Objective: We sought to identify trends and themes in how academic health sciences libraries in the United States, Canada and Mexico have supported engagement and outreach with Native Americans, Alaska Natives, First Nations, and Indigenous peoples, in or from those same countries. We also sought to learn and share effective practices for libraries engaging with these communities. Methods: We conducted a scoping review utilizing Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for scoping reviews and followed principles from JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. We searched seven bibliographic databases, E-LIS (Eprints in Library and Information Science repository), and multiple sources of grey literature. Results were screened using Covidence and Google Sheets. We reported our review according to the PRISMA and PRISMA-S guidelines. We determined types of interventions used by academic health sciences libraries in engagement with our included populations, the level of public participation reached by these interventions, what partnerships were established, and what practices emerged. Results: Database searching returned 2,020 unique results. Additional searching resulted in 211 further unique results. Full text screening of relevant articles found 65 reports meeting criteria for inclusion. Data extraction was conducted on these programs to identify partners, intervention type, and evaluation method. The programs were categorized using the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. Conclusion: Our scoping review found that many programs were health information trainings and did not move beyond informing the public with little further involvement. The need for sustained funding, greater community participation and more publishing on engagement and outreach are discussed.
Objective: Through this scoping review we sought to identify trends and themes in how academic health sciences libraries in the United States, Canada and Mexico have supported engagement and outreach with Native Americans, Alaska Natives, First Nations, and Indigenous peoples, in or from those same countries. We also sought to learn and share culturally effective practices for libraries engaging with these communities.Methods: We searched seven bibliographic databases, E-LIS, and multiple sources of grey literature. Results were screened using Covidence and Google Sheets. We utilized Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for scoping reviews and followed principles from Joanna Briggs Institute’s Manual for Evidence Synthesis. We also followed the PRISMA and PRISMA-S guidelines. We determined types of interventions used by academic health sciences libraries in engagement with our included populations, the level of public participation reached by these interventions, what partnerships were established, and what practices emerged.Results: Database searching returned 2,050 unique results, 110 of which were relevant and screened in full text. Additional searching returned 211 unique results for full text screening. After screening, 15 results from database searching were included, and 50 from other sources. From these 65 reports, 45 unique programs were identified. Data extraction was conducted on these programs to identify partners, intervention type, and evaluation method. The programs were categorized using the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation.Conclusions: Our scoping review found that many programs were health information trainings, and did not move beyond informing the public with little further involvement. The need for sustained funding, greater community participation and more publishing on engagement and outreach are discussed.
The University of the SouthThere is limited research on adverse childhood experiences among rural communities in the United States. The purpose of the study was to identify the types of events that Appalachian young people self-identified as low-point life experiences and examine how they responded and coped with those experiences. The study analyzed narratives collected from 71 young people, aged 12-24, who participated in a mixed-methods study on resilience and psychosocial strengths among Southern Appalachian communities. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using qualitative data analysis software. Young people reported several types of adversities, including loss and death, violence exposure and victimization, parent separation and divorce, school difficulties, and physical and mental health problems. Some young people reported "compounded" low-point experiences, similar to polytrauma, with the occurrence of multiple negative events either from two or more types of adversities or involving multiple people. Young people described a variety of positive and negative responses to their low-point experiences. Positive responses involved leisure activities, coping strategies, religious coping and spirituality, and support from family, friends, and professionals. Some positive strategies were tied to Appalachian culture and values. Negative responses included risky and aggressive behaviors, suicidal ideation, and social isolation. A few young people described a transition from using negative to positive strategies, supporting a dynamic process of resilience building. Findings inform the development of strengthbased and resilience-focused interventions for Appalachian young people and families. Public Health Significance Statement Many Appalachian young people in the present study displayed resilience in their abilities to navigate through self-identified low-point experiences by utilizing individual strengths, coping strategies, relationships, and community resources. Several positive coping strategies were tied to Appalachian culture and values, such as family, kinship, and land. Initiatives to promote the health and well-being of Appalachian young people should include culturally adapted, strength-based, and resilience-focused interventions.This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.