination materials. Returning results in a format that meets the expressed desire of participants is an ethical necessity to ensure that research is not perpetuating past colonial practices. Doing so quickly and with meaningful content requires careful execution and consideration, especially when working within intergenerational contexts. We describe in this paper how results were returned to families in an accessible way outlining the role that integrated knowledge exchange can play in the process of healing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines how a medically contested procedure for people living with multiple sclerosis was framed by the news media and challenged by user-generated Facebook content. While expected narrative patterns ensued (advocates being positive and the scientific community being cautious), embedded were collective action oppositional frames that forced shifts in scientific and policy decisions that defied standard evidentiary support in Canada. Medical experts and researchers need to engage in more effective science communication about the nature of the research process and engage affected health communities more in the research agenda, particularly for conditions characterized by considerable unmet need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, shared decision making (SDM) has been promoted as a model to guide interactions between persons with MS and their neurologists to reach mutually satisfying decisions about disease management - generally about deciding treatment courses of prevailing disease modifying therapies. In 2009, Dr. Paolo Zamboni introduced the world to his hypothesis of Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI) as a cause of MS and proposed venous angioplasty ('liberation therapy') as a potential therapy. This study explores the discussions that took place between persons with MS (PwMS) and their neurologists about CCSVI against the backdrop of the recent calls for the use of SDM to guide clinical conversations.Methods: In 2012, study researchers conducted focus groups with PwMS (n = 69) in Winnipeg, Canada. Interviews with key informants were also carried out with 15 participants across Canada who were stakeholders in the MS community: advocacy organizations, MS clinicians (i.e. neurologists, nurses), clinical researchers, and government health policy makers.Results: PwMS reported a variety of experiences when attempting to discuss CCSVI with their neurologist. Some found that there was little effort to engage in desired discussions or were dissatisfied with critical or cautious stances of their neurologist. This led to communication breakdowns, broken relationships, and decisions to autonomously access alternative opinions or liberation therapy. Other participants were appreciative when clinicians engaged them in discussions and were more receptive to more critical appraisals of the evidence. Key informants reported that they too had heard of neurologists who refused to discuss CCSVI with patients and that neurology as a whole had been particularly vilified for their response to the hypothesis. Clinicians indicated that they had shared information as best they could but recommended against seeking liberation therapy. They noted that being respectful of patient emotions, values, and hope were also key to maintaining good relationships.Conclusions: While CCSVI proved a challenging context to carry out patient-physician discussions and brought numerous tensions to the surface, following the approach of SDM can minimize the potential for unfortunate outcomes as much as possible because it is based on principles of respect and more two-way communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

“Vaccine hesitancy” is a concept now frequently used in vaccination discourse. The increased popularity of this concept in both academic and public health circles is challenging previously held perspectives that individual vaccination attitudes and behaviours are a simple dichotomy of accept or reject. A consultation study was designed to assess the opinions of experts and health professionals concerning the definition, scope, and causes of vaccine hesitancy in Canada. We sent online surveys to two panels (1- vaccination experts and 2- front-line vaccine providers). Two questionnaires were completed by each panel, with data from the first questionnaire informing the development of questions for the second. Our participants defined vaccine hesitancy as an attitude (doubts, concerns) as well as a behaviour (refusing some / many vaccines, delaying vaccination). Our findings also indicate that both vaccine experts and front-line vaccine providers have the perception that vaccine rates have been declining and consider vaccine hesitancy an important issue to address in Canada. Diffusion of negative information online and lack of knowledge about vaccines were identified as the key causes of vaccine hesitancy by the participants. A common understanding of vaccine hesitancy among researchers, public health experts, policymakers and health care providers will better guide interventions that can more effectively address vaccine hesitancy within Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the first wave of the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, Aboriginal populations in Canada experienced disproportionate rates of infection, particularly in the province of Manitoba. To protect those thought to be most at-risk, health authorities in Manitoba listed all Aboriginal people, including Metis, among those able to receive priority access to the novel vaccine when it first became available. Currently, no studies exist that have investigated the attitudes, influences, and vaccine behaviors among Aboriginal communities in Canada. This paper is the first to systematically connect vaccine behavior with the attitudes and beliefs that influenced Metis study participants' H1N1 vaccine decision-making. Methods: Researchers held focus groups (n = 17) with Metis participants in urban, rural, and remote locations of Manitoba following the conclusion of the H1N1 pandemic. Participants were asked about their vaccination decisions and about the factors that influenced their decisions. Following data collection, responses were coded into the broad categories of a social-ecological model, nuanced by categories stemming from earlier research. Responses were then quantified to show the most influential factors in positively or negatively affecting the vaccine decision. Results: Media reporting, the influence of peer groups, and prioritization all had positive and negative influential effects on decision making. Whether vaccinated or not, the most negatively influential factors cited by participants were a lack of knowledge about the vaccine and the pandemic as well as concerns about vaccine safety. Risk of contracting H1N1 influenza was the biggest factor in positively influencing a vaccine decision, which in many cases trumped any co-existing negative influencers. Conclusions: Metis experiences of colonialism in Canada deeply affected their perceptions of the vaccine and pandemic, a context that health systems need to take into account when planning response activities in the future. Participants felt under-informed about most aspects of the vaccine and the pandemic, and many vaccine related misconceptions and fears existed. Recommendations include leveraging doctor-patient interactions as a site for sharing vaccine-related knowledge, as well as targeted, culturally-appropriate, and empowering public information strategies to supply reliable vaccine and pandemic information to potentially at-risk Aboriginal populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk issues become complicated when scientific evidence concerning a potential environmental exposure is equivocal; particularly when many argue that the public health benefits of a policy action outweigh any potential negative health effects. Chlorinated drinking water, and chlorinated disinfection byproducts (CDBPs) that are formed during the disinfection process, represent a useful case-study for examining these complications. We conduct a media analysis of chlorinated drinking water stories in the Canadian print media from 1977 to 2000. We examine media presentations of science compared to framings by scientists, regulators, the chlorine industry, water utility representatives, and non-governmental organizations of the CDBP issue based on key informant interviews. We argue that there are two main framings of the debate, each of which are powerful in constructing risk perceptions. On the one hand, many frame the debate as a ‘voluntary’ risk: we choose chlorine disinfection to protect against microbial risks with a possible adverse consequence of that protection. On the other hand, others frame the issue as an ‘involuntary’ risk: chlorine disinfection was a ‘choice’ imposed by public health and water utility officials; a choice that carries a potential cancer risk, and alternative disinfection technologies are advocated. We demonstrate these different frames by examining metaphorical constructs of water, chlorine and cancer contained within them. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Naturopaths encouraged clients to make informed decisions about vaccination. • Naturopaths conduct personalized and individualized vaccination conversations with their clients. • Many Quebec naturopaths held negative attitudes toward vaccination. Health care providers' recommendations can play an important role in individuals' vaccination decisions. Despite being one of the most popular complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), naturopathy is understudied in relation to vaccination decisions. We sought to address this gap through this study of vaccination perspectives of naturopathy practitioners in the province of Quebec, Canada. We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 naturopaths. Thematic analysis was conducted. Main themes were developed deductively (i.e., based on prior literature) and expanded through inductive coding of the data. Participants noted that they discuss vaccination in their practice, but only when clients asked questions or wanted advice. Naturopaths described refraining from explicitly recommending for or against vaccination. Instead, they focus on empowering their clients to make their own informed decision regarding vaccination. Most participants noted that they direct clients towards sources of information so that clients could decide for themselves, but some mentioned they discussed with clients what they considered to be risks associated with vaccination, as well as its benefits. These discussions were framed through a personalized and individual approach with clients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]