Volume 9, No. 2

Caroline Ouellet, Thomas Saïas, Vanessa Sit, Lise Lamothe, Michel Rapinski, Alain Cuerrier, Pierre S. Haddad

Access to Indigenous and allopathic medicines: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators

• PDF

Background: Globally, Indigenous peoples are the victims of social inequalities in health. Their state of health is much lower than the health of the general population. Colonialism, living conditions and access to care are the main determinants of observed health conditions. The scientific objective of this systematic literature review is to study the facilitators and barriers to access healthcare for both, traditional and allopathic medicines.

Methods: An inclusive search of electronic databases (e.g ProQuest, Ovid, Medline, CINAHL PLUS, Cochrane Library, ApaPsyNet, PsyINFO and Sociological Abstracts databases) of the past 20 years was performed. We retained studies discussing (1) traditional medicine (TM) or allopathic medicine (AM) or both and occurring (2) within Indigenous population worldwide. We made no distinction between research carried out in rural as opposed to urban areas.

Results: A total of 45 studies published between 1996 and 2016 met our inclusion criteria and this speaks to the high interest and contemporary pertinence of accessing both systems of healthcare for Indigenous populations worldwide. Our thematic analysis enabled us to group barriers and facilitators into five categories, namely related to personal, relational, cultural, structural and policy components. As far as barriers and facilitators are concerned, the category that encompasses the most themes is the structural category.

Conclusions: Mutual respect, trust and understanding of each other’s modalities is essential to offer the best healthcare options from both AM and TM to Indigenous peoples and hence pave the way to reducing health inequities. Wellness and strength-based approaches must also be favoured.

Karen T. Jackson, Sylvia Burgess, Forrest Toms, Ernest L. Cuthbertson

Community Engagement: Using Feedback Loops to Empower Residents and Influence Systemic Change in Culturally Diverse Communities

• PDF

A multi-faceted approach to community engagement includes the need to involve the community members in the design, implementation and feedback of any program, services, or supports provided. Intentional participatory engagement of residents also requires shared responsibility for workload, shared recognition of achievement, thoughtful communication, engagement in robust discussions taking care not to internalize conversations as personal affronts and holding close the rules of effective decision making (Toms & Burgess, 2014). Implementing a feedback loop process can be used as a tool to foster intentional resident engagement. The findings presented in this article are from a case study of a neighborhood that implemented a feedback loop process. Analysis of data indicate that while transportation, housing, and places for people to safely be outside are real community concerns, acts of nature and choices made by city government also directly impact the quality of life of the residents in this community. The need for purposeful channels of communication to be established among residents, between neighborhood action groups, and city government is evident. Leveraging relationships with community partners to establish trust and organizational understanding of culture within community socio-economic context, along with the multiple layers of community engagement is discussed.

Geraldine L. Palmer

People Who Are Homeless Are “People” First: Opportunity for Community Psychologist to Lead Through Language Reframing

• PDF

The words or labels we use to define, describe and categorize people greatly influence public perception and attitudes. In turn, public perceptions and attitudes play an essential role in shaping policies and practices impacting numerous groups of people, including people who are experiencing homelessness. Yet, and perhaps, inadvertently, we continue to use words that categorically label groups of people bringing back historical meanings of oppression and inequality. The purpose of this paper is to: (1) raise awareness that the use of the terms, “the homeless” and “homeless people” in reference to people experiencing homelessness, perpetuate oppression and inequality; and (2) call community psychologists to lead in transforming how we define, describe and categorize people experiencing homelessness. The author reviews literature that looked at historical connotations behind categorical labeling of people who were homeless and links this underpinning to the terms, “the homeless” and “homeless people”. A concluding discussion offers a language reframing model including using person-first language, as a methodology for influencing public perception and attitudes.