Objective. There is a large disparity in health status between the indigenous peoples of the US Associated Pacific compared to any population in the USA. The research process that has been supported by US academic institutions and federal agencies has been limited in its ability to address the disparate health issues and may be part of the problem. We define culturally competent research and review approaches to developing competency in cross-cultural research with indigenous Pacific Islander populations. Design. This is a descriptive review of the investigators' experience in the Hawaii MEDTEP Center experience and of the experience of others conducting research with the indigenous people of the Pacific Islands. Results. Culturally competent cross-cultural research with the indigenous peoples of the Pacific requires an understanding and application of indigenous peoples' paradigms of health knowledge science and research. It is not sufficient to train more indigenous Pacific Islanders to do more Western-style research. Unraveling the complex health situation and determining the changes that need to be made is dependent on the dominant culture engaging the indigenous Pacific populations in a way that bridges cultural paradigms. Conclusion. Positively affecting the disparity of health in the indigenous populations of the Pacific is in part dependent on employing an indigenous-peoples-centered model of research. The model can have application to the study of indigenous peoples in other parts of the world.

(2001). CIGUATERA FISH POISONING: REVIEW OF CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS. Journal of Toxicology: Toxin Reviews: Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 141-160.

Background.: Cervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality in nearly all U.S. Affiliated Pacific Island Jurisdictions (USAPIJ); however, most jurisdictions are financially and geographically limited in their capacity to deliver routine screening. Methods.: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 72 health care providers from five of the six USAPIJ in 2011 to assess knowledge, beliefs, practices, and perceived barriers regarding routine cervical cancer screening. We compared the responses of providers from jurisdictions that were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) with those that were not funded. Results.: Most providers reported cervical cancer prevention as a priority in their clinical practices (90.3%) and use the Papanicolaou test for screening (86.1%). Many providers reported knowledge of screening guidelines (76.4%); however, more than half reported that annual screening is most effective (56.9%). Providers in non-NBCCEDP-funded jurisdictions reported greater acceptance of visual inspection with acetic acid (93.9%) and self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing (48.5%) compared with NBCCEDP-funded jurisdictions (15.4% and 30.8% respectively). Providers from non-NBCCEDP-funded jurisdictions reported inadequate technological resources for screening women (42.4%), and approximately 25% of providers in both groups believed that screening was cost-prohibitive. Conclusion.: Although cervical cancer screening is a priority in clinical practice, beliefs about annual screening, costs associated with screening, and varying levels of support for alternative screening tests pose barriers to providers throughout the USAPIJ. Further exploration of using evidence-based, lower cost, and sustainable screening technologies is warranted in addition to emphasizing timely follow-up of all positive cases.

Mapping HPV Vaccination and Cervical Cancer Screening Practice in the Pacific Region-Strengthening National and Regional Cervical Cancer Prevention Pacific;cervical cancer;human papillomavirus;vaccination;screening practice; Objective : To provide background information for strengthening cervical cancer prevention in the Pacific by mapping current human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical cancer screening practices, as well as intent and barriers to the introduction and maintenance of national HPV vaccination programmes in the region. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey among ministry of health officials from 21 Pacific Island countries and territories (n=21). Results: Cervical cancer prevention was rated as highly important, but implementation of prevention programs were insufficient, with only two of 21 countries and territories having achieved coverage of cervical cancer screening above 40%. Ten of 21 countries and territories had included HPV vaccination in their immunization schedule, but only two countries reported coverage of HPV vaccination above 60% among the targeted population. Key barriers to the introduction and continuation of HPV vaccination were reported to be: (i) Lack of sustainable financing for HPV vaccine programs; (ii) Lack of visible government endorsement; (iii) Critical public perception of the value and safety of the HPV vaccine; and (iv) Lack of clear guidelines and policies for HPV vaccination. Conclusion: Current practices to prevent cervical cancer in the Pacific Region do not match the high burden of disease from cervical cancer. A regional approach, including reducing vaccine prices by bulk purchase of vaccine, technical support for implementation of prevention programs, operational research and advocacy could strengthen political momentum for cervical cancer prevention and avoid risking the lives of many women in the Pacific.