“There Is a Lot of Practice in Not Thinking about That”: Structural, Interpersonal, and Individual-Level Barriers to HIV/STI Prevention among Reservation Based American Indians

Abstract

American Indians (AI) face significant disparities in HIV/STI morbidity and mortality, and historical, structural, interpersonal, and individual level barriers stymie prevention efforts. The objective of this paper is to examine barriers to HIV/STI prevention among reservation-based AI. We conducted face-to-face qualitative interviews with 17 reservation-based AI community leaders and community members in Southern California on HIV/STI knowledge and attitudes and barriers to prevention. The disruption of traditional coping mechanisms and healing processes were compromised by historical trauma, and this allowed stigmas to exist where they did not exist before. This impacted access to healthcare services and trust in medicine, and is linked to individuals adopting negative coping behaviors that confer risk for HIV/STI transmission (e.g., substance use and sexual behaviors). Most of the participants reported that HIV/STIs were not discussed in their reservation-based communities, and many participants had a misperception of transmission risk. Stigma was also linked to a lack of knowledge and awareness of HIV/STI’s. Limited available services, remoteness of communities, perceived lack of privacy, and low cultural competency among providers further hindered the access and use of HIV/STI prevention services. These findings highlight the need to address the historical, structural, and interpersonal factors impacting individual-level behaviors that can increase HIV/STI transmission among reservation-based AIs. Prevention work should build on community strengths to increase HIV/STI knowledge, reduce stigma, and increase access to preventative care while using culturally grounded methodologies.

The Health and Wellbeing of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples around the Globe: Ensuring and Promoting Best Practice in Research

“…A range of mechanisms across the life of the research project or program, from setting research priorities to ongoing communication to dissemination of results, were described. These included: membership of Indigenous and Tribal people on advisory groups, working groups, steering committees, and governance committees [ 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 37 ]; involvement of community Elders, other community leaders, and Tribal health centres [ 19 , 25 , 28 , 35 ]; formal and informal partnerships with Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Organisations, Tribal health services and other community organisations [ 8 , 10 , 14 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 25 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]; hiring and training Indigenous research staff, especially from the relevant community/ies [ 7 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 23 , 35 ]; the use of community-based participatory research approaches, co-design, and consumer engagement and involvement [ 12 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 25 , 32 , 33 , 35 ]; and the involvement ...…”

“…In addition to approval by Human Research Ethics Committees and Institutional Review Boards, which are embedded within Western academic institutions, a range of other mechanisms for ensuring appropriate Indigenous and Tribal governance in research were described in the papers included in the Special Issue, such as: approval by a Tribal government, an Indigenous Ethics Committee (e.g., the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council’s ethics committee in New South Wales, Australia), or an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 35 ]; the use of cultural reference groups and governance committees [ 11 , 13 , 16 , 19 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 33 , 34 ]; and having formal agreed Terms of Reference and/or Resolutions of Support [ 10 , 20 , 29 ].…”

“…Some authors specifically mentioned aspects of data governance and data sovereignty, such as Tribal/community ownership of data, approval of manuscripts for publication, establishment of a data governance committee, and reference to specific data sovereignty principles [ 10 , 11 , 20 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 35 ]. For example, Ward and colleagues [ 35 ] sought to understand the role of land in the wellbeing of Labrador Innu people.…”

“…Other studies reflected the priorities of government agencies, either through alignment with articulated strategies or through commissioned work [ 24 , 25 , 33 ]. Many studies reflected the expressed needs and priorities of Indigenous and Tribal communities, either directly or through community organisations, Tribal governments, and/or Indigenous/Tribal advisory committee members [ 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 ].…”

“…The resulting Special Issue includes 31 papers in total, with 21 from Australia [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ], 4 from the United States [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ], 3 from Aotearoa/New Zealand [ 32 , 33 , 34 ], 1 from Canada [ 35 ], and 2 from authors in multiple countries [ 36 , 37 ]. This represents a substantial body of research on the health and wellbeing of Indigenous and Tribal peoples, possibly the largest collection ever published.…”