You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Diseases
  • Article
  • Open Access

8 March 2023

Three Perspectives on the Experience of Support for Family Caregivers in First Nations Communities

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Faculty of Medicine, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada
2
Samson Cree Nation, Maskwacis, AB T0C 1N0, Canada
3
Enoch Cree Nation, Enoch, AB T7X 3Y3, Canada
4
Division of Care of the Elderly, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2T4, Canada

Abstract

There is a dearth of research on how family caregivers are supported in First Nations. We interviewed family caregivers, health and community providers, and leaders in two Alberta First Nations Communities about their experiences of care and support for the family caregivers in their communities. We employed a qualitative, collaborative participatory action research methodology. We drew on Etuaptmumk, the Mi’kmaw understanding of being in the world is the gift of multiple perspectives. Participants in this research included family caregivers (n = 6), health and community providers (n = 14), and healthcare and community leaders (n = 6). The overarching caregiving theme is the “Hierarchy of challenge”. Six themes capture the challenges faced by family caregivers: (one) “Caregiving is a demanding job”: yet “No one in a sense is taking care of them”; (two) difficult navigation: “I am unable to access that”; (three) delayed assessments and treatment “And I don’t know how they’re being missed”; (four) disconnected health records: “It’s kind of on you to follow up”; (five) racism, “It’s treated differently”; and, (six) social determinants of health, “A lot of these factors have been developing for the longest time”. This study provides evidence that family caregivers’ need to care for and to maintain their own wellbeing is not top of mind in policy or programs in these First Nations communities. As we advocate for support for Canadian family caregivers, we need to ensure that Indigenous family caregivers are also recognized in policy and programs.

1. Introduction

One in four Canadians is a family caregiver (FCG) [,]. We define FCGs (carers and care partners) as any person, a family member, chosen family, friend, or neighbor who takes on a generally unpaid caring role providing emotional, physical, or practical support in response to mental or physical illness, disability, or frailty. In the Cree language, a caregiver/healer is Onatahwihwew and the business of a caregiver taking care of is Onakahtohkewin. While most (87%) adult children who are FCGs to their parents say giving care is rewarding [], intensive care work, that is, caring for over 21 h weekly for people with severe impairments, dementia, depression, or anger or responsive behaviors can physically and psychologically drain FCGs [,,]. American and Canadian scholars Taylor and Quesnel-Vallée theorize that the “structural burden of care”, which is becoming aware of, finding, negotiating for, and then managing siloed health and community social care services, adds significantly to FCGs burden []. Researchers indicate that indigenous FCGs’ caregiving experiences are more difficult than non-Aboriginal FCGs [,].
Delivery of aboriginal health services and continuing care is complex [,,]. Minister Mark Miller’s 2020 report [] and the 2018 report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs [] noted that the “complicated and ambiguous framework” of overlapping responsibilities and current policies shared between federal and provincial governments, different ministries and departments, First Nations leadership, organizations, communities, and third-party service providers make it challenging for aboriginal people to access the services they need. Services also vary considerably across governmental levels and policy jurisdictions []. To date, the federal government has played a lead role in the delivery of services to First Nations living on reserves that would otherwise be delivered by provinces or territories []. The provinces and territories deliver services for First Nations living off First Nations. In some areas of provincial jurisdiction, Indigenous Services Canada has adopted alternative service delivery models involving bilateral or tripartite agreements, that specify distinct coordination of funding and service delivery []. Indigenous ways of being, knowing, and understanding are not necessarily incorporated in the design, development, or delivery of the services [].
The complex First Nations health and continuing care delivery systems are also challenging for the healthcare providers who work with Aboriginal people and their families [,]. Some of the factors preventing health providers from meeting First Nations and Inuit peoples’ needs within the home care program included recruitment and retention of nurses, personal care providers, and other human resources; lack of training; understaffing resulting in inefficient care delivery; communication gaps with physicians, hospitals, and regional health authorities; and the challenges communicating with clients and families []. Indigenous Services Canada also identified increased demands from greater numbers of people with complex care needs, multiple chronic conditions, mental health, and addictions []. Although not voluminous, there is some literature on the experiences of Canadian indigenous caregivers [,], however there is a dearth of literature from FCGs’ and providers’ perspectives.
The aim of this paper is to report the experience of First Nations FCGs, health and community providers, and leaders of support and care for FCGs in First Nations communities.

1.1. Working with First Nations Communities

We began by meeting representatives from two Alberta First Nations communities to understand what might be useful for them to understand about FCGs. The representatives from both communities spoke about the complexities Aboriginal FCGs face getting services and the difficulty their health providers face trying to meet FCGs’ needs. They were very concerned about the differences between what First Nations FCGs living on and off the First Nation could access.
They also stressed that we needed to take a holistic, aboriginal social determinants of health approach to understand how caregiving links to larger levels of influence, such as Indigenous culture, policies (colonialism, housing, water, lack of funding for health care facilities, and community health/home care), finances (poverty, costs, and employment) services (transportation and service delivery organization) and practices. Beginning with the ceremony was important as was ensuring that we respect the space First Nations people share with us.

1.2. Context

People from two Treaty Six Cree Nations participated in this research. The Samson Cree Nation, (Cree: Nîpisîhkopâhk) is the largest of four band governments in Maskwacis in central Alberta. By the 2021 census, 3252 people live in the First Nation. The Enoch Cree Nation (Cree: Maskêkosihk) controls two reserves. The Enoch Cree Nation 135 is west of the City of Edmonton and 135A is south of the Town of Barrhead. The 2021 census population was 1825. Members of both Nations are of Cree ancestry and primarily speak the Plains Cree dialect of the Cree language group.

2. Materials and Methods

We employed a qualitative, collaborative, and participatory action research methodology. We drew on Etuaptmumk, the Mi’kmaw understanding of being in the world is the gift of multiple perspectives [,]. The Etuaptmumk view is that indigenous and nonindigenous views can be seen as complementary with researchers from both viewpoints considered as allies []. This approach seeks to recenter indigenous knowledge and concerns within knowledge [,]. Western knowledge is not rejected, rather it is seen as partial, a colonists’ record that needs to be balanced and resituated within indigenous histories and worldviews []. Throughout this research, we reflected on the unequal power relations that have historically dominated research and tried to address the unequal power relations by doing this project with aboriginal people, in ways that empower and benefit the people and the aboriginal communities participating. We recognize that there are over 600 different First Nations cultures and the Cree culture in the First Nations communities in our study is different from the Mi’kmaw culture; thus guided by community advisors, we followed the cultural protocols within each community. After receiving ethics approval from the University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board, we began with a pipe ceremony to introduce the project to the community and seek community participation. Throughout this research, the aboriginal people in these communities were central in guiding the design, data collection, reviewing the findings, and developing recommendations.

2.1. Participatory Action Research

This research is the beginning of participatory action research (PAR). PAR involves researchers and participants working together to (1) understand the situation, the problems, and the strengths and (2) change it for the better. Typically, it is an iterative cycle of research, action, and reflection that seeks to raise participants’ awareness of their situation and works with them to take action. We are just beginning to work together on this research. Our goal was to build trusting relationships.

2.2. Participant Recruitment

This was a convenience, snowball sample. Community representatives advised community members about the research study. Community members interested in participating could contact the research coordinator or research assistant (1) by phone or email to arrange for an interview in the place and time of their choosing or (2) they could choose from posted dates when the research assistant would be in the community to conduct interviews. Participants were asked to tell others in their networks about the interviews. In these small communities where everyone knows everyone, several participants were particularly concerned about privacy.

2.3. Data Collection

Guided by our community advisors, people were invited to share their stories in individual interviews. Community advisors, a First Nations registered nurse with training and experience conducting qualitative interviews, and the research team designed an interview guide to encourage people to tell their stories of being family caregiving or being a health or community care provider caring for family caregivers or a health or community leader. It began with a general question about caregiving in the First Nation and then about their role, experiences, and what they thought might make caregiving or supporting caregivers easier (see Supplementary File S1: interview guide). A First Nations registered nurse with training and experience conducting qualitative interviews completed all the interviews in addition to qualitative interview training which followed Olson’s [] qualitative interview methodology. Aligned with qualitative participatory research methods, the research coordinator or the principal investigator, and the research assistant reviewed the interviews and discussed what might be explored in the next interviews. Interviews were conducted on ZOOM, by telephone, or in person, based on each participant’s preference. She followed community COVID-19 and World Health Organization protocols to protect participants in in-person interviews. Participants received $30 honoraria. Interviews lasted 35 min to 75 min.

2.4. Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and then checked for accuracy and cleaned of any identifying information. They were imported into NVIVO for data management. We used Braun and Clarke’s [] thematic data analysis methods. Thematic analysis is a flexible qualitative method used to explore the different perspectives held by research participants; it highlights the similarities and divergences in their viewpoints and generates thematic insights []. Braun and Clarke’s [] analysis proceeds in six stages. To become familiar with the data and to generate first impressions of meaning (stage one), two members of the research team independently read participants’ responses and made notes of their impressions in memos in NVivo. In stage two, members of the research team worked separately to inductively generate initial open codes. In stage three, team members worked together to generate categories. Patterns within the open codes were identified and codes with similar attributes and meanings were grouped. The categories were then refined into preliminary themes (stage four) using critical questions such as “what is happening here” and “what is being said here” and “why”? At stage four, the community advisory and research teams discussed how the knowledge might apply in these First Nations communities, influence health providers’ work with FCGs, and how this knowledge might influence practices and policies. We then reread the transcripts to name and confirm the final themes (stage five). We generated a report (stage six) and shared it with the communities.

3. Results

Participants in this research included FCGs (n = 6), health and community providers (n = 14), and healthcare and community leaders (n = 6). All FCGs identified as First Nations and providers and leaders as First Nations, Cree, Canadian, Caucasian, Filipino, and Black. All were over 21 and two were over 65 years of age. Over half of the providers currently were or had been FCGs. The roles they identified with included: family caregiver, dental therapist, community health worker, director of health, medical transportation coordinator, manager, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, program officer, chief, manager, health policy, health services advisor, health manager, lawyer, advanced care paramedic, home care nurse, outreach coordinator, and doctor. In what follows, first, we situate the research with the participants’ descriptions of FCGs, then move to the themes.
The overarching caregiving theme is the “Hierarchy of challenge” in which aboriginal FCGs, health providers, and healthcare leadership were coping with siloed and complex community, healthcare, policy, and funding systems. Six themes capture the challenges faced by FCGs: (one) “Caregiving is a demanding job”: “No one in a sense is taking care of them”; (two) difficult navigation: “I am unable to access that”; (three) delayed assessments and treatment “And I don’t know how they’re being missed”; (four) disconnected health records: “It’s kind of on you to follow up”; (five) racism, “It’s treated differently”; and (six) social determinants of health, “A lot of these factors have been developing for the longest time”. These challenges also impact providers’ ability to care for FCGs. We place FCGs’, providers’, and leaders’ exemplar quotes side by side in Table 1 to show the convergence.
Table 1. Demographics.

3.1. Situating Family Caregiving and Who Needs Care

We began the interviews by asking participants about “caregivers” (“Who were the caregivers in the community?”) and care receivers, (“Who needs the most care?”) and to tell us about caregiving and receiving in ‘this community’.

Caregiving: “It’s Part of Our Nature”

Participants described caregiving as part of the Cree culture: “We just do it because it’s part of our nature”. They explained how it was their role to care for people needing care when called on. Both caregiving and needing care were seen as valued roles given by the creator, the caregiver’s, and the care receiver’s purposes at this time in their life. FCGs, health providers, and leaders all explained that the entire family are caregivers. The family included the immediate family, such as grandparents, parents, children and siblings, maternal and paternal aunts and uncles, cousins and other kin, as well as all people in the community. “We are all intertwined”. Building on the broad view of caregiving as part of the Cree cultural identity and aboriginal kin of all ages as caregivers, participants also included the employed health and community providers as caregivers.

3.2. Overarching Theme: “Hierarchy of Challenge”

Despite providing a holistic view of care and caregivers, as the interviews proceeded, participants told stories of a siloed approach to care and siloed supports at all levels of influence. FCGs, health providers, and leaders all talked about the difficulty of dealing with many different levels of government including the Federal Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) and First Nations and Inuit Health Branch (FNIHB), Provincial Alberta Health, Alberta Seniors and Housing, Alberta Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Alberta Family and Community Support Services, the Health Centre in their First Nations community, Alberta Health Services hospitals, homecare, and long-term care, primary care and medical specialists off reserve, First Nations leadership and administration, as well as the programs and services offered in the community (e.g., home care, elders’ supports, housing, ambulance, and medical transportation). One community leader described coping with numerous, complex systems as the “hierarchy of challenge” with ISC and FNIHB at the top, First Nations leaders “almost at the top”, and vulnerable FCGs “at the bottom”,
The systems themselves are very much built on a hierarchy, a Western type of colonialist mentality. So, for whatever reason, and this has been ongoing for a number of years now, where elected leaders are almost at the top, and then the most vulnerable people who actually put us into office seem to be at the bottom. And then in-between there’s all these programs and services like this hierarchy of like challenge.
[Leader]

3.2.1. Theme 1: “Caregiving Is a Demanding Job” Yet, “No One in a Sense Is Taking Care of Them”

Participants acknowledged that being a First Nations FCG was demanding work. Even though the family is important, these participants portrayed one person as the primary caregiver. FCGs spoke to being on their own as they learned about the illness or condition and as they tried to access services and support. Health and community providers and leaders concurred that FCGs were taking on complex care primarily without healthcare or community support. FCGs, providers, and leaders all talked about FCGs needing knowledge about illness and education, about the conditions the person they were caring for, as well as supports to care for and to maintain their own wellbeing. A leader pointed out that while most patients had FCGs accompanying them, there was no specific department or program with responsibility for FCGs, and there was no care specifically for FCGs. The leader hoped that training health providers would “trickle-down” to caregivers. See Table 2: Exemplar Quotes by Theme: Family Caregivers, Health and Social Care Providers, and Leaders
Table 2. Exemplar Quotes by Theme: Family Caregivers, Health and Social Care Providers, and Leaders.

3.2.2. Theme 2: Difficult Navigation, “I Am Unable to Access That”

All participants spoke about the difficulty that both FCGs and health and community providers had navigating health and community systems. In participants’ descriptions, FCGs were responsible for learning about and managing the care receiver’s health condition, caring for, and navigating the health and community care systems. FCGs also had to advocate for and coordinate care from each health and social care provider, program, and department. All participants reported that the healthcare and home care of First Nations offered a greater range of services. They provided examples of outpatient medical services, rehabilitation, home care, and others that were more accessible and comprehensive if people moved off the First Nation. Many participants talked about how limiting First Nation’s home care to “banker’s hours”, weekdays from 9–5, was not meeting FCGs’ needs.
Caregivers, providers, and leaders all talked about advocating for better services for FCGs. Notably, the FCGs participating in this research said that they were advocating for others who were afraid to or did not have the skills to advocate for themselves. Providers were aware of the system’s shortcomings so suggested navigators, a team approach, and systemic changes based on the FCG’s and patient’s needs would improve navigation. A leader connected the difficulty navigating specifically to siloed federal, provincial, and First Nation responsibility for services and supports.

3.2.3. Theme 3: Delayed Assessments and Treatment, “and I Don’t Know How They’re Being Missed”

Every caregiver told stories of delayed diagnosis, assessments, and treatments. Caregivers of children with a variety of conditions—cerebral palsy, autism, or a cleft larynx–spoke about delayed diagnoses. The health provider who provided palliative care for her mother and then her sister talked about a “gap” in which Aboriginal people “were not being tracked” and “getting missed” from hospitals to services in the First Nation. Health providers connected delayed assessments and treatments to caregivers’ difficulty navigating the system. After discussing similar concerns as FCGs and providers, a leader related healthcare delays to the systemic racism built into funding mechanisms, which he contended left aboriginal people having to justify why they needed services and expecting to be treated differently.

3.2.4. Theme 4: Disconnected Health Records, “It’s Kind of on You to Follow Up”

After two caregivers attributed some of the difficulty, they were having to access services to disconnected, inaccessible healthcare records, we explored participants’ experiences with health records and how that affected patients and caregivers. Health and community providers and leaders confirmed that different levels of government were using a variety of different health records systems. It appeared to depend on health providers to check health records from other providers who were using and coordinate continuity of care.

3.2.5. Theme 5: Racism, “It’s Treated Differently”

All the caregivers related racism to how they as caregivers were treated. One caregiver grappled to find the words to describe being treated differently by health providers at the local hospital in comparison to urban hospitals, while other caregivers spoke directly to racism in being “accused” of not caring appropriately or in the way they were treated. One caregiver, several health providers, and leaders linked racist outcomes, such as the FCGs’ difficulty accessing support in a timely manner and being turned away at dental offices, to racism. The senior leader recommended talking openly about racism in the healthcare system.

3.2.6. Theme 6: Social Determinants of Health, “A Lot of These Factors Have Been Developing for the Longest Time”

FCGs, health providers, and leaders all referred to upstream social determinants of health such as poverty, housing, safe water, lack of trust in the system, and experiences of racism that made caregiving more difficult. Although a health provider noted that there was no place in the policy for health transfer policies for FCGs, she observed that not supporting FCGs was not an isolated problem. She estimated the “intermingling” of issues and “convoluted” processes that prevent care for FCGs likely affected 95% of the over 600 Canadian First Nations. One leader ventured that access to programs and services was not equitable for people in poverty and that there were gaps in all programs that needed to be addressed.

4. Discussion

In these First Nations Communities, participants characterized Onakahtohkewin, the business of a caregiver taking care of someone, as a chronic unaddressed challenge that takes a backseat to acute challenges. For the most part, FCGs are not being taken care of, rather they are at the bottom of a “hierarchy of challenges”. As a health leader noted, “there is no department for family caregivers”. FCGs are not recognized in the convoluted multilevel layers of existing siloed policies and programs that dominate indigenous people’s lives. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action [] are beginning to bring about change in cultural recognition and policies, however, as these participants pointed out, family caregiving is not a pressing issue.
Indigenous FCGs, like all Canadian FCGs, are essential to support the social connections, dignity, and wellbeing of the people they care for [,,,,]. In traditional Cree culture, family caregiving is valued for the purpose that the role gives to the caregivers’ lives and for the value of caregiving to the individual and the community as a whole. FCGs’ care work is also crucial to sustain the formal health and social care system [,,]. Canadian FCGs provide 90% of the care to people living in private community homes [] and assist with 15 to 30% of the care in supportive living and long-term care [,]. Many of the participants in this study suggested that First Nations FCGs are likely providing more care, as they expected to provide care without the support available to nonindigenous Canadian caregivers []. Indigenous FCGs urgently need integrated policy, health, and social care systems to support them to care for and maintain their health.
In addition to providing care, these First Nations FCGs were struggling with a much greater structural burden of care []. The structural burden of care is the time spent identifying the services and supports needed, looking for and accessing the services, and then coordinating services. At the point of care, FCGs and the people they care for were dependent on health providers coordinating disconnected federal, provincial, and community health records and relaying that information to them so they become knowledgeable about the health condition with which they are dealing and then finding, negotiating for, and managing siloed health and community social care services. Health providers stressed that many times, coordination at the point of care was lacking. They too were stymied by the complicated records systems and policies between different government levels. Racine and colleagues’ [] review of the experience of indigenous caregiving for dementia related to the burden of geographic isolation, lack of funding for healthcare facilities, and legacies of colonial policies and trauma. We agree that these factors also increase the indigenous structural burden of care. Most participants noted that the supports such as home care, rehabilitation, or respite were more comprehensive and accessible through provincial healthcare than on the First Nation. All levels of governments need to ensure that indigenous FCGs are not disadvantaged because they live in a First Nation or Metis Settlement.
Navigation was extremely difficult for these First Nations FCGs as well as the health and community providers who were trying to support them. All participants provided examples of FCGs trying to access support, however, being put on long waiting lists, told that they had to apply to another level of government for coverage, shuffled out without treatment, or missed completely. The difficulty navigating contributed to delays in diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, and timely access to support. Timely rehabilitation or treatment for children with cerebral palsy, autism, or other conditions is essential for them to thrive. Jordan’s Principle holds that First Nations children should not be denied access to public services while governments fight over who should pay [,,]. Adults also need timely preventive care, diagnosis, and treatment. Providers suggested a navigator might reduce some of the difficulties both they and the FCGs faced trying to access health services.
Participants all discussed racism that ranged from being treated differently to overt discrimination in which aboriginal people were denied services. They tied unaddressed social determinants of health like poverty, inadequate housing, unsafe water, and health issues to colonial policies and systemic racism. Systemic racism is associated with inconsistent and low-quality care for indigenous people []. Racism is a potent psychosocial stressor that combines with other factors to increase poverty, reduce access to employment, reduce mental and physical health, and increase premature mortality. [,] Indigenous people need access to culturally informed and equitable health care, which might also help to address indigenous health inequities [,,]. Bruno [] suggests that experiential learning is likely superior to cultural awareness training. Moreover, as there are more than 650 recognized First Nations with diverse cultures, languages, and histories he recommends a community-based approach.

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

Triangulating the views of FCGs, health and community providers, and healthcare and community leaders is a strength of this study. We were surprised by the congruence in their views. The interviews were conducted by a First Nations health provider who developed a rapport with the participants to produce very rich interviews. These two communities are both Cree and have similar traditions. While they are rural, they are not remote and relatively advantaged compared to other Alberta First Nations. We expect that some of the themes would be different in other communities, particularly those that are remote, fly-in communities. Based on this and other research, we think that the FCGs’ needs receive less attention than other acute needs in most indigenous communities. FCGs are referred to as “Invisible” and “the backbone of the health system” [,]. We need to make First Nations and Metis FCG’s work visible too.
The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs report on the challenges of delivering continuing care in First Nations communities [] stressed that little research had been done on continuing healthcare services on First Nations. This study was exploratory and there is much more that needs to be done in these communities and other remote First Nations communities. A strength of this research is that it revealed the difficulty FCGs, providers, and leaders have in dealing with the complex array of government policies and records systems.

4.2. Implications

Although we did not assess these aboriginal FCGs’ health and wellbeing, worldwide, FCGs are at increased risk of deteriorating health [,] and financial insecurity [] which makes the FCG role itself a public health issue and social determinant of health [,]. Both Public Health England [] and the American National Caregiving Alliance [] point to a greater proportion of FCGs than noncarers with chronic conditions and had difficulty taking care of their own health. Framing family caregiving from the public health perspective positions issues related FCGs’ work and role as a lifecourse population health concern. We know that if the caregiver is healthy, the quality of care and life of the person receiving care will be substantially improved. We did a report to the community on 24 January 2023 and will work with the communities to finalize and then report on the recommendations.

5. Conclusions

This study provides evidence that FCGs’ needs to care for and maintain their own wellbeing are not top of mind in policy or programs in these First Nations communities. As we advocate for support for Canadian FCGs, we need to ensure that indigenous FCGs are also recognized in policy and programs. There should be a department that explicitly ensures that FCGs are considered.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/diseases11010047/s1, File S1: Semi-structured interview guide.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.P., S.A., L.C. and P.G.T.; methodology, J.P., C.P., S.A., L.C., A.W., L.B., C.M. and P.G.T.; software, S.A. and P.G.T.; validation, J.P., S.A., A.W., L.B., C.M., T.L. and P.G.T.; formal analysis, J.P., S.A., A.W., L.B. and C.M.; investigation, J.P., S.A., A.W., L.B. and C.M.; resources, J.P., S.A. and P.G.T.; data curation, J.P., S.A., A.W., L.B., C.M. and P.G.T.; writing—original draft preparation, J.P., S.A., A.W., L.B., C.M. and T.L.; writing—review and editing, J.P., S.A., A.W., L.B., C.M., T.L., L.C., C.P. and P.G.T.; visualization, J.P., S.A. and P.G.T.; supervision, J.P.; project administration, J.P., S.A. and P.G.T.; funding acquisition, J.P., L.C. and C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The Azrieli Foundation RES0059634 and the Northern Alberta Academic Family Medicine Fund #RICF07.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Office REB 3-Health Panel of the University of Alberta (Pro00118837 28 March 2022).

Data Availability Statement

This intellectual property belongs to the Nations. The Nations have the autonomy to decide how, with whom, and when this information is shared. Please email sdanders@ualberta.ca to inquire about access.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the people who gave generously of their time to participate in this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fast, J. Value of Family Caregiving in Canada; University of Alberta: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2022; p. 2. [Google Scholar]
  2. Statistics Canada. More than half of women provide care to children and care-dependent adults in Canada. Daily 2022, 11, 8. [Google Scholar]
  3. Livingston, G. Adult Caregiving Often Seen as Very Meaningful by Those Who Do It. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/adult-caregiving-often-seen-as-very-meaningful-by-those-who-do-it/ (accessed on 8 November 2020).
  4. Pilapil, M.; Coletti, D.J.; Rabey, C.; DeLaet, D. Caring for the Caregiver: Supporting Families of Youth With Special Health Care Needs. Curr. Probl. Pediatr. Adolesc. Health Care 2017, 47, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Schulz, R.; Beach, S.R.; Czaja, S.J.; Martire, L.M.; Monin, J.K. Family caregiving for older adults. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2020, 71, 635–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Pauley, T.; Chang, B.W.; Wojtak, A.; Seddon, G.; Hirdes, J. Predictors of Caregiver Distress in the Community Setting Using the Home Care Version of the Resident Assessment Instrument. Prof. Case Manag. 2018, 23, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Taylor, M.G.; Quesnel-Vallée, A. The structural burden of caregiving: Shared challenges in the United States and Canada. Gerontologist 2017, 57, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Cooper, E.J.; Sanguins, J.; Menec, V.; Chartrand, A.F.; Carter, S.; Driedger, S.M. Culturally responsive supports for metis elders and metis family caregivers. Can. J. Aging 2020, 39, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Kelley, M.L.; Prince, H.; Nadin, S.; Brazil, K.; Crow, M.; Hanson, G.; Maki, L.; Monture, L.; Mushquash, C.J.; O’Brien, V.; et al. Developing palliative care programs in indigenous communities using participatory action research: A Canadian application of the public health approach to palliative care. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2018, 7, S52–S72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Sinclair, M. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action; Government of Canada, Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2015. Available online: https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2020).
  11. Buller, M. Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls; Government of Canada, National Commission into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2019; p. 728. Available online: https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1a-1.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  12. Buller, M. Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls; Government of Canada, National Commission into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2019; p. 352. Available online: https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1b.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  13. Miller, M. Annual Report to Parliament 2020; Government of Canada, Indigenous Services Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2020. Available online: https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/ForcePDFDownload?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sac-isc.gc.ca%2fDAM%2fDAM-ISC-SAC%2fDAM-TRNSPRCY%2fSTAGING%2ftexte-text%2fannual-report-parliament-arp-report2020_1648059621383_eng.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  14. Mihychuk, M. The Challenges of Delivering Continuing Care in First Nations Communities: Report on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs; Government of Canada, Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2018; p. 69. Available online: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/INAN/Reports/RP10260656/inanrp17/inanrp17-e.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  15. Indigenous Services Canada. Evaluation of the First Nations and Inuit Home and Community Care Program; Indigenous Services Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2019; p. 30. Available online: https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1582550638699/1582550666787 (accessed on 17 April 2022).
  16. Racine, L.; Ford, H.; Johnson, L.; Fowler-Kerry, S. An integrative review of Indigenous informal caregiving in the context of dementia care. J. Adv. Nurs. 2022, 78, 895–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Iwama, M.; Marshall, M.; Marshall, A.; Bartlett, C. Two-eyed seeing and the language of healing in community-based research. Can. J. Native Educ. 2009, 32, 3–23. [Google Scholar]
  18. Stewart, M.; Anderson, S. Indigenous children coping with environmental health risks. In Supporting Children and Their Families Facing Health Inequities in Canada; Stewart, M.J., Ed.; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2021; pp. 17–28. [Google Scholar]
  19. Asselin, H.; Basile, S. Concrete ways to decolonize research. ACME 2018, 17, 643–650. [Google Scholar]
  20. Evans, M.; Miller, A.; Hutchinson, P.; Dingwall, C. Decolonizing research practice: Indigenous methodologies, aboriginal methods, and knowledge/knowing. In The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 263–282. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cullen, D.; Castleden, H. Two-eyed-seeing/Etuaptmumk in the colonial archive: Reflections on participatory archival research. Area 2022, 1, 2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Olson, K. Essentials of Qualitative Interviewing; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  23. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Magnaye, A.; Fast, J.; Eales, J.; Stolow, M.; Leslie, M. Caregivers’ failure to thrive: A case for health and continuing care systems transformation. Healthc. Manag. Forum 2020, 33, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Fast, J. Eales, J. Why Family Caregivers Need to Be Better Supported and Valued; Zoomer Magazine: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2022; Available online: https://www.everythingzoomer.com/health/2022/02/23/why-family-caregivers-need-to-be-better-supported-and-valued/ (accessed on 23 February 2022).
  26. Allen, J.; Lobchuk, M.; Livingston, P.M.; Layton, N.; Hutchinson, A.M. Informal carers’ support needs, facilitators and barriers in the transitional care of older adults: A qualitative study. Health Expect. 2022, 6, 2876–2892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Law, S.; Ormel, I.; Babinski, S.; Kuluski, K.; Quesnel-Vallee, A. “Caregiving is like on the job training but nobody has the manual”: Canadian caregivers’ perceptions of their roles within the healthcare system. BMC Geriatr. 2021, 21, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Romanow, R. Building on Values: The Future of Healthcare in Canada; Final Report; Government of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2002. Available online: https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/237274/publication.html (accessed on 19 January 2020).
  29. Canadian Institutes of Health Information. Supporting Informal Caregivers: The Heart of Home Care; Canadian Institutes of Health Information: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2010; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
  30. Health Quality Ontario. The Reality of Caring: Distress among Caregivers of Homecare Patients; Health Quality Ontario: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2016; p. 39. Available online: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/Caregiver_Distress_AIB_2010_EN.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2012).
  31. Houser, A.; Gibson, M.J.; Redfoot, D.L. Trends in Family Caregiving and Paid Home Care for Older People with Disabilities in the Community: Data from the National Long-Term Care Survey; AARP Public Policy Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; p. 54. Available online: http://www.advancingstates.org/sites/nasuad/files/hcbs/files/198/9850/2010-09-caregiving.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  32. Fast, C.T.; Houlihan, D.; Buchanan, J.A. Developing the Family Involvement Questionnaire-Long-Term Care: A Measure of Familial Involvement in the Lives of Residents at Long-Term Care Facilities. Gerontologist 2019, 59, E52–E55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gaugler, J.E.; Mitchell, L.L. Reimagining Family Involvement in Residential Long-Term Care. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2022, 23, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. MacDonald, N.E. Aboriginal children suffer while governments ignore Jordan’s Principle. CMAJ Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2012, 184, 853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kamran, R. Canada’s history of failing to provide medical care for Indigenous children. Paediatr. Child Health 2021, 26, 279–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gaspard, H.; Page, K. Data Assessment and Framing of an Analysis of Substantive Equality through the Application of Jordan’s Principle; Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2022; p. 147. Available online: https://www.ifsd.ca/web/default/files/Reports/2022-09-01_Jordan’s%20Principle_Final%20report.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  37. Brondolo, E.; Gallo, L.C.; Myers, H.F. Race, racism and health: Disparities, mechanisms, and interventions. J. Behav. Med. 2009, 32, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Browne, A.J.; Lavoie, J.G.; McCallum, M.J.L.; Canoe, C.B. Addressing anti-Indigenous racism in Canadian health systems: Multi-tiered approaches are required. Can. J. Public Health 2022, 113, 222–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Bruno, G.; Bell, R.C.; Parlee, B.; Lightning, P.; Bull, I.; Cutknife, B.; Oster, R.T. Mâmawihitowin (bringing the camps together): Perinatal healthcare provider and staff participation in an Indigenous-led experiential intervention for enhancing culturally informed care—A mixed methods study. Int. J. Equity Health 2022, 21, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Dunne, C. To improve the health of indigenous people in Canada, we must confront racism. Br. Columbia Med. J. 2020, 62, 225. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wittenberg, E.; Prosser, L.A. Disutility of illness for caregivers and families: A systematic review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics 2013, 31, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Spiers, G.; Liddle, J.; Stow, D.; Welsh, C.; Whitehead, O.; Kunonga, P.; Beyer, F.; Craig, D.; Ramsay, S.; Hanratty, B. Caring as a Social Determinant of Health; Public Health England: London, UK, 2021; p. 49. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/971115/Caring_as_a_social_determinant_report.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2022).
  43. Beach, S.R.; Schulz, R.; Friedman, E.M.; Rodakowski, J.; Martsolf, R.G.; James, A.E. Adverse Consequences of Unmet Needs for Care in High-Need/High-Cost Older Adults. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2020, 75, 459–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Duncan, K.A.; Shooshtari, S.; Roger, K.; Fast, J.; Han, J. The cost of caring: Out-of-pocket expenditures and financial hardship among Canadian carers. Int. J. Care Caring 2020, 4, 141–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. National Alliance for Caregiving. Chronic Disease Family Caregiving through a Public Health Lens; National Alliance for Caregiving: Washington, DC, USA, 2022; p. 22. Available online: https://www.caregiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NAC_Chronic-Disease-Caregiving-Report_090722.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.