Public health restrictions, directives, and measures in Arctic countries in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Beginning January of 2020, COVID-19 cases detected in Arctic countries triggered government policy responses to stop transmission and limit caseloads beneath levels that would overwhelm existing healthcare systems. This review details the various restrictions, health mandates, and transmission mitigation strategies imposed by governments in eight Arctic countries (the United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, and Russia) during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, through 31 January 2021s31 January 2021. We highlight formal protocols and informal initiatives adopted by local communities in each country, beyond what was mandated by regional or national governments. This review documents travel restrictions, communications, testing strategies, and use of health technology to track and monitor COVID-19 cases. We provide geographical and sociocultural background and draw on local media and communications to contextualise the impact of COVID-19 emergence and prevention measures in Indigenous communities in the Arctic. Countries saw varied case rates associated with local protocols, governance, and population. Still, almost all regions maintained low COVID-19 case rates until November of 2020. This review was produced as part of an international collaboration to identify community-driven, evidence-based promising practices and recommendations to inform pan-Arctic collaboration and decision making in public health during global emergencies.

Diving below the surface: A framework for arctic health research to support thriving communities.

AIMS: Historically, health research in the Arctic has focused on documenting ill-health using a narrow set of deficit-oriented epidemiologic indicators (i.e., prevalence of disease and mortality rates). While useful, this type of research does not adequately capture the breadth and complexities of community health and well-being, and fails to highlight solutions. A community's context, strengths, and continued expressions of well-being need to guide inquiries, inform processes, and contextualize recommendations. In this paper, we present a conceptual framework developed to address the aforementioned concerns and inform community-led health and social research in the Arctic. METHODS: The proposed framework is informed by our collective collaborations with circumpolar communities, and syntheses of individual and group research undertaken throughout the Circumpolar North. Our framework encourages investigation into the contextual factors that promote circumpolar communities to thrive. RESULTS: Our framework centers on the visual imagery of an iceberg. There is a need to dive deeper than superficial indicators of health to examine individual, family, social, cultural, historical, linguistic, and environmental contexts that support communities in the Circumpolar North to thrive. A participatory community-based approach in conjunction with ongoing epidemiologic research is necessary in order to effectively support health and wellness. Conclusions: The iceberg framework is a way to conceptualize circumpolar health research and encourage investigators to both monitor epidemiologic indicators and also dive below the surface using participatory methodology to investigate contextual factors that support thriving communities.

Cultural competence and safety in Circumpolar countries: an analysis of discourses in healthcare.

Circumpolar Indigenous populations continue to experience dramatic health inequities when compared to their national counterparts. The objectives of this study are first, to explore the space given in the existing literature to the concepts of cultural safety and cultural competence, as it relates to Indigenous peoples in Circumpolar contexts; and second, to document where innovations have emerged. We conducted a review of the English, Danish, Norwegian, Russian and Swedish Circumpolar health literature focusing on Indigenous populations. We include research related to Alaska (USA); the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavik and Labrador (Canada); Greenland; Sápmi (northmost part of Sweden, Norway, and Finland); and arctic Russia. Our results show that the concepts of cultural safety and cultural competence (cultural humility in Nunavut) are widely discussed in the Canadian literature. In Alaska, the term relationship-centred care has emerged, and is defined broadly to encompass clinician-patient relationships and structural barriers to care. We found no evidence that similar concepts are used to inform service delivery in Greenland, Nordic countries and Russia. While we recognise that healthcare innovations are often localised, and that there is often a lapse before localised innovations find their way into the literature, we conclude that the general lack of attention to culturally safe care for Sámi and Greenlandic Inuit is somewhat surprising given Nordic countries' concern for the welfare of their citizens. We see this as an important gap, and out of step with commitments made under United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We call for the integration of cultural safety (and its variants) as a lens to inform the development of health programs aiming to improve Indigenous in Circumpolar countries.