An exploration of cultural grounding in Indigenous health promotion: perspectives from First Nations communities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the evolving field of Indigenous health promotion, highlighting the use and endorsement of conventional health promotion models despite ongoing efforts toward decolonization. Although some Indigenous-led initiatives exist, such as the Kahnawà:ke Schools Diabetes Prevention Program (KSDPP), deeply entrenched funding models perpetuate dependency on colonial governments, marginalizing traditional knowledge and leadership within Indigenous community health systems. Drawing on community-engaged and participatory research, this study explored the potential of community mobilization to decolonize health promotion in Indigenous communities. The study, conducted during the delivery of KSDPP Community Mobilization Training sessions, explored diverse First Nations community member perspectives on culturally grounded health promotion: what it looks like and how it is implemented. Utilizing talking circles, the study identifies four core knowledge translation processes that illuminate both the nature and practical implementation of culturally grounded health promotion. These processes were grouped as experiential education, social-collaborative, adaptive, and personal cultural healing. The findings underscore the urgent need to recognize and support the ongoing shift toward Indigenous-led health promotion interventions grounded in culture and to challenge the continued reliance on Western health promotion frameworks in Indigenous settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".