The objective of this review is to document contemporary barriers to accessing healthcare faced by Indigenous people of Canada and approaches taken to mitigate these concerns. A narrative review of the literature was conducted. Barriers to healthcare access and mitigating strategies were aligned into three categories: proximal, intermediate, and distal barriers. Proximal barriers include geography, education attainment, and negative bias among healthcare professionals resulting in a lack of or inadequate immediate care in Indigenous communities. Intermediate barriers comprise of employment and income inequities and health education systems that are not accessible to Indigenous people. Distal barriers include colonialism, racism and social exclusion, resulting in limited involvement of Indigenous people in policy making and planning to address community healthcare needs. Several mitigation strategies initiated across Canada to address the inequitable health concerns include allocation of financial support for infrastructure development in Indigenous communities, increases in Indigenous education and employment, development of culturally sensitive education and medical systems and involvement of Indigenous communities and elders in the policy-making system. Indigenous people in Canada face systemic/policy barriers to equitable healthcare access. Addressing these barriers by strengthening services and building capacity within communities while integrating input from Indigenous communities is essential to improve accessibility.

To determine if there was excess mortality in Alberta, Canada during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, to confirm if excess mortality affected all age groups equally, and to determine what proportions of excess deaths were directly related to COVID-19 and non-pharmaceutical drug poisoning. Weekly all-cause data used to estimate excess mortality were modelled against the pre-pandemic period (January 2015–February 2020). Age-adjusted weekly mortality rates for March 2020 to December 2021 were compared with the preceding 5 years. From March 2020 to December 2021, there was an 11% excess mortality rate, corresponding to an average of 265 monthly excess deaths (maximum >30%). COVID-19-related deaths (n=3202) accounted for 54.9% of total excess deaths (n=5833) that occurred in the 22-month period. The increase in all-cause excess deaths was proportionately higher, and with significantly greater numbers, in younger age groups. Significant increases in monthly drug poisoning deaths occurred from March 2020 to April 2021, with a total of 1819 deaths. Eight hundred and 25 excess drug poisoning deaths, representing 25.4% of total all-cause excess deaths, occurred, mainly among those aged 25–60 years. Overall, 54.9% of all excess deaths were directly related to COVID-19 and 25.4% were related to drug poisoning. There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although older adults are more likely to die of COVID-19, a massive increase in non-COVID-19-related mortality was observed among younger people. These factors should be considered in public policy decisions on epidemic/pandemic management.

Indigenous Peoples experience health inequities and racism across the continuum of health services. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence and outcomes of critical illness among Indigenous Peoples. We searched Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to October 2022). Observational studies, case series of > 100 patients, clinical trial arms, and grey literature reports of Indigenous adults were eligible. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and appraised research quality from an Indigenous perspective using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Assessment Tool. ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were compared using risk ratios and mean difference (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. ICU admission was synthesized descriptively. Fifteen studies (Australia and/or New Zealand [n = 12] and Canada [n = 3]) were included. Risk of bias was low in 10 studies and moderate in 5, and included studies had minimal incorporation of Indigenous perspectives or consultation. There was no difference in ICU mortality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous (RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.34, I² = 87%). We observed a shorter ICU length of stay among Indigenous (MD − 0.25; 95%CI, − 0.49 to − 0.00; I² = 95%) and a higher use for IMV among non-Indigenous (RR 1.10; 95%CI, 1.06 to 1.15; I² = 81%). Research on Indigenous Peoples experience with critical care is poorly characterized and has rarely included Indigenous perspectives. ICU mortality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations was similar, while there was a shorter ICU length of stay and less mechanical ventilation use among Indigenous patients. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD42021254661; Registered: 12 June, 2021.

Objective: Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments and organizations have increasingly called for improved Indigenous health data in order to improve health equity among Indigenous peoples. This scoping review identifies best practices, potential consequences and barriers for advancing Indigenous health data and Indigenous data sovereignty globally. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to capture the breadth and nature of the academic and grey literature. We searched academic databases for academic records published between 2000 and 2021. We used Google to conduct a review of the grey literature. We applied Harfield’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (QAT) to all original research articles included in the review to assess the quality of health information from an Indigenous perspective. Results: In total, 77 academic articles and 49 grey literature records were included. Much of the academic literature was published in the last 12 years, demonstrating a more recent interest in Indigenous health data. Overall, we identified two ways for Indigenous health data to be retrieved. The first approach is health care organizations asking clients to voluntarily self-identify as Indigenous. The other approach is through data linkage. Both approaches to improving Indigenous health data require awareness of the intergenerational consequences of settler colonialism along with a general mistrust in health care systems among Indigenous peoples. This context also presents special considerations for health care systems that wish to engage with Indigenous communities around the intention, purpose, and uses of the identification of Indigenous status in administrative databases and in health care settings. Partnerships with local Indigenous nations should be developed prior to the systematic collection of Indigenous identifiers in health administrative data. The QAT revealed that many research articles do not include adequate information to describe how Indigenous communities and stakeholders have been involved in this research. Conclusion: There is consensus within the academic literature that improving Indigenous health should be of high priority for health care systems globally. To address data disparities, governments and health organizations are encouraged to work in collaboration with local Indigenous nations and stakeholders at every step from conceptualization, data collection, analysis, to ownership. This finding highlights the need for future research to provide transparent explanation of how meaningful Indigenous collaboration is achieved in their research.

Background: Indigenous Peoples experience health inequities across the continuum of health services. Improvements for Indigenous patients and their families during vulnerable experiences with the healthcare system may have a significant impact on the patient experience and outcomes. Improved understanding of the occurrence of critical illness in Indigenous Peoples and their use of critical care services, as a strategic priority, may aid in the development of initiatives for improving health equity. A global focus was selected to learn from Indigenous populations’ experiences with critical care, as the understanding of critical illness among Indigenous Peoples in Canada is not well understood. This protocol outlines a systematic review focused on describing the incidence of critical illness and utilization of critical care services among Indigenous Peoples. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched. Relevant Canadian sites for gray literature (National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health, First Nations Health Authority, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Indigenous Peoples’ Health, National Association of Friendship Centres, the Alberta First Nations Information Governance Centre, Métis Nation of Alberta) will also be searched. We will include studies of adults (≥18 years) either without critical illness (i.e., general population) or with critical illness (i.e., admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU)). The exposure of interest will be Indigenous identity. Primary outcome measures are ICU admission and ICU mortality. Because heterogeneity in populations, comparisons, and outcome measures is anticipated, it is likely that the findings will be summarized using a narrative synthesis. A meta-analysis will be performed if there is sufficient evidence on one or more outcomes of interest. Discussion: This systematic review will provide a better understanding of the epidemiology, risk factors, and outcomes of critical illness and utilization of critical care services among Indigenous Peoples. The knowledge generated will be applied to a broader program of work designed to create ethical space to co-design, implement, and evaluate a culturally competent, safe, and innovative model for critical care services for Indigenous People. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021254661