Alaska Native (AN) and American Indian (AI) people are underrepresented in health research, yet many decline to participate in studies due to past researcher misconduct. Southcentral Foundation (SCF), an Alaska Native-owned and operated health care organization, is transforming the relationship between researchers and the tribal community by making trust and accountability required features of health research in AN/AI communities. In 1998, SCF assumed ownership from the federal government of health services for AN/AI people in south central Alaska and transformed the health system into a relationship-based model of care. This change reimagines how researchers interact with tribal communities and established community oversight of all health research conducted with AN/AI people in the region. We describe the SCF research review process, which requires tribal approval of the research concept, full proposal, and dissemination products, as well as local institutional review board approval, and a researcher-signed contract. This review evaluates research through the lens of tribal principles, practices, and priorities. The SCF example provides a framework for other tribes and organizations seeking to reshape the future of health research in AN/AI communities.

Experiences with unethical research practices have caused some American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) individuals, organizations, and tribes to mistrust health research. To build trust and repair relationships, current research with AIAN peoples often involves participatory research (PR) approaches. This article assesses community-level protections described in the scientific literature on PR involving AIAN communities. A scoping review search in PubMed and PsychInfo for articles published between January 2000 and June 2017 yielded an AIAN PR article dataset. Of 178 articles, a subset of 23 articles that described aspects of community protections were analyzed for descriptions of community-level protection practices. We identified the presence or absence of a description of four community protection measures in each article: a tribal research department, the development of community-level mechanisms for research regulation if not present, community collaboration throughout the research process, and project employment of a community member. The development of community-level mechanisms for research regulation was described in 39% of the articles. Ninety-one percent of these articles described community collaboration during the research process. Seventeen percent included descriptions of all four community-level protection measures. The extent and consistency to which community-level protections are described is variable; the current literature lacks reporting on community-level protection practices specific to tribal communities.

Despite evidence that pharmacogenetics can improve tamoxifen pharmacotherapy, there are few studies with American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) people. We examined variation in cytochrome P450 (CYP) genes (CYP2D6, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and CYP2C9) and tamoxifen biotransformation in AIAN patients with breast cancer (n = 42) from the Southcentral Foundation in Alaska and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in Montana. We tested for associations between CYP diplotypes and plasma concentrations of tamoxifen and metabolites. Only the CYP2D6 variation was significantly associated with concentrations of endoxifen (P = 0.0008) and 4-hydroxytamoxifen (P = 0.0074), tamoxifen's principal active metabolites, as well as key metabolic ratios. The CYP2D6 was also the most significant predictor of active metabolites and metabolic ratios in a multivariate regression model, including all four genes as predictors, with minor roles for other CYP genes. In AIAN populations, CYP2D6 is the largest contributor to tamoxifen bioactivation, illustrating the importance of validating pharmacogenetic testing for therapy optimization in an understudied population.

The history of research in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities has been marked by unethical practices, resulting in mistrust and reluctance to participate in research. Harms are not limited to individual persons—tribal communities experience harmful misrepresentation and generalizations disrespectful of AI/AN groups’ heritage, cultures, and beliefs. The Belmont Report’s research ethics principles are applied primarily to protect individual research participants. The principles of sovereignty and solidarity are argued to be important concepts in extending Belmont’s research protections to tribal communities. Sovereignty, an expression of respect for autonomy at a group level, is the basis for tribal self-determination. The principle of solidarity provides an ethical underpinning for tribes’ obligations to protect community interests and culture. Extension of Belmont through these principles should serve to minimize harms to AI/AN groups in research.

This study explored the lived experiences of suicidality and help-seeking for suicide prevention among Alaska Native and American Indian (AN/AI) people in a tribal health system. An interpretive phenomenological approach was used to analyze semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 15 individuals (ages 15–56) with self-reported histories of suicide ideation and/or attempt. Several factors were found to be central to acquiring resilience to suicide risk among AN/AI people across a wide age range: meaningful and consistent social connection, awareness about how one’s suicide would negatively effect loved ones, and knowledge and utilization of available health services. Findings highlight the mutable nature of suicide risk and resilience, as well as the importance of interpersonal factors in suicidality.

As genetic testing technology advances, genetic testing will move into standard practice in the primary care setting. Genetic research, testing, and return of results are complex topics that require input from Alaska Native and American Indian (ANAI) communities as policies are developed for implementation. This study employed a day and half long public deliberation with ANAI primary care patients to elicit value-laden views of genetic research, testing, and return of results. Participants emphasized the need for a balance between the potential for genetics research, testing, and return of results to empower individuals and improve health with the potential to expose individuals and communities to privacy breaches, discrimination, and emotional harms. Public deliberation was well received by this group of participants and elicited rich discussion on the complex topic of genetic research, testing, and return of results.