Participatory Video: Youth Engagement with Health Promoting Information

Using Participatory Video, this community-based study explored the efficacy of a health promotion program that engaged Indigenous youth in developing culturally relevant smoking prevention/cessation messages in the form of YouTube videos. This facilitated sharing of youth stories and perceptions, critical consideration of health information communication, and development of leadership skills.À l'aide de la vidéo participative, cette etude communautaire explore l'efficacité d'un programme de promotion de la santé qui incitait les jeunes autochtones à développer des messages culturellement adaptés pour la prévention ou l'arrêt du tabagisme sous forme de vidéos YouTube. Ce programme a favorisé le partage des histoires des jeunes, la perception des messages, les considérations critiques des messages d'information sur la santé et le développement d'habiletés de leadership.</jats:p

Consultation and remediation in the north: meeting international commitments to safeguard health and well-being

Background . International commitments exist for the safeguarding of health and the prevention of ill health. One of the earliest commitments is the Declaration of Alma-Ata (1978), which provides 5 principles guiding primary health care: equity, community participation, health promotion, intersectoral collaboration and appropriate technology. These broadly applicable international commitments are premised on the World Health Organization&#x0027;s multifaceted definition of health. The environment is one sector in which these commitments to safeguarding health can be applied. Giant Mine, a contaminated former gold mine in the Northwest Territories, Canada, represents potential threats to all aspects of health. Strategies for managing such threats usually involve an obligation to engage the affected communities through consultation. Objective . To examine the remediation and consultation process associated with Giant Mine within the context of commitments to safeguard health and well-being through adapting and applying the principles of primary health care. Methods . Semi-structured interviews with purposively selected key informants representing government proponents and community members were conducted. Results . In reviewing themes which emerged from a series of interviews exploring the community consultation process for the remediation of Giant Mine, the principles guiding primary health were mapped to consultation in the North: (a) &#x201C;equity&#x201D; is the capacity to fairly and meaningfully participate in the consultation; (b) &#x201C;community participation&#x201D; is the right to engage in the process through reciprocal dialogue; (c) &#x201C;health promotion&#x201D; represents the need for continued information sharing towards awareness; (d) &#x201C;intersectoral collaboration&#x201D; signifies the importance of including all stakeholders; and (e) &#x201C;appropriate technology&#x201D; is the need to employ the best remediation actions relevant to the site and the community. Conclusions . Within the context of mining remediation, these principles form an appropriate framework for viewing consultation as a means of meeting international obligations to safeguard health

Partnering with Indigenous student co-researchers: improving research processes and outcomes

OBJECTIVE: To examine the contribution of student co-researchers to a community-based participatory Photovoice investigation of Indigenous children's food-related lived experience. We examine co-researchers’ contributions to the research process, their role in knowledge co-generation and dissemination, and factors that fostered research partnership with the teenage co-researchers. METHODS: High school students attending a First Nation community school in Canada were trained as research partners. They contributed to aspects of research design, conducted interviews with grades 3 and 4 Photovoice participants, and participated in data analysis and the development of a culturally relevant photobook. The study was initiated by the community's research committee. It is informed by critical consciousness theory and the positive youth development framework. RESULTS: Student co-researchers incorporated culturally appropriate strategies as they interviewed participants. Co-researchers adopted conversational approaches, built rapport by articulating personal and cultural connections, and engaged in mentoring and health promotion as they interviewed participants. They made critical contributions to dissemination by developing photobook content that promoted the importance of traditional foods and the vital role of family and community in healthy eating practices. Relationships and “dialogic” space were important to building partnership with and promoting capacity development among youth co-researchers. CONCLUSIONS: Partnership between university researchers and Indigenous student co-researchers holds great promise for health promotion in communities. Co-researchers developed research and leadership skills, gained understanding of health challenges facing their community, and initiated health and cultural promotion through the project's Photobook. This investigation supports the powerful potential of student co-researchers to meaningfully contribute to research processes and to build knowledge that is relevant and credible both within and outside of their communities. Findings have implications for youth, communities and researchers

When good messages go wrong: Perspectives on COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine communication from generally vaccine accepting individuals in Canada

Vaccines are one of the most important and successful public health interventions to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. However, unlike childhood diseases and routine vaccines, COVID-19 is a novel threat, and COVID-19 vaccines may elicit specific anxieties. Through focus groups, we examine the concerns and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine expressed by individuals who accept routine vaccinations in Canada. We also conducted a pre-focus group survey to document participant attitudes towards vaccines in general. While most participants had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or had the intention to get it, many had concerns. First, participants felt anxious about the quick development and approval of the vaccines, even if they recognized that the vaccines have undergone clinical trials. Second, participants felt confused about shifting public health guidelines regarding vaccine safety, changing the interval between doses, and mixing different vaccine brands. Finally, participants said they felt abandoned when deciding whether to get vaccinated or not. People who generally accept vaccines expressed concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, mostly related to the inevitable uncertainties of a new vaccine (i.e. novelty, safety, mandates, etc.). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, understood as concerns about the novelty of a vaccine and the rapid implementation of it, could be useful for understanding questioning attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines from people who accept routine vaccinations. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can also provide valuable insights as booster doses are periodically needed and people may not be as accepting of these additional doses

Risk Ranking: Investigating Expert and Public Differences in Evaluating Food Safety Risks

The allocation of resources with respect to food safety issues requires that decision-makers prioritize these issues, which may conflict with the public’s opinions on these matters. These differences between the experts’ perception of risk and that of the public were examined. A modified Carnegie Mellon risk ranking model was used to rank six food safety issues. The six food safety issues used in the discussions were: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, botulism, Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP), and acrylamide. Focus groups were conducted using public (n=29) and expert (n=21) participants, and a public survey was commissioned to further explore the focus group results. Key themes were identified from the focus groups as reasons why risks were rated high or low. Explanations for why choices were made included availability, affect, numeracy and optimistic bias. The effect of attribute framing seemed to be the most influential in a participant’s choices

Risk Ranking: Investigating Expert and Public Differences in Evaluating Food Safety Risks

The allocation of resources with respect to food safety issues requires that decision-makers prioritize these issues, which may conflict with the public’s opinions on these matters. These differences between the experts’ perception of risk and that of the public were examined. A modified Carnegie Mellon risk ranking model was used to rank six food safety issues. The six food safety issues used in the discussions were: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, botulism, Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP), and acrylamide. Focus groups were conducted using public (n=29) and expert (n=21) participants, and a public survey was commissioned to further explore the focus group results. Key themes were identified from the focus groups as reasons why risks were rated high or low. Explanations for why choices were made included availability, affect, numeracy and optimistic bias. The effect of attribute framing seemed to be the most influential in a participant’s choices.Risk ranking, Food safety, Experts, Public, Agribusiness, Agricultural and Food Policy, Consumer/Household Economics, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, D81, Q18, I18,

Exploring the role of trust in health risk communication in Nunavik, Canada

AbstractCommunicating about health risks in the Arctic can be challenging. Numerous factors can hinder or promote effective communication. One of the most important components in effective communication is trust in an information source. This is particularly true when a risk is unfamiliar or complex because the public must rely on expert assessment rather than personal evaluation of the risk. A total of 112 Inuit residents from Nunavik, Canada, were interviewed to better understand the factors that influence trust in individuals or organisations. Results indicate that there are six primary factors that influence trust in an information source. These factors include: (1) whether the information source is a friend or family member; (2) past performance of the individual or organisation; (3) the general disposition of the audience member (that is, he or she believes that most people are trustworthy); (4) the openness or candidness of the source; (5) value similarity (referring to the perceived correspondence in values between the audience member and communicator); and (6) the credibility of the source. The results of this study can help determine who or what agencies should provide messages about health risks in the Arctic. It also provides insight about effective strategies for engendering trust among Arctic residents.</jats:p

Risk communication and perceptions about lead ammunition and Inuit health in Nunavik, Canada

ABSTRACTLead ammunition is commonly used to hunt waterfowl and other wildlife in the Arctic. Hunting with lead is problematic because the toxicant can be transferred to the consumer. Therefore, it is critical to evaluate perceptions and awareness of the risks associated with using lead ammunition among Arctic populations. Results of the Nunavik Child Development Study (a longitudinal health study gathering information on health and well-being among Inuit in Nunavik, Canada) included advice to eliminate the use of lead ammunition in hunting practices. We surveyed 112 Nunavik residents (93 women; 18 men) about their awareness of lead related messages, use of lead ammunition and risk perceptions about contaminants. Sixty-seven participants (59.8%) reported there was an active hunter in their household. We found that only 27% of participants had heard or seen the messages about reducing lead ammunition. After participants viewed the Nunavik Child Development Study messages about lead, 44% stated they would stop using lead ammunition. However, 28% indicated that they would continue using lead ammunition. We conclude that, while messages had an overall positive effect, further study is required to understand why people continue to use lead ammunition