The lack of literature on Indigenous conceptions of health and the social determinants of health (SDH) for US Indigenous communities limits available information for Indigenous nations as they set policy and allocate resources to improve the health of their citizens. In 2015, eight scholars from tribal communities and mainstream educational institutions convened to examine: the limitations of applying the World Health Organization’s (WHO) SDH framework in Indigenous communities; Indigenizing the WHO SDH framework; and Indigenous conceptions of a healthy community. Participants critiqued the assumptions within the WHO SDH framework that did not cohere with Indigenous knowledges and epistemologies and created a schematic for conceptualizing health and categorizing its determinants. As Indigenous nations pursue a policy role in health and seek to improve the health and wellness of their nations’ citizens, definitions of Indigenous health and well-being should be community-driven and Indigenous-nation based. Policies and practices for Indigenous nations and Indigenous communities should reflect and arise from sovereignty and a comprehensive understanding of the nations and communities’ conceptions of health and its determinants beyond the SDH.

Marginalized communities have a documented distrust of research grounded in negative portrayals in the academic literature. Yet, trusted partnerships, the foundation for Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), require time to build the capacity for joint decision-making, equitable involvement of academically trained and community investigators, and co-learning. Trust can be difficult to develop within the short time between a funding opportunity announcement and application submission. Resources to support community- and academic-based investigators’ time to discuss contexts, concerns, integration of expertise and locally acceptable research designs and data collection are limited. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded Center for American Indian Resilience and the Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative have implemented an internal funding mechanism to support community and academic-based investigators’ travel cost and time to discuss complementary areas of interest and skills and to decide if moving forward with a partnership and a collaborative grant proposal would be beneficial to the community. The rationale and administration of this Community-Campus Partnership Support (CCPS) Program are described and four examples of supported efforts are provided. Centers and training programs frequently fund pilot grants to support junior investigators and/or exploratory research. This CCPS mechanism should be considered as precursor to pilot work, to stimulate partnership building without the pressure of an approaching grant application deadline.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been documented as an effective approach to research with underserved communities, particularly with racial and ethnic minority groups. However, much of the literature promoting the use of CBPR with underserved communities is written from the perspective of the researchers and not from the perspective of the community partner. The purpose of this article is to capture lessons learned from the community partners’ insight gained through their experiences with CBPR. A multi-investigator consensus method was used to qualitatively code the transcripts of a CBPR story-telling video series. Seven major themes were identified: (1) expectations for engaging in research, (2) cultural humility, (3) respecting the partnership, (4) open communication, (5) genuine commitment, (6) valuing strengths and recognizing capacities, and (7) collaborating to yield meaningful results. The themes drawn from the community partner’s voice align with the tenets of CBPR advanced in the academic literature. More opportunities to include the community voice when promoting CBPR should be undertaken to help introduce the concepts to potential community partners who may be research cautious.

This paper details U.S. Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Community Engagement Cores (CECs): (1) unique and cross-cutting components, focus areas, specific aims, and target populations; and (2) approaches utilized to build or sustain trust towards community participation in research. A mixed-method data collection approach was employed for this cross-sectional study of current or previously funded RCMIs. A total of 18 of the 25 institutions spanning 13 U.S. states and territories participated. CEC specific aims were to support community engaged research (94%); to translate and disseminate research findings (88%); to develop partnerships (82%); and to build capacity around community research (71%). Four open-ended questions, qualitative analysis, and comparison of the categories led to the emergence of two supporting themes: (1) establishing trust between the community-academic collaborators and within the community and (2) building collaborative relationships. An overarching theme, building community together through trust and meaningful collaborations, emerged from the supporting themes and subthemes. The RCMI institutions and their CECs serve as models to circumvent the historical and current challenges to research in communities disproportionately affected by health disparities. Lessons learned from these cores may help other institutions who want to build community trust in and capacities for research that addresses community-related health concerns.

Over 500 abandoned uranium mines are located on the Navajo Reservation. Different pathways of environmental uranium exposure have been studied with respect to the Navajo people including water, soil, and plants; however, uranium exposure from traditional Navajo food, specifically mutton (sheep), has not been reported. This study focuses on mutton consumption in the small community of Cameron, Arizona, located in the southwestern region of the Navajo Nation and initiated after community members expressed concern with the uranium exposure of their sheep. Preliminary investigation into the presence of uranium in sheep raised near Cameron showed elevated uranium levels in the kidneys the sheep tested. The goal of this study is to investigate mutton consumption among the Navajo living in Cameron. Mutton is a traditional food of the Navajo, but consumption practices are not well documented. An important aspect of determining the extent of exposure through food consumption is to assess the frequency of consumption. The results of this study indicate the Cameron participants consume mutton most commonly at family gatherings or celebrations. The survey suggests that less mutton is consumed now compared to the past, and there is concern that contaminated mutton may change traditional ceremonies.

Community-based participatory research builds partnerships between communities and academic researchers to engage in research design, decision making, data collection, and dissemination of health promotion initiatives. Community-based participatory projects often have formal agreements or defined roles for community and academic partners. Our project (November 2012-November 2014) was designed to document life narratives of urban American Indian elders as a foundation for developing a resilience-based health promotion curriculum for urban American Indian adolescents aged 12 to 18. We used a flexible method for engaging community partners that honored the individual strengths of elders, encouraged them to describe how they wanted to contribute to the project, and provided multiple ways for elders to engage with university partners. We invited elders to participate in one or more of the following roles: as members of consensus panels to develop interview questions, as members of a community advisory board, or as participants in individual qualitative interviews. The flexibility of roles gave elders the opportunity to serve as advisors, co-developers, interviewees, or reviewers during 2 years of curriculum development. Engaging American Indian elders in the research process acknowledged the multiple layers of expertise they had as traditional leaders in the community while promoting trust in and ownership of the project. This flexible technique can be used by other communities that may not be comfortable with structured processes of engagement.