Spero M Manson1, Eva Garroutte, R Turner Goins, Patricia Nez Henderson. 1. American Indian and Alaska Native Programs, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Nighthorse Campbell Native Health Building, Mail Stop F800, P.O. Box 6508, Aurora, CO 80045-0508, USA. spero.manson@uchsc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To illustrate successful strategies in working with American Indian (AI) and Alaska Native (AN) communities in aging and health research by emphasizing access, local relevance, and decision-making processes. METHODS: Case examples of health studies involving older AIs (greater than or equal to 50 years) among Eastern Band Cherokee Indians, a federally recognized reservation; the Cherokee Nation, a rural, nonreservation, tribal jurisdictional service area; and Lakota tribal members living in Rapid City, South Dakota. RESULTS: Local review and decision making reflect the unique legal and historical factors underpinning AI sovereignty. Although specific approval procedures vary, there are common expectations across these communities that can be anticipated in conceptualizing, designing, and implementing health research among native elders. CONCLUSIONS: Most investigators are unprepared to address the demands of health research in AI communities. Community-based participatory research in this setting conflicts with investigators' desire for academic freedom and scientific independence. Successful collaboration promises to enhance research efficiencies and move findings more quickly to clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To illustrate successful strategies in working with American Indian (AI) and Alaska Native (AN) communities in aging and health research by emphasizing access, local relevance, and decision-making processes. METHODS: Case examples of health studies involving older AIs (greater than or equal to 50 years) among Eastern Band Cherokee Indians, a federally recognized reservation; the Cherokee Nation, a rural, nonreservation, tribal jurisdictional service area; and Lakota tribal members living in Rapid City, South Dakota. RESULTS: Local review and decision making reflect the unique legal and historical factors underpinning AI sovereignty. Although specific approval procedures vary, there are common expectations across these communities that can be anticipated in conceptualizing, designing, and implementing health research among native elders. CONCLUSIONS: Most investigators are unprepared to address the demands of health research in AI communities. Community-based participatory research in this setting conflicts with investigators' desire for academic freedom and scientific independence. Successful collaboration promises to enhance research efficiencies and move findings more quickly to clinical practice.
Authors: Celia B Fisher; Kimberly Hoagwood; Cheryl Boyce; Troy Duster; Deborah A Frank; Thomas Grisso; Robert J Levine; Ruth Macklin; Margaret Beale Spencer; Ruby Takanishi; Joseph E Trimble; Luis H Zayas Journal: Am Psychol Date: 2002-12
Authors: Lori L Jervis; Alexandra Fickenscher; Janette Beals; C Munro Cullum; Douglas K Novins; Spero M Manson; David B Arciniegas Journal: J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.198
Authors: Amy V Groom; Cheyenne Jim; Mic Laroque; Cheryl Mason; Joe McLaughlin; Lisa Neel; Terry Powell; Thomas Weiser; Ralph T Bryan Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Deborah J Morton; Joely Proudfit; Daniel Calac; Martina Portillo; Geneva Lofton-Fitzsimmons; Theda Molina; Raymond Flores; Barbara Lawson-Risso; Romelle Majel-McCauley Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Suzanne Christopher; Vanessa Watts; Alma Knows His Gun McCormick; Sara Young Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Francine Gachupin; Michael D Romero; Willa J Ortega; Rita Jojola; Hugh Hendrie; Eddie Paul Sr Torres; Frank Lujan; Michael Lente; Barbara Sanchez; Verna Teller; Fernando Beita; Ulysses Abeita; Beatrice Lente; Deborah Ruth Gustafson Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 1.847