Strategies for culturally safe research with Native American communities: an integrative review

Abstract

Background: A history of unethical research and deficit-based paradigms have contributed to profound mistrust of research among Native Americans, serving as an important call to action. Lack of cultural safety in research with Native Americans limits integration of cultural and contextual knowledge that is valuable for understanding challenges and making progress toward sustainable change. Aim: To identify strategies for promoting cultural safety, accountability, and sustainability in research with Native American communities. Method: Using an integrative review approach, three distinct processes were carried out: (1) appraisal of peer-reviewed literature (Scopus, PubMed, and ProQuest), (2) review of grey literature (e.g. policy documents and guidelines), and (3) synthesis of recommendations for promoting cultural safety. Results: A total of 378 articles were screened for inclusion, with 55 peer-reviewed and grey literature articles extracted for full review. Recommendations from included articles were synthesised into strategies aligned with eight thematic areas for improving cultural safety in research with Native American communities. Conclusions: Research aiming to understand, respect, and acknowledge tribal sovereignty, address historical trauma, and endorse Indigenous methods is essential. Culturally appropriate, community-based and -engaged research collaborations with Native American communities can signal a reparative effort, re-establish trust, and inform pragmatic solutions. Rigorous research led by Native American people is critical to address common and complex health challenges faced by Native American communities. Impact statement: Respect and rigorous methods ensure cultural safety, accountability, and sustainability in research with Native Americans.

Adaption of a culturally informed stress reduction intervention for Native American Head Start Teachers using ADAPT-ITT and CBPR methodologies

“…The decision to use a selected CBPR framework arose from recognition of the distrust Native American communities have towards academic institutions and researchers, which stems from colonization and experience of unethical research practices with their Peoples (39). Table 1 outlines how CBPR steps and principles were employed throughout the study to enhance the rigor, relevance, and reach of study ndings.…”

“…Table 1 outlines how CBPR steps and principles were employed throughout the study to enhance the rigor, relevance, and reach of study ndings. Team engagement within the community involved 1) access to guidance from a Native American researcher familiar with the community; 2) attending workshops led by Native American Elders and Native academic researchers on how to work with Native populations; and 3) collaboration with other Native and non-Native researchers to conduct a literature review on best practices for culturally safe research with Native American populations (39). ADAPT-ITT methodology ADAPT-ITT methodology was originally developed to ensure a systematic framework for adapting, implementing, and evaluating evidence-based HIV prevention interventions (34).…”

“…With permissions, formal IRB approvals, and training completed a TAB was then established. A TAB is made up of community members who share a common identity, history, symbols, language, and culture (39). They advise researchers on culturally safe research practices with the community and help their communities understand research rationale, impact, and consent processes (39).…”

“…A TAB is made up of community members who share a common identity, history, symbols, language, and culture (39). They advise researchers on culturally safe research practices with the community and help their communities understand research rationale, impact, and consent processes (39). The TAB for this study consisted of a Head Start supervisor, Head Start teacher, Head Start parent, a cultural advisor, a publicschool educator (and Head Start parent), and a Head Start grandparent.…”

ICIRAS: Research and reconciliation with indigenous peoples in rural health journals

“…The notation of cultural provenance was variable. It appeared in the byline of both the webpage header and in the pdf, 5–7 researcher positionality, 8 acknowledgements section, 9 ethics section, 10 methods section, 11 materials and methods section, 12 the introduction and preceding the methods, 13 citation format, 5 front page of author information on preprint, 14 and was indicated with additional author information symbols (*, †, ‡, §) 15 …”