Search

Introduction African, Caribbean and Black (ACB) communities are disproportionately infected by HIV in Ontario, Canada. They constitute only 5% of the population of Ontario yet account for 25% of new diagnoses of HIV. The aim of this study is to understand underlying factors that augment the HIV risk in ACB communities and to inform policy and practice in Ontario. Methods and analysis We will conduct a cross-sectional study of first-generation and second-generation ACB adults aged 15–64 in Toronto (n=1000) and Ottawa (n=500) and collect data on sociodemographic information, sexual behaviours, substance use, blood donation, access and use of health services and HIV-related care. We will use dried blood spot testing to determine the incidence and prevalence of HIV infection among ACB people, and link participant data to administrative databases to investigate health service access and use. Factors associated with key outcomes (HIV infection, testing behaviours, knowledge about HIV transmission and acquisition, HIV vulnerability, access and use of health services) will be evaluated using generalised linear mixed models, adjusted for relevant covariates. Ethics and dissemination This study has been reviewed and approved by the following Research Ethics Boards: Toronto Public Health, Ottawa Public Health, Laurentian University; the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto. Our findings will be disseminated as community reports, fact sheets, digital stories, oral and poster presentations, peer-reviewed manuscripts and social media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Heterosexually active Black men are alleged to endorse masculine norms that increase their and their female partners' vulnerability to HIV. These norms include Black men's inability or reluctance to productively engage their own health-related personal and interpersonal vulnerabilities. We draw on data from the iSpeak research study in Ontario, Canada, to assess whether and how heterosexual Black men cope with personal and inter-personal vulnerability, namely that heterosexual Black men: avoid emotionally supportive relationships with other men (and women), which diminishes their capacity to productively acknowledge and resolve their health-related challenges; are reticent to productively acknowledge and address HIV and health on a personal level; and are pathologically secretive about their health, which compounds their vulnerability and precipitates poor health outcomes. Design: iSpeak was implemented in 2011 to 2013, and included two focus groups with HIV-positive and HIV-negative self-identified heterosexual men (N = 14) in Toronto and London, a focus group with community-based health promotion practitioners who provide HIV-related services to Black communities in Ontario (N = 6), and one-on-one interviews with four researchers distinguished for their scholarship with/among Black communities in Toronto. Participants in the men's focus group were recruited discretely through word-of-mouth. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Team members independently read the transcripts, and then met to identify, discuss and agree on the emerging themes. Results: We demonstrate that iSpeak participants (a) engage their personal and interpersonal vulnerabilities creatively and strategically, (b) complicate and challenge familiar interpretations of Black men's allegedly transgressive masculinity through their emotional and practical investment in their health, and (c) demonstrate a form of resourceful masculinity that ambiguously aligns with patriarchy. Conclusion: We conclude with a range of actionable recommendations to strengthen the discursive framework for understanding heterosexual Black men in relation to HIV and health, and substantively engaging them in community responses to HIV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article summarizes our deepened understanding of decolonizing research with, for, and by Indigenous peoples and peoples of African descent that emerged from conducting a scoping review of the methodological literature and reflecting on our review process. Although our review identified decolonizing methodologies as a promising approach, we questioned if our scoping review process engaged in decolonizing knowing. To unpack the epistemological tensions between decolonizing knowing and Western ways of doing scoping reviews, we engaged in individual and collective reflective processes—dialoguing with the tensions—moving from individual immersion in the literature to transformative dialogues among the team. In reflecting upon our tensions with the scoping review process, themes that emerged included (a) ontological/epistemological disjunctures, (b) tensions with concepts and language, and (c) relationships with the literature and beyond. This reflexive process provides valuable insight into ways in which review methods might be made a decolonizing research experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]