Search

Risk prevention measures are more likely to be accepted if people trust risk managers and their ability to handle the crisis, which often depends on who communicates with the public. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some Canadian officials became the main spokespersons of pandemic response in their jurisdiction, speaking almost daily to the public. We evaluated how the primary official for each jurisdiction chose to communicate about epidemiological modeling with the public and how they used modeling data to support their pandemic decisions. We conducted textual and visual analyses of press conferences held in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. Then, we asked focus group participants who they trusted the most and the least for information on COVID-19. We identified two main communication styles: compassionate-informative and condescending-evasive. Spokespersons following the former demonstrate a trust-building effort by providing straightforward answers, demonstrating expertise, while showing empathy and risk management competence. Those who followed the latter style predominantly offered superficial and defensive responses, engaging in blame-shifting and politicizing risk. Focus group participants trusted most the spokespersons who follow a compassionate-informative style are considered trustworthy, which could increase compliance with public health measures. However, those who use the condescending-evasive style were seen as less trustworthy. Our results underscore, first, the importance of disassociating political agendas from risk communication and emergency response during public health crises. Second, spokespersons should be trained in risk and crisis communication to engage with reporters and the public positively. Finally, crisis communication should emphasize the scientific evidence behind guidelines, while acknowledging scientific uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., (© 2024 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.)

Background: Amid rising concern about opioid use across Canada, Métis leaders in Manitoba are seeking information on prescription opioid dispensing in Red River Métis populations to assist with planning and implementing appropriate evidence-based harm-reduction strategies in their communities. We examined patterns of prescription opioid dispensing among Red River Métis and compared them to those among other residents of Manitoba., Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cross-sectional study for fiscal years 2006/07-2018/19 using administrative data from the Manitoba Population Research Data Repository and a study designed in partnership with researchers from the Manitoba Métis Federation. We compared age- and sex-adjusted rates of prescription opioid dispensing and mean morphine equivalents (MEQ) between Red River Métis and all other Manitobans aged 10 years or older, in accordance with Indigenous data sovereignty principles. To better understand what was driving any differences in patterns of prescription opioid dispensing between the 2 groups, we stratified the groups by age, sex, urbanicity, number of comorbidities, income quintile and opioid type, and compared patterns in MEQ/person., Results: The 2018/19 cohort included 76 755 Red River Métis and 1 117 854 other Manitobans. Other Manitobans were more likely than Red River Métis to be in higher income quintiles and to live in urban areas, and were less likely to have been diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder or a substance use disorder in the previous 5 years. The rate of prescription opioid dispensing and the opioid-associated MEQ/person were consistently higher among Red River Métis than among other Manitobans in each study year ( p < 0.001). The rate of prescription opioid dispensing declined and the MEQ/person rose among other Manitobans over the study period but did not change among Red River Métis., Interpretation: The rate of prescription opioid dispensing and the potency of prescribed opioids were higher among Red River Métis in Manitoba than among other Manitobans. Further investigation into the different dispensing patterns between the 2 groups and the potential opioid-related harms they may herald is warranted., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2022 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Importance: The success in ending the COVID-19 pandemic rests partly on the mass uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. Little work has been done to understand vaccine willingness among older adolescents and young adults. This is important since this age group may be less likely to adhere to public health guidelines., Objective: To understand willingness of getting a vaccine and reasons for vaccine hesitancy among a sample of older adolescents and young adults., Design: Data were from the Well-Being and Experiences study (The WE Study), a longitudinal community-based sample of older adolescents and young adults collected from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada from 2017 to 2020 (n = 664)., Setting: The study setting was a community-based observational longitudinal study., Participants: Participants for the study were aged 14 to 17 years old at baseline in 2016-17 (n = 1000). Data were also collected on one parent/caregiver. Waves 2 (n = 747) and 3 (n = 664) were collected in 2019 and 2020, respectively., Exposures: The main exposures were sociodemographic factors, health conditions, COVID-19 knowledge, and adversity history., Main Outcomes: The main outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine willingness, hesitancy, and reasons for hesitancy., Results: Willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine was 65.4%. Willingness did not differ by age, sex, or mental health conditions, but did differ for other sociodemographic characteristics, physical health conditions, COVID-19 knowledge, practicing social/physical distancing, and adversity history. The most common reasons for not wanting a vaccine were related to safety, knowledge, and effectiveness. Sex differences were noted., Conclusions and Relevance: Increasing uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine among older adolescents and young adults may rely on targeting individuals from households with lower income, financial burden, and adversity history, and generating public health messaging specifically aimed at vaccine safety, how it works to protect against illness, and why it is important to protect oneself against a COVID-19 infection., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Malgré une attention académique considérable au rôle de la famille des soignants avec la population générale, peu de recherches ont été menées avec les familles autochtones. Cette étude qualitative vise à combler cette lacune en se concentrant sur l'expérience des soignants Metis, fournir des soins aux adultes Metis plus âges. Des groupes de discussions et des entrevues ont été menés avec des aidants familiaux Metis (n - 79), aînés Metis (n - 11), et soignants officiels (n - 8). Bien qu'il existe de parallèles considérables dans les expériences des soins identifiés dans cette étude sur les Metis avec celles déjà documentées dans la littérature, il existe néanmoins des différences importantes pour la prestation des soins culturellement adaptés aux aînés Metis., Despite considerable academic attention to the role of family caregivers within the general population, little research has been conducted with Indigenous families. This qualitative study aims to fill that gap by focusing on the experiences of Metis caregivers providing care for older Metis adults. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with Metis family caregivers (n = 79), Metis Elders (n = 11) and formal caregivers (n = 8). Although there are considerable parallels in the caregiving experiences identified in this Metis study with those already documented in the literature, there are nonetheless important differences for providing culturally responsive care to Metis seniors.

Developing appropriate risk messages during challenging situations like public health outbreaks is complicated. The focus of this paper is on how First Nations and Metis people in Manitoba, Canada, responded to the public health management of pandemic H1N1, using a focus group methodology (n = 23 focus groups). Focus group conversations explored participant reactions to messaging regarding the identification of H1N1 virus risk groups, the H1N1 vaccine and how priority groups to receive the vaccine were established. To better contextualize the intentions of public health professionals, key informant interviews (n = 20) were conducted with different health decision makers (e.g., public health officials, people responsible for communications, representatives from some First Nations and Metis self-governing organizations). While risk communication practice has improved, 'one size' messaging campaigns do not work effectively, particularly when communicating about who is most 'at-risk'. Public health agencies need to pay more attention to the specific socio-economic, historical and cultural contexts of First Nations and Metis citizens when planning for, communicating and managing responses associated with pandemic outbreaks to better tailor both the messages and delivery. More attention is needed to directly engage First Nations and Metis communities in the development and dissemination of risk messaging.