Search

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a study of the transformation of First Nations’ health governance, describing the development of partnerships between First Nations and provincial and federal governments for co-creating solutions to address First Nations’ health inequities in British Columbia (BC). The paper frames this transformation in the context of a Canada-wide reconciliation initiative stimulated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.Design/methodology/approach This qualitative case study was a joint initiative between Simon Fraser University and the BC First Nations Health Authority (FNHA), involving interviews with senior leaders within the BC health system, FNHA and First Nations communities. In addition, a policy roundtable was held in February 2015 which gathered 60 participants for further dialogue on the process.Findings Key themes included: partnership and relationships, governance and reciprocal accountability, First Nations perspectives on health and wellness, and quality and cultural safety. Findings indicate that significant transformational changes have happened in the relationship between First Nations and the mainstream health system. The creation of the FNHA has led to more representation for First Nations people at all levels of governance and health service planning, which will ultimately lead to more culturally safe health services that incorporate a First Nations perspective of wellness.Social implications The transformation of First Nations health governance in BC can serve as an example in other indigenous health settings both within Canada and internationally.Originality/value This paper describes a transformative health governance process in First Nations communities that is an historical first in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reflects on the methodological challenges of co-managed research as experienced from a non-Indigenous perspective. In 2003, Tl'azt'en Nation and the authors initiated a toponymy study that involved finding a curricular use for Dakelh place names. In this article, we chronicle our experiences with negotiating and managing this study with Tl'azt'en Nation. Some events are specific to the topic; others are characteristic of co-managed research in general. We offer insights into what it means as non-Indigenous researchers to enter discursive territory that is charged with emotion and cultural sensitivity, and also explore the often contentious issues that can arise in Indigenous research, particularly oral history, ethnohistorical interpretation, and cultural representation. The paper concludes by discussing the opportunities and challenges of co-managed research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Forest Research is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Over the past few decades there has been increasing attention paid to 'shared' forms of governance and to the creation of new protected areas (PAs) that are designed to address 'non-biological' goals and values. The rationale for these initiatives has, in part, been based on the belief that well-designed systems of protected area governance will help to deliver desired outcomes and meet linked sociocultural, economic and environmental objectives. Addressing these questions has become increasingly important in British Columbia, where a number of First Nations are asserting increasing control over existing state-run protected areas, as well as establishing new protected areas and designing governance systems for them that deliver outcomes consonant with cultural beliefs, values and goals. This paper reports on an in-depth case study of the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks and the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, with a focus on comparing how these physically adjacent protected areas with different objectives each attempt to meaningfully engage the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation in PA governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims of the study This paper compares sixty-four plants used as ethnoveterinary remedies in British Columbia with First Nations folk medicine. Materials and methods In 2003, I conducted semi-structured interviews with 60 participants obtained using a purposive sample. The data was then compared with historical documents on First Nations plant use. Results Exact parallels between First Nations/native American folk medicine and ethnoveterinary remedies used for farm animals and horses were Acer macrophyllum Pursh, Epilobium angustifolium L. and Lonicera involucrata (Richardson) Banks ex Spreng., used as stimulants and tonics for goats; Achlys tripylla DC. as a fly repellent in barns, Alnus rubra Bong., for rabbits’ dental care, Berberis repens Lindl., Rumex crispus L., to treat sores and rashes on horses, Pinus ponderosa Douglas ex C. Lawson for stomach problems and Bovista pila Berk. and M. A. Curtis and Dolichousnea longissima (Ach.) Articus used on wounds. Conclusion This study revealed the parallel uses between sixty-four plants used as ethnoveterinary medicines in British Columbia and the folk medicines used by the First Nations peoples and by native American groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anthropologica is the property of CASCA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: For First Nations (FN) peoples living in British Columbia (BC), little is known regarding cancer in the population. The aim of this study was to explore cancer incidence and survival in the FN population of BC and compare it to the non-FN population.Methods: All new cancers diagnosed from 1993 to 2010 were linked to the First Nations Client File (FNCF). Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIR) and rate ratios, and 1- and 5-year cause-specific survival estimates and hazard ratios were calculated. Follow-up end date for survival was December 31, 2011 and follow-up time was censored at a maximum of 15 years.Results: ASIR of colorectal cancer (male SRR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.25-1.61; female SRR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.38) and cervical cancer (SRR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.45-2.33) were higher overall in FN residents in BC, compared to non-FN residents. Incidence rates of almost all other cancers were generally similar or lower in FN populations overall and by sex, age, and period categories, compared to non-FN residents. Trends in ASIR over time were similar except for lung (increasing for FN, decreasing for non-FN) and colorectal cancers (increasing for FN, decreasing for non-FN). Conversely, survival rates were generally lower for FN, with differences evident for some cancer sites at 1 year following diagnosis.Conclusion: FN people living in BC face unique cancer issues compared to non-FN people. Higher incidence and lower survival associated with certain cancer types require further research to look into the likely multifaceted basis for these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) program is a federal program that funds prescription medication, as well as other primary healthcare benefits, for First Nations people registered under the Indian Act and for Inuit. NIHB policies have been developed within the Canadian political realities of ambiguity in interpretation of historical legal obligations, patterns of cost shifting onto provincial governments, and a move towards chronic disease management. This study critiques the ambiguities embedded in NIHB and provincial pharmaceutical benefit policies for First Nations people in British Columbia. British Columbia's Fair PharmaCare and PharmaCare Plan C provincial prescription programs are compared to NIHB. We conducted a review of these policies and completed our understanding by interviewing three pharmacists to better understand decisions surrounding the dispensing process. Four themes surfaced from our analysis: discrepancy between policy and practice in terms of federal versus provincial responsibility; restrictive processes of access to coverage; a system dependent on pharmacists' goodwill when NIHB denies a claim; and NIHB policies at times being at odds with pharmacists' clinical judgment and business compensation. Our findings suggest the existence of an ethnically differentiated social contract that perpetuates rather than diminishes barriers to care for First Nations people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]