A scoping review was conducted to assess the state of the literature on health-related participatory research involving American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Online databases were searched for relevant articles published between 1/1/2000 and 5/31/2017. 10,000+ data points relevant to community-level engagement in and regulation of research, community research capacity and cultural adaptation were extracted from 178 articles. Community engagement varied across study components: 136 (76%) articles reported community participation in research-related meetings and other events and 49 (27%) articles reported community involvement in initiation of research. 156 (88%) articles reported use of community-level tools to guide or regulate research. 93 (52%) articles reported that community members received research-related training. 147 (82%) articles described some type of cultural adaptation. Across all articles, data points on community engagement were not reported in 3061 (40%) out of 7740 cases. Findings suggest a need for increased community engagement in early stages of the research process and for reporting guidelines for participatory research involving American Indian and Alaska Native communities. There is also need to further existing research on the impact of different components of participatory research on process and outcome measures and to develop funding mechanisms that account for the time and resource intensive nature of participatory research.

Persistent, unresolved issues stemming from a legacy of scientific exploitation and bio-colonialism have kept many tribal nations from participating in genomic research. The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research (CEIGR) aims to model meaningful community engagement that moves toward more inclusive and equitable research practices related to genomics. This article reflects on key successes and challenges behind CEIGR’s efforts to shape Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) research in ways that are informed by Indigenous perspectives, to locate community partnerships at the center of genomics research, and to conduct normative and empirical research with Indigenous communities that is grounded in the concepts of reciprocity, transparency and cultural competency. The structure of CEIGR represents an important shift away from a traditional model centered on a university-based principal investigators toward a partner-centered research approach that emphasizes equity and community control by distributing power and decision-making across all CEIGR partner sites. We discuss three features of CEIGR that have contributed to this shift towards an equitable, community-driven partnership: 1) balancing local priorities with collective goals; 2) distributing power in ways that promote equitable partnerships; and 3) capacity building and co-learning across partner sites. The discussion of these three areas in this article speaks to a particular strength of our Center: the interdependence among partners and collective willingness to maintain a plasticity of leadership that creates space for all of our partners to lead, support, exchange and strengthen ELSI research.

Background: Multiple factors, including experiences with unethical research practices, have made some Indigenous groups in the United States and Canada reticent to participate in potentially beneficial health-related research. Yet, Indigenous peoples have also expressed a willingness to participate in research when certain conditions related to the components of data management—including data collection, analysis, security and storage, sharing, dissemination, and withdrawal—are met. A scoping review was conducted to better understand the terms of data management employed in health-related research involving Indigenous communities in the United States and Canada. Methods: PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and Web of Science were searched using terms related to the populations and topics of interest. Results were screened and articles deemed eligible for inclusion were extracted for content on data management, community engagement, and community-level research governance. Results: The search strategy returned 734 articles. 31 total articles were extracted, of which nine contained in-depth information on data management and underwent detailed extraction. All nine articles reported the development and implementation of data management tools, including research ethics codes, data-sharing agreements, and biobank access policies. These articles reported that communities were involved in activities and decisions related to data collection (n=7), data analysis (n=5), data-sharing (n=9), dissemination (n=7), withdrawal (n=4), and development of data management tools (n=9). The articles also reported that communities had full or shared ownership of (n=5), control over (n=9), access to (n=1), and possession of data (n=5). All nine articles discussed the role of community engagement in research and community-level research governance as means for aligning the terms of data management with the values, needs, and interests of communities. Conclusions: There is need for more research and improved reporting on data management in health-related research involving Indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada. Findings from this review can provide guidance for the identification of data management terms and practices that may be acceptable to Indigenous communities considering participation in health-related research.

Public deliberation has risen to the forefront of governance as a technique for increasing participation in policy making. Scholars and practitioners have also noted the potential for deliberation to give greater influence to historically marginalized populations, such as Indigenous peoples. However, there has been less attention paid to the potential fit between the ideals of deliberation and the governance and decision making practices of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) peoples. In this paper, we begin to address this gap by analyzing accounts of AI/AN governance from the perspective of deliberation, and note areas of overlap, synergy, and conflict. We conduct a close reading of key historical and ethnographic accounts of four historical AI/AN contexts—the Iroquois Confederation under the Great Law of Peace, 19th century accounts of the Ojibwa village, the Santa Clara Pueblo government in pre-19th century, and Yup’ik village life in the early 20th century—and a more contemporary case in the form of the Santa Clara Pueblo’s Constitution from the Indian Reorganization Act period. We then apply two sets of key criteria for deliberative democracy—from the scholars Robert Dahl and John Gastil—to these accounts and note the ways in which each system is or is not congruent with these frameworks of deliberation. We find variations between these historical tribal contexts in our analysis. Social components of deliberation, such as respectful discussion and equal opportunities to participate, were partially or fully present in many accounts of governance practices, but it was less clear whether the analytic components, such as discussion of a range of solutions, were included in some forms of tribal governance. We then explore the potential implications of our findings for public deliberation within and in AI/AN tribes. We note that deliberative scholars and practitioners should be wary of overgeneralizing about AI/AN tribes.

Background: Precision medicine seeks to better tailor medical care to the needs of individual patients, but there are challenges involved in communicating to patients, health care providers, and health system leaders about this novel and complex approach to research and clinical care. These challenges may be exacerbated for Alaska Native and American Indian (ANAI) people, whose experiences of unethical research practices have left some ANAI communities hesitant to engage in research that involves extensive data-sharing and diminished control over the terms of data management and who may have distinct, culturally-informed communication needs and preferences. There is need for communication research to support Tribal health organizations and ANAI people as they consider implementation of and participation in precision medicine. To address that need, this study characterizes the informational needs and communication preferences of patients, providers, and leaders at an Alaska Native Tribal health organization. Methods: We conducted 46 individual, semi-structured interviews to explore perspectives on precision medicine and related communication needs among patients, providers, and leaders of a Tribal health organization. Analysis involved team-based coding to identify a priori and emergent themes, followed by identification and recoding of content relevant to precision medicine informational needs and communication preferences. Results: Patients, providers, and leaders were described as both sources and recipients of information about precision medicine. Information deemed essential for making decisions about whether to participate in or implement a precision medicine program included information about the clinical and research applications of precision medicine, benefits and risks, health system costs and impacts, and data management practices. Preferred communication channels included digital and non-digital informational materials, as well as in-person learning opportunities for individuals and groups. Participants also describe contextual factors and barriers that influenced the acceptability and effectiveness of approaches to health communication. Conclusion: Results can inform approaches to communicating information about precision medicine to stakeholders within Tribal and other health care systems considering implementation of precision medicine in clinical or research contexts.

Precision medicine holds promise for improving health care by tailoring disease treatment and prevention efforts to the needs of individual patients. It also raises ethical questions related to equitable distribution of the benefits of precision medicine; data management, including the terms of data ownership, sharing, and security; and, the nature and extent of community engagement in and oversight of research. These questions are particularly salient for minoritized communities that have been harmed by unethical research practices and often deprived the full benefit of advances in medical science. Understanding the perspectives of these communities is essential to the design and conduct of ethical and effective precision medicine research. This study explored perspectives on the acceptability, feasibility, value, and benefits and harms of precision medicine research among Alaska Native and American Indian (ANAI) peoples. We conducted four focus groups with ANAI individuals who receive primary care from a Tribal health organization in Anchorage, Alaska. Participants were willing to engage in precision medicine research provided specific requirements were met. Research must be conducted by the Tribal health organization or another trusted partner, community health priorities must drive the research agenda, and researchers must employ robust data protections to guard against loss of data security and maintain control over data use and access. These requirements work collectively to ensure research benefits and respects Tribal sovereignty. These findings could help inform efforts to design and implement precision medicine research programs tailored to concerns of ANAI peoples.