We Already Know How to Beat This: Indigenous Communities Disrupt Health Services and Rewrite Policy

We Already Know How to Beat This: Indigenous Communities Disrupt Health Services and Rewrite Policy | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article We Already Know How to Beat This: Indigenous Communities Disrupt Health Services and Rewrite Policy Vanessa Ambtman-Smith¹, Rebecca Morton² This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7384132/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 15 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background The knowledge is already in community on how to beat diabetes. Youth can be part of the solution in bringing healthy traditional practices to the fore and this will turn the tide of chronic disease - wisdom from Inuit community members capturing the essence of Indigenous health sovereignty, communities as solution-holders, not problem-bearers. Indigenous peoples globally face persistent health disparities rooted not in community deficits, but in systemic barriers to healthcare access and policies that fail to recognize Indigenous knowledge systems. As Cree physician Dr. Marcia Anderson powerfully reframes, rather than viewing Indigenous peoples as vulnerable populations, we must recognize them as “people we oppress through policy choices and discourses of racial inferiority.” In Canada, where Indigenous communities comprise 4.9% of the population yet experience disproportionate health inequities, the Pathways Indigenous Health Collaborations initiative demonstrates how Indigenous-led health services innovation, guided by community governance, transforms health outcomes and delivery care systems. Methods We conducted a comprehensive five-year Indigenous-led program evaluation (2018–2024) of health services delivery innovations across eight pilot projects involving 1808 + participants. The evaluation was governed by an Indigenous Advisory Circle using relational accountability principles and integrated Indigenous methodologies (sharing circles, Four R's framework) with the RE-AIM evaluation framework. Data collection included Advisory Circle-facilitated sharing circles (n = 3), patient interviews (n = 6), satisfaction surveys (providers n = 8, participants n = 44), and project reports. Analysis employed thematic content analysis guided by Indigenous vision wheel principles under community governance oversight. Results Three dominant themes emerged: Community & Relationships, Indigenous Cultural Safety, and Sustainability & Maintenance. Health services delivery innovations demonstrated significant outcomes including 18% increased time in optimal diabetes range, 100% participant satisfaction in digital health interventions, 95% diabetic foot ulcer risk reduction, and 78.6% reporting cultural safety in care encounters. These community-governed findings directly informed transformation of Pathway’s Indigenous Health Policy Framework from a 95-page document to an accessible three-document framework with 12 core components for health services implementation. Conclusions Indigenous-led partnerships create meaningful health empowerment and health services transformation when grounded in community governance and relational accountability. The Pathways model provides replicable mechanisms for implementing Indigenous health rights within health services delivery, demonstrating that authentic Indigenous leadership in policy development transforms both health outcomes and system responsiveness while offering a template for other communities experiencing policy-imposed health barriers. Indigenous health health services research community-based participatory research health equity digital health health policy healthcare access cultural safety health sovereignty decolonizing health Background Global Indigenous Health Services Context and Community-Driven Solutions “I like to help my fellow people... I help my friends if they are here. I sit down and talk to them, some in my language. My language is Blackfoot.” These words from Sarah, a community health advocate in Siksika Nation, illustrate the relational foundation of Indigenous health approaches that health systems worldwide fail to recognize or support. Indigenous peoples worldwide represent approximately 5% of the global population yet experience disproportionately poor health outcomes compared to non-Indigenous populations, with these disparities reflecting systemic health services delivery failures rather than individual health behaviors (United Nations, 2009 ; Anderson et al., 2016 ). In Canada, Indigenous peoples comprise 4.9% of the population but face significantly higher rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health challenges, while experiencing documented discrimination and cultural unsafety in health services encounters (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015 ; Allan & Smylie, 2015 ). As Cree physician Dr. Marcia Anderson notes, rather than describing Indigenous peoples as ‘vulnerable,’ we must recognize them as ‘people we oppress through policy choices and discourses of racial inferiority’ (Anderson, 2017). This reframing shifts focus from individual or community deficits to the systems and policies that create and maintain health inequities. Indigenous-specific determinants of health include colonization, racism, and self-determination, which have profound and often underlying impacts on Indigenous pathways to health beyond classic socioeconomic determinants (Smylie & Firestone, 2016 ). The 1.4 million Indigenous peoples living in Canada are part of a larger global population of over 370 million Indigenous peoples who face some of the heaviest burdens of ill health due to ongoing colonial processes rather than inherent vulnerability. These persistent inequities highlight fundamental failures in conventional health services delivery models that fail to recognize Indigenous knowledge systems, self-determination rights, and community-led approaches to wellness (Greenwood et al., 2018 ; Maar et al., 2009 ). Health services research demonstrates that Indigenous peoples and communities experiencing policy-imposed barriers require delivery innovations that address systemic oppression rather than individual behaviors, with Indigenous communities specifically requiring services that integrate cultural safety, self-determination, and traditional knowledge systems to achieve effectiveness (Browne et al., 2016 ; Curtis et al., 2019 ). Health performance measurement systems in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have historically failed to capture Indigenous-defined indicators of wellness, focusing instead on biomedical outcomes that reflect colonial health paradigms (Smylie et al., 2006 ). The WHO's three principal goals for health-care systems, contributing to good health, responsiveness to population expectations, and fairness of financial contribution, require fundamental reconceptualization when applied to Indigenous communities whose health concepts extend beyond individual biomedical outcomes to encompass community, land, and spiritual wellness. The global policy landscape for Indigenous health has been shaped by landmark declarations, particularly the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by Canada in 2016 and enshrined in federal legislation in 2021. Article 24 of UNDRIP affirms Indigenous peoples' rights to their traditional medicines and health practices, while Article 23 establishes their right to determine and develop priorities for their health services delivery (United Nations, 2007 ). However, despite these international commitments, practical frameworks for implementing Indigenous health rights within existing health services systems remain limited. Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) specifically addressed health services delivery in Call to Action #22, which calls upon those who can effect change to “recognize the value of Aboriginal healing practices and use them in the treatment of Aboriginal patients in collaboration with Aboriginal healers and Elders where requested by Aboriginal patients” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015 ). Yet eight years after the TRC's final report, systematic approaches to implementing this Call to Action in health services delivery remain fragmented and underdeveloped. The Pathways Innovation: Indigenous-Led Health Services Delivery The Pathways Indigenous Health Collaborations initiative emerged in 2018 as a direct response to these health services delivery gaps, representing a novel approach to implementing Indigenous health rights within Canada’s universal healthcare system. Developed through a partnership between Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. and Bimaadzwin, Pathways established the first comprehensive Indigenous Health Policy Framework (IHPF) designed to guide private sector engagement with Indigenous communities in healthcare innovation while fundamentally transforming health services delivery models. Central to Pathways’ approach is an Indigenous Advisory Circle that operationalizes Shawn Wilson’s ( 2008 ) relational accountability framework and the Four R’s of Indigenous research: respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and relationality. Wilson's seminal work “Research is Ceremony” established that in Indigenous paradigms, “all knowledge is relational as it emerges from and is shared among All of Creation,” fundamentally reshaping how health services partnerships are conceived, implemented, and evaluated (Wilson, 2008 ). The Indigenous Advisory Circle operates under the principle “our priority as an Indigenous Advisory Circle is our communities,” ensuring that all Pathways activities maintain accountability to Indigenous communities rather than institutional demands. This represents a significant departure from typical consultation models in health services delivery, positioning Indigenous knowledge holders as decision-makers rather than advisors in a process controlled by non-Indigenous institutions. Health Services Delivery Innovation Through Indigenous Governance Unlike conventional health services quality improvement approaches that modify existing services, the Pathways model reimagines service delivery relationships, moving from provider-controlled encounters to community-governed health partnerships. This approach addresses documented barriers to healthcare access including geographic isolation, cultural unsafety, and systemic discrimination while creating innovative delivery models that other communities experiencing policy-imposed health barriers could adapt (Reading & Wien, 2009 ; Loppie et al., 2014 ). The initiative demonstrates how digital health implementation, virtual care platforms, and community-based interventions can transform health services delivery when governed by Indigenous communities rather than imposed by external systems. Early pilot projects showed promising outcomes in diabetes management, foot care prevention, and emergency care coordination, suggesting that Indigenous-led governance could address persistent health services delivery challenges. Research Framework and Objectives This evaluation employed a community-governed program evaluation approach, with Indigenous health scholar leadership and allied evaluation specialist support jointly conducting the assessment under Indigenous Advisory Circle governance. This partnership ensured both Indigenous knowledge systems and conventional evaluation standards were honoured while maintaining relational accountability to participating communities and following established Indigenous research ethics protocols. The central research question guiding this evaluation was: How can Indigenous-led health services partnerships, guided by relational accountability principles and the Four R’s, transform healthcare delivery models while advancing health sovereignty through Indigenous knowledge systems integration in policy frameworks? Methods Study Design and Setting This mixed-methods community-based participatory evaluation examined health services delivery innovations across eight Indigenous communities throughout Canada from 2018–2024. The study employed an Indigenous-governed evaluation framework that integrated Wilson’s relational accountability methodology with RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) evaluation components to assess health services transformation (Wilson, 2008 ; Glasgow et al., 1999 ). Indigenous Research Ethics and Community Governance The evaluation methodology was grounded in Wilson’s relational accountability framework, which recognizes that knowledge emerges from relationships rather than individual expertise, requiring reimagining of traditional evaluation processes to honour Indigenous ways of knowing while meeting health services research standards for evidence and accountability (Wilson, 2008 ; Castellano, 2004 ). Informed consent was obtained from all participants for their involvement in evaluation activities and for sharing their experiences in academic publications (Ambtman-Smith & Morton, 2023 ). This evaluation framework acknowledges that ‘the societal processes of European colonization are a fundamental and underlying determinant of health’ (Smylie & Firestone, 2016 ), requiring evaluation approaches that examine how health services delivery either perpetuates or disrupts colonial health policies. The Indigenous Advisory Circle provided governance oversight throughout the evaluation process, ensuring appropriate Indigenous research protocols were followed including OCAP® principles (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession) for data sovereignty and community-controlled research protocols (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2014 ). The Four R’s framework guided all aspects of evaluation design: Respect : Honouring Indigenous protocols and knowledge systems throughout the evaluation process Responsibility : Maintaining accountability to Indigenous communities and their health services priorities Reciprocity : Ensuring evaluation findings would benefit participating communities and improve health services delivery Relationality : Recognizing that knowledge emerges from relationships rather than extraction Indigenous-Led Evaluation Partnership The evaluation was led by an Indigenous health scholar (Vanessa Ambtman-Smith, author 1) bringing Indigenous knowledge systems and community accountability, with allied evaluation specialist support (Rebecca Morton, author 2) providing evaluation expertise within the Indigenous-governed framework. This partnership model addressed critical aspects of Indigenous research ethics while ensuring health services research rigor: Indigenous Governance : Maintaining Indigenous Advisory Circle oversight throughout all evaluation activities Dual Accountability : Responsibility to both Indigenous communities and health services evaluation standards Knowledge Translation : Bridging Indigenous knowledge systems with health policy and program requirements Cultural Safety : Ensuring non-Indigenous evaluators operated within Indigenous protocols Data Sovereignty : Following OCAP® principles for community control over health information and findings Participants and Recruitment Eight pilot projects across Canada participated, involving 1808 + participants from more than 30 Indigenous communities. For a full list of the pilot project including their primary focus as well as location see Table 1 . See Appendix 1 for details on each project, including project descriptions and objectives. Table 1 Pathways Pilot Project Communities, Locations & Initiative Focus Pilot Communities: Location by Province Project Name Initiative Focus Baker Lake Nunavut Baker Lake Champions of Health Inuit youth diabetes prevention Traditional food programs Wagmatcook FN Nova Scotia Wagmatcook Diabetes Project Digital glucose monitoring Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF) Manitoba “Tow a Path”: A Pilot Type 2 Diabetes Screening Study in Métis Population Mobile diabetes screening Maskwacis Alberta Maskwacis Âniskômohcikewin Virtual care platforms Emergency medical services innovation Siksika Health Services Alberta Siksika Health Services Pilot Foot care technology (Monitoring foot ulcers with sensory insoles) Digital glucose monitoring Ebb & Flow FN Manitoba Combatting Diabetes Before Onset of Complications. Youth diabetes prevention Community health planning Nuu chah nulth Tribal Council (NTC) British Columbia Virtual Diabetes Care QI Project Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council (NTC) and BCDiabetes Virtual diabetes care Traditional food programs Six Nations of The Grand River Ontario Six Nations Health Services Food and Water Access Evaluation Water quality and diabetes Traditional food programs Participants were recruited through community health centers and project partners, with recruitment led by Indigenous community members. Inclusion criteria included Indigenous identity, participation in pilot projects, and willingness to share experiences through Indigenous methodologies. Data Collection Methods Data collection occurred from 2018–2024 using multiple methods designed to evaluate health services delivery transformation: Advisory Circle Sharing Circles (n = 3): Virtual circles with Management Committee (n = 4), Indigenous Advisory Circle (n = 5), and Pilot Project Partners (n = 18) examining health services delivery processes, governance, and system-level impacts. Sharing circles followed a structured protocol developed specifically for this evaluation (Ambtman-Smith & Morton, 2023 ) that honoured Indigenous methodologies while meeting program evaluation requirements. Patient Interviews (n = 6): Semi-structured interviews with pilot participants from four different projects, exploring personal experiences with health services delivery innovations, access improvements, and quality of care changes. Satisfaction Surveys Project providers (n = 8) and participants (n = 44) assessing health services quality, cultural safety, and delivery effectiveness. Project Reports Progress and final reports from all pilot sites documenting health services delivery innovations, implementation challenges, and outcome measures. Health Services Metrics Clinical outcomes, service utilization patterns, emergency department visits, specialist referrals, and care coordination indicators. Data Analysis Analysis employed thematic content analysis guided by Indigenous vision wheel principles, moving through four directions: Vision (seeing patterns in health services delivery), Relationship (understanding connections between governance and outcomes), Knowledge (integrating understanding of effective models), and Action (identifying implementation implications). This approach, overseen by the Advisory Circle, ensured findings remained grounded in Indigenous knowledge systems while meeting health services research evaluation standards. The Pathways evaluation framework addresses gaps identified by Smylie et al. ( 2006 ) in Indigenous health performance measurement by integrating Indigenous-defined wellness indicators alongside conventional health metrics. The Indigenous Advisory Circle’s governance of evaluation priorities ensures that measurement systems reflect Indigenous values rather than imposing external frameworks. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for health outcomes and service utilization measures. Qualitative data underwent inductive thematic analysis with community verification of emerging themes to ensure accuracy and cultural appropriateness of interpretations. Results Health Services Delivery Transformation Outcomes The eight Pathways pilot projects demonstrated significant health services delivery transformation across multiple dimensions. Collectively, these projects reached 1808 participants across more than 30 Indigenous communities, conducting over 70 engagement events and activities that reimagined how health services are delivered, accessed, and governed (see Table 2 ). Table 2 Pilot Project Overall Impact Pilot Project Impacts Participants Engagement Events/Activities Baker Lake 22 media activities, stakeholder outreach and meetings N = 1808 directly impacted by pilots N = 70 (+) Wagmatcook n = 264 participants using freestyle sensors n = 120 foot care clients 12 foot care clinics 10 sessions at the elder center (n = 8 elders) 6 cooking classes n = 5–6 each class (n = 30–36) MMF n = 510 community reach 17 MMF community centers Maskwacis n = 242 participants Siksika n = 29 participants Ebb & Flow n = 548 participants 3 events per week NTC n = 27 participants Six Nations n = 24 participants Digital Health Implementation and Healthcare Access Improvements Digital health interventions proved particularly successful when governed by Indigenous protocols, addressing persistent barriers to healthcare access while improving health outcomes. “I had autonomy over my decisions about seeking support, something I had been fearful about getting health support. I had the ability to make the decision to when, where, how.” Joseph’s experience with virtual care captures (Maskwacis) how Indigenous-governed digital health transforms healthcare access from barrier-filled encounters to empowering choices. Diabetes Management Innovation (Siksika Nation) The project achieved 100% participant satisfaction while significantly reducing diabetic foot ulcer risk by 95%. “I have been pretty grateful for it, it definitely improved the quality of my life. It's a good sense of security for yourself... It alerts you when it gets too high or low. Let's you know what you are eating, that might not be good,” explained Michael, whose experience with digital sensory insoles exemplifies community-controlled innovation. Virtual Care Platform Success (Maskwacis) The EMS-physician virtual care platform transformed healthcare access by building on existing community trust relationships, creating what Joseph described as providing “autonomy over my decisions about seeking support.” “The ambulance has developed an incredible relationship with community, trusted, more so than community health center. People were calling ambulance to support them in sickness or illness, but refusing to go to the hospital,” Joseph explained. Life Transformation Through Community Connection (Siksika Nation) : Thomas’s journey from isolation to connection illustrates the power of culturally grounded support: “I found out I had diabetes, blood pressure was high... I realized I wasn't taking care of myself. Get blood sugar down from 29 to 20 then to 15, now down to 4 for 5 or 6 months. Took a lot of dedication.” But beyond clinical outcomes, Thomas experienced profound personal transformation: “I used to be a loner, don’t bother with anyone. Since I started working here, interacting with the people. I am learning a lot from myself and people to understand.” Healthcare Delivery Model Innovations Building on Traditional Knowledge Insights from Inuit youth programs demonstrates how traditional knowledge enhances rather than competes with health services innovation. “Youth believe that they are part of the solution and can play an active role in curtailing diabetes by learning and practicing traditional knowledge rooted in the land.” Mobile Health Services Expansion Métis-led mobile diabetes screening reached over 500 rural Métis across Manitoba, representing the first Métis-led diabetes screening in the province. This delivery innovation eliminated geographic barriers while providing culturally safe care environments, with participants noting the importance of seeing their own people leading health initiatives. Peer Education Networks : Participants demonstrated how community members became health service ambassadors, bridging clinical care with cultural safety. Sarah from Siksika embodies the peer educator role: “I like to help my fellow people... I help my friends if they are here. I sit down and talk to them, some in my language. My language is Blackfoot... I like to help my fellow people.” Health System Quality and Safety Improvements Measurable health system quality improvements emerged across pilot sites: Clinical Outcomes: 18% increase in time spent in optimal A1c range among diabetes participants 75% of participants achieved optimal blood pressure targets 95% reduction in diabetic foot ulcer risk through sensor technology 40% reduction in emergency department visits through virtual care access Quality Indicators: 100% satisfaction rates in digital health interventions 78.6% of participants reported feeling respected by program providers 74% reported improved access to culturally safe healthcare services 85% would recommend services to family and community members Care Coordination Improvements Virtual care platforms facilitated specialist referrals and follow-up care, reducing wait times and improving care continuity. Emergency department avoidance behaviors decreased as participants gained confidence in alternative care pathways. Indigenous Cultural Safety in Health Services Delivery Cultural safety emerged not as an add-on to existing services but as a fundamental requirement for effective healthcare delivery. Robert, a diabetes program participant, captured this transformation: “It points me to the right direction of caring about myself... I have more energy, my energy went through the roof... I am feeling more empathy for other people. I care more, I’m more [sic] calmer... I have a better way.” His words illustrate how cultural safety enables not just health improvement, but whole-person wellness. Participants across all stakeholder groups identified cultural safety as the primary determinant of health services effectiveness, challenging funding models based solely on clinical outcomes and suggesting instead the need for sustained investment in relationship infrastructure within health services delivery. Margaret, a former elected leader and healthcare advocate, provided critical context about the systemic barriers that culturally safe services must address: “For Indigenous people, healthcare is a complex issue... people don't get the privilege of experiencing healthcare the way non-Indigenous people do. I have never had a healthcare experience with a doctor that didn't feel like it focused on being Indigenous.” Yet the Pathways model created spaces where participants like Joseph could experience something different: “I never felt like I was being ignored or situation not taken seriously.” This transformation moves beyond individual comfort to systemic change, demonstrating how cultural safety requires structural rather than superficial changes to health services delivery. Evaluation Themes: Community Priorities and Health Services Implications Three dominant themes emerged from the Indigenous Advisory Circle-guided analysis, each carrying significant implications for health services delivery transformation: Community & Relationships: ’Trust and relationships are the way to support people’ This theme revealed how relational approaches transform health services delivery from transactional encounters to sustained therapeutic relationships. “If it wasn't for Rachel [diabetes educator] I wouldn’t be here today... If you don’t go out and get it you are lying to yourself. It’s that determination,” Thomas shared, illustrating how relationships become the foundation for health transformation. Participants across all stakeholder groups identified relationship quality as the primary determinant of health services success. For health services policy development, this finding challenges traditional provider-patient relationship models, suggesting the need for sustained investment in relationship infrastructure rather than short-term interventions. As one pilot project noted: “Trust and relationships are the way to support people and that peer education is meaningful in spreading the word.” Indigenous Cultural Safety: ‘I never felt like I was being ignored’ Cultural safety emerged as both a quality indicator and a prerequisite for effective health services delivery, with participants reporting feeling safe to discuss health concerns and having their cultural backgrounds respected, leading to improved health outcomes and service utilization. “I never felt like I was being ignored or situation not taken seriously,” Joseph reflected on his virtual care experience, contrasting it with his previous healthcare encounters. This transformation moves beyond individual comfort to systemic change. As Margaret observed about healthcare barriers: “So many people don't have health cards, lost id or stolen etc.” Yet the Pathways approach created spaces where these barriers were addressed rather than becoming exclusion criteria, demonstrating how cultural safety requires structural rather than superficial changes to health services delivery. Sustainability & Maintenance: ‘A big part of sustainability is about maintaining relational ties’ Communities emphasized the need for long-term commitment beyond typical three-year funding cycles, requiring fundamental shifts in how governments and private partners approach Indigenous health services delivery. This theme captures the tension between communities ready to innovate and systems designed for short-term projects rather than lasting relationships. “There is resistance to starting something new for fear that it will cease abruptly when funding dries up,” Margaret explained, highlighting the most significant health services delivery challenge: transitioning from successful pilots to sustained programming. “A big part of sustainability is about maintaining relational ties and taking the time needed to engage in this exchange.” Indigenous Health Policy Framework Evolution: From Community Wisdom to Policy Innovation The transformation of Pathway’s Indigenous Health Policy Framework represents perhaps the most significant outcome of the evaluation, a policy document evolved not through bureaucratic revision, but through Indigenous community governance and lived experience. Under Indigenous Advisory Circle leadership, evaluation findings directly informed a comprehensive restructuring that reflects the community priorities and relationship-centered approaches discovered through the pilot projects. From Complexity to Clarity Through Community Leadership The original 95-page IHPF, while comprehensive, proved unwieldy for practical implementation. As the Indigenous Advisory Circle noted in their January 2025 strategic planning session, “ensuring Indigenous values remain central to Pathways’ work” required a fundamental reimagining of how policy frameworks are structured and presented. The community-governed evaluation process revealed that effective policy must be accessible, actionable, and grounded in the wisdom emerging from pilot projects. Margaret’s reflection on sustainability challenges directly influenced this restructuring: “There is resistance to starting something new for fear that it will cease abruptly when funding dries up... A big part of sustainability is about maintaining relational ties and taking the time needed to engage in this exchange.” The Advisory Circle recognized that policy frameworks themselves must embody the relational principles they seek to promote. A Three-Document Approach Born from Community Priorities The restructured IHPF reflects the three dominant themes that emerged from community voices: relationships, cultural safety, and sustainability. Rather than a single lengthy document, the framework now consists of: A Concise Policy Statement that captures the essence of Indigenous health sovereignty in language accessible to all stakeholders, from community members to corporate partners. This document embodies Thomas’s insight that “trust and relationships are the way to support people”, positioning relationship-building as policy foundation rather than policy outcome. A Streamlined Framework with twelve core components that operationalize the wisdom shared by participants like Sarah, who emphasized helping “my fellow people” through culturally grounded approaches. These components translate community insights into actionable policy guidance that honours Indigenous knowledge systems while meeting institutional accountability requirements. Supporting Documentation that provides the historical context and implementation guidance necessary for non-Indigenous partners to understand their role in supporting rather than leading Indigenous health initiatives. Twelve Components Reflecting Community Wisdom The twelve core components represent a synthesis of community insights and policy requirements, with each component grounded in participant experiences: Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Safety reflects Robert's transformation through culturally safe care and Sarah’s commitment to sharing knowledge “in my language. My language is Blackfoot.” This component positions Indigenous knowledge as foundational rather than supplementary to health services delivery. Self-Determination operationalizes Joseph’s experience of having “autonomy over my decisions about seeking support,” establishing community control as both principle and practice in health policy implementation. Equity and Inclusion addresses the systemic barriers Margaret identified while ensuring diverse Indigenous populations can access culturally safe services, including youth and 2SLGBTQIA + community members. Wholistic Health Approach captures the interconnectedness evident in participants’ stories, from Thomas’s experience of personal, social, and health transformation to the youth programs’ integration of traditional knowledge with contemporary health challenges. Traditional Healing Integration honors the land-based knowledge that Inuit youth emphasized as essential for “bringing healthy traditional practices to the fore,” facilitating respectful integration of healing practices and connections to the Land. Prevention Focus reflects the proactive approaches demonstrated across pilot sites, from foot ulcer prevention to diabetes education programs, prioritizing prevention of conditions disproportionately affecting Indigenous peoples. Partnerships embodies the trust-building that Thomas experienced with his diabetes educator: “If it wasn't for Rachel I wouldn't be here today,” emphasizing respectful collaborations with Indigenous organizations built on the Four R's framework. Data Sovereignty operationalizes the OCAP® principles that governed this evaluation, ensuring communities maintain control over their health information and research processes. Historical Context acknowledges the colonial impacts that Margaret described while supporting healing pathways that participants discovered through culturally safe care. Accountability embodies the transparent mechanisms participants like Joseph experienced: “I never felt like I was being ignored,” establishing clear evaluation structures at all levels of engagement. Indigenous Advisory Circle Guidance ensures Indigenous voices remain central, as demonstrated through the community-governed evaluation that shaped these very policy components. Sustainability directly addresses Margaret’s concerns about funding cycles and relationship maintenance, requiring long-term commitment structures that support the “relational ties” essential for effective Indigenous health initiatives. A Framework Grounded in Relational Accountability This policy evolution demonstrates Wilson’s relational accountability framework in action. Rather than external experts developing policy for Indigenous communities, the IHPF framework emerged from Indigenous governance of evaluation processes that centered community wisdom and experience. The Indigenous Advisory Circle’s leadership ensured that policy development remained accountable to community priorities rather than institutional demands. The IHPF framework scheduled for launch at the Kahnawake gathering in July 2025 represents more than policy reform, it embodies a new model for Indigenous health governance that positions communities as policy authors rather than policy subjects. As the evaluation revealed, effective Indigenous health policy must reflect the same principles of respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and relationality that drive successful health services delivery. Discussion Health Services Delivery Transformation Through Indigenous Governance The Pathways model demonstrates that Indigenous-led governance transforms health services delivery across multiple dimensions identified as critical in health services research: accessibility, quality, efficiency, equity, and patient experience (Institute of Medicine, 2001 ; Levesque et al., 2013 ). Unlike conventional quality improvement approaches that modify existing services, this model reimagines service delivery relationships, moving from provider-controlled encounters to community-governed health partnerships. This transformation addresses documented barriers to healthcare access including geographic isolation, cultural unsafety, and systemic discrimination while creating innovative delivery models that improve both health outcomes and patient satisfaction (Browne et al., 2016 ; Greenwood et al., 2018 ). The 78.6% cultural safety rating compared to documented discrimination experiences in conventional health services demonstrates measurable quality improvement through Indigenous governance approaches. Digital Health Implementation in Communities Experiencing Policy-Imposed Barriers The success of digital health interventions across pilot sites demonstrates that technology can improve healthcare access for Indigenous peoples and other communities experiencing policy-imposed barriers when implementation is community-controlled rather than externally imposed (Kemp et al., 2014 ; Car & Sheikh, 2004 ). The 100% satisfaction rate with glucose sensors and successful virtual care adoption challenges assumptions about digital divides in Indigenous communities, suggesting that appropriate implementation approaches rather than technology access constitute the primary barrier. The Maskwacis virtual care platform’s success in reducing emergency department avoidance while maintaining cultural safety illustrates how digital health can address multiple health services delivery challenges simultaneously. Joseph’s reflection that virtual care provided “autonomy over my decisions about seeking support” demonstrates how technology, when implemented through Indigenous governance, enhances rather than diminishes self-determination in healthcare. Reframing Language and Systemic Accountability This research challenges deficit-based language commonly applied to Indigenous peoples in health services research. Following Dr. Marcia Anderson's call to replace ‘vulnerable people’ with ‘people we oppress through policy choices and discourses of racial inferiority’ (Anderson, 2017), the Pathways model demonstrates how health services delivery transformation requires acknowledging systemic oppression rather than community deficits. The Indigenous Advisory Circle’s governance approach shifts accountability from Indigenous communities to adapt to existing systems, toward health systems adapting to honour Indigenous knowledge and self-determination rights. This reframing aligns with Smylie and Firestone’s ( 2016 ) identification of colonization, racism, and restricted self-determination as fundamental health determinants requiring structural rather than individual-level interventions. Policy Innovation and Global Applicability for Communities Facing Systemic Oppression The Pathways model represents significant policy innovation with implications extending beyond Indigenous communities to other people’s facing systemic healthcare barriers through policy choices and institutional discrimination (Marmot et al., 2008 ; Braveman et al., 2011 ). By demonstrating how community governance can be formally integrated into healthcare policy while maintaining both cultural integrity and institutional accountability, Pathways provides a template for countries worldwide seeking to implement health equity approaches. The Indigenous Advisory Circle model addresses a critical gap in health services policy for communities experiencing policy-imposed barriers: how to move beyond consultation to genuine community leadership in policy development. Unlike traditional advisory structures that provide input to predetermined processes, the Pathways Indigenous Advisory Circle maintains decision-making authority over how community knowledge is applied and protected in health services delivery. Canadian Healthcare System Integration and International Comparative Context Within Canada’s universal healthcare context, Pathways demonstrates how Indigenous-led innovations can be integrated without requiring wholesale system transformation, offering instructive comparisons with Indigenous health policies internationally (Lavoie et al., 2010 ; National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, 2013 ). The IHPF provides specific mechanisms for recognizing Indigenous knowledge systems within existing policy frameworks while ensuring Indigenous communities maintain control over their health information and priorities. This integration model has particular relevance for other countries with universal healthcare systems facing similar challenges in balancing community rights with system-wide accountability requirements. Unlike Australia’s Aboriginal health strategy, which primarily operates within existing healthcare structures, or New Zealand’s Māori health models, which focus on provider training, Pathways establishes community governance as central to policy development itself (Anderson et al., 2006 ; Durie, 2003 ). Ethical Considerations in Health Services Research with Communities Experiencing Systemic Oppression The community-governed evaluation approach addresses critical ethical considerations in conducting health services research with Indigenous peoples and other communities experiencing systemic barriers, particularly around data sovereignty, research governance, and benefit distribution (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012 ; Schnarch, 2004 ). The OCAP® principles implementation demonstrates how communities can maintain control over research processes while contributing to health services knowledge development. This approach challenges conventional research relationships where communities experiencing policy-imposed barriers are subjects rather than governors of research, offering a replicable model for ethical health services research that amplifies rather than extracts community voices (Castleden et al., 2012 ; Wallerstein et al., 2017 ). Limitations Several limitations warrant consideration. The evaluation focused on pilot projects with motivated early adopters, potentially limiting generalizability to broader Indigenous communities or other people’s experiencing policy-imposed health barriers. The five-year timeframe, while substantial for pilot evaluation, may be insufficient to assess long-term sustainability of governance models and health outcomes. Resource requirements for Indigenous governance and relationship-building may challenge scalability within existing healthcare financing models. The Canadian healthcare context may limit direct transferability to other health systems, though underlying governance principles appear broadly applicable. Conclusions Indigenous-led partnerships create meaningful health empowerment and health services transformation when grounded in community governance and relational accountability, as demonstrated through the Indigenous Advisory Circle’s governance model and community-controlled evaluation approach. The Pathways model provides replicable mechanisms for implementing Indigenous health rights within health services delivery while offering a template for other communities experiencing policy-imposed health barriers seeking to transform healthcare access and quality. Most significantly, the Indigenous Advisory Circle-led evolution of Canada’s Indigenous Health Policy Framework provides concrete policy mechanisms for implementing Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations and UNDRIP in health services delivery settings. By operationalizing community governance through specific policy mechanisms, Pathways offers concrete pathways for countries and health systems seeking to advance health equity for peoples experiencing systemic oppression through policy choices. The international applicability of this model lies not in standardized implementation but in underlying principles of community governance and relational accountability that can be adapted across different healthcare contexts while maintaining core commitments to community leadership. As countries worldwide grapple with implementing health equity approaches, the Pathways framework demonstrates that authentic community leadership in health services delivery transformation is both possible and essential for creating sustainable health improvements. Future health services research should focus on comparative implementation studies across different healthcare systems, longitudinal evaluation of governance model sustainability, and cross-national networks for sharing community-led health services innovations. The Pathways model provides a foundation for these endeavors while ensuring Indigenous and other community knowledge systems remain central to global health services development. Abbreviations IHPF: Indigenous Health Policy Framework OCAP®: Ownership, Control, Access, Possession RE-AIM: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance TRC: Truth and Reconciliation Commission UNDRIP: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples EMS: Emergency Medical Services FN: First Nations Declarations Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate This evaluation was conducted under Indigenous governance protocols rather than institutional review board oversight, as determined appropriate by Indigenous Advisory Circle leadership. Ethics approval was provided by local Indigenous leaders through the Indigenous Advisory Circle governance structure, which maintained oversight of all evaluation activities following OCAP® principles and Indigenous research ethics protocols. No institutional ethics board approval was required for this program evaluation, which fell outside conventional research ethics review processes and was governed by Indigenous communities themselves. This evaluation study is in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for evaluation purposes and for sharing their experiences in academic publications. The authors meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The authors did not receive payment related to the development of the manuscript. Consent for Publication All participants provided informed consent for their experiences to be shared in academic publications. Pseudonyms are used throughout to protect participant privacy while honouring their contributions to knowledge development. Availability of Data and Materials Data supporting the conclusions are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with appropriate Indigenous community governance approval following OCAP® principles. Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. provided funding for the Pathways initiative and evaluation activities. Funding This evaluation was supported and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. through the Pathways Indigenous Health Collaborations initiative. Funding supported community governance activities, evaluation implementation, and knowledge translation efforts. Authors' Contributions VA-S led the Indigenous governance and community accountability aspects of the evaluation. RM provided evaluation methodology expertise within the Indigenous-governed framework. Both authors contributed to analysis, interpretation, and manuscript development under Indigenous Advisory Circle oversight. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the Indigenous Advisory Circle members who governed this evaluation and the community members who shared their knowledge and experiences. We recognize that this work takes place on the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples across Canada and honour their ongoing stewardship of these lands. Special recognition to the pilot project communities and participants who courageously shared their stories to contribute to health services knowledge development. References Allan, B., & Smylie, J. (2015). First peoples, second class treatment: The role of racism in the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Toronto: Wellesley Institute. Ambtman-Smith, V., & Morton, R. (2023). Pathways Evaluation Sharing Circle Script - Patients. Unpublished evaluation instrument. Pathways Indigenous Health Collaborations. Anderson, I., Robson, B., Connolly, M., Al-Yaman, F., Bjertness, E., King, A., ... & Yap, L. (2016). Indigenous and tribal peoples' health (The Lancet–Lowitja Institute Global Collaboration): A population study. The Lancet, 388(10040), 131-157. Anderson, I., Crengle, S., Leialoha Kamaka, M., Chen, T. H., Palafox, N., & Jackson-Pulver, L. (2006). Indigenous health in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific. The Lancet, 367(9524), 1775-1785. Anderson, M. [@Dr_M_Anderson]. (2017, December 13). From now on instead of "vulnerable people" I'm going to use the phrase "people we oppress through policy choices and discourses of racial inferiority." It's a bit longer but I think will help us focus on where the problems actually lie [Tweet]. Twitter. Braveman, P., Egerter, S., & Williams, D. R. (2011). The social determinants of health: Coming of age. Annual Review of Public Health, 32, 381-398. Browne, A. J., Varcoe, C., Lavoie, J., Smye, V., Wong, S. T., Krause, M., ... & Fridkin, A. (2016). Enhancing health care equity with Indigenous populations: Evidence-based strategies from an ethnographic study. BMC Health Services Research, 16(1), 1-17. Car, J., & Sheikh, A. (2004). Digital health: A promising approach for healthcare delivery. British Medical Journal, 329(7466), 1166-1168. Castellano, M. B. (2004). Ethics of Aboriginal research. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(1), 98-114. Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012). Voice, power and dialogue: Indigenous and community-based participatory research and environmental health. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 19-27. Curtis, E., Jones, R., Tipene-Leach, D., Walker, C., Loring, B., Paine, S. J., & Reid, P. (2019). Why cultural safety rather than cultural competency is required to achieve health equity: A literature review and recommended definition. International Journal for Equity in Health, 18(1), 1-17. Durie, M. (2003). Ngā kāhui pou: Launching Māori futures. Wellington: Huia Publishers. First Nations Information Governance Centre. (2014). Ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP™): The path to First Nations information governance. Ottawa: First Nations Information Governance Centre. Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. Greenwood, M., de Leeuw, S., & Lindsay, N. (Eds.). (2018). Determinants of Indigenous peoples' health: Beyond the social. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Kemp, E., Koczwara, B., Butow, P., Girgis, A., & Tattersall, M. H. (2014). Online information and support for women with advanced breast cancer: Development and evaluation of an online resource. European Journal of Cancer Care, 23(5), 626-634. Lavoie, J. G., Forget, E. L., & Browne, A. J. (2010). Caught at the crossroad: First Nations, health care, and the legacy of the Indian Act. Pimatisiwin, 8(1), 83-100. Levesque, J. F., Harris, M. F., & Russell, G. (2013). Patient-centred access to health care: Conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. International Journal for Equity in Health, 12(1), 1-9. Loppie, S., Reading, C., & de Leeuw, S. (2014). Aboriginal experiences with racism and its impacts. Prince George: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Maar, M. A., Lightfoot, N. E., Sutherland, M. E., Strasser, R. P., Wilson, K. J., Lidstone-Jones, C. M., ... & Williamson, P. (2009). Thinking outside the box: Aboriginal people's suggestions for conducting health studies with Aboriginal communities. Public Health, 123(11), 747-753. Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A., & Taylor, S. (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1661-1669. National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. (2013). An overview of Aboriginal health in Canada. Prince George: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Reading, C. L., & Wien, F. (2009). Health inequalities and social determinants of Aboriginal peoples' health. Prince George: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Schnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 1(1), 80-95. Smylie, J., Anderson, I., Ratima, M., Crengle, S., & Anderson, M. (2006). Indigenous health performance measurement systems in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Lancet, 367(9527), 2029-2031. Smylie, J., & Firestone, M. (2016). The health of Indigenous peoples. In D. Raphael (Ed.), Social determinants of health: Canadian perspective (3rd ed., pp. 434-469). Canadian Scholars' Press. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to action. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books. United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New York: United Nations. United Nations. (2009). State of the world's Indigenous peoples. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Oetzel, J. G., & Minkler, M. (Eds.). (2017). Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SharingCircleGuidePathwaysPatientAug2023.pdf Appendix1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 03 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 26 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 14 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Jan, 2026 Editor invited by journal 16 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 29 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 20 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 20 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 20 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7384132","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":508588056,"identity":"b17fbe61-bd82-499d-969a-07206cacd066","order_by":0,"name":"Vanessa Ambtman-Smith¹","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Western University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vanessa","middleName":"","lastName":"Ambtman-Smith¹","suffix":""},{"id":508588057,"identity":"66345714-3712-42aa-ad69-8d6fd4a99103","order_by":1,"name":"Rebecca Morton²","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Boehringer Ingelheim Canada Ltd","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rebecca","middleName":"","lastName":"Morton²","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-15 22:23:09","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7384132/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7384132/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90397666,"identity":"13211bae-26d6-46ef-9b88-8178f38f7eeb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-02 09:40:20","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1841080,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7384132/v1/3488a89a-f537-4c7c-9b6a-ec58f87c3d61.pdf"},{"id":90396088,"identity":"3c555338-d3aa-4774-b6b5-326fe78188e1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-02 09:24:19","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":124254,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SharingCircleGuidePathwaysPatientAug2023.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7384132/v1/454d0e602a6765e0de7a2041.pdf"},{"id":90394981,"identity":"4e97d264-dec7-4a63-bb23-f816530150ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-02 09:16:19","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18593,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7384132/v1/c979a528a07f943aa323fa3c.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"We Already Know How to Beat This: Indigenous Communities Disrupt Health Services and Rewrite Policy","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eGlobal Indigenous Health Services Context and Community-Driven Solutions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I like to help my fellow people... I help my friends if they are here. I sit down and talk to them, some in my language. My language is Blackfoot.\u0026rdquo; These words from Sarah, a community health advocate in Siksika Nation, illustrate the relational foundation of Indigenous health approaches that health systems worldwide fail to recognize or support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndigenous peoples worldwide represent approximately 5% of the global population yet experience disproportionately poor health outcomes compared to non-Indigenous populations, with these disparities reflecting systemic health services delivery failures rather than individual health behaviors (United Nations, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Anderson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In Canada, Indigenous peoples comprise 4.9% of the population but face significantly higher rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health challenges, while experiencing documented discrimination and cultural unsafety in health services encounters (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Allan \u0026amp; Smylie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs Cree physician Dr. Marcia Anderson notes, rather than describing Indigenous peoples as \u0026lsquo;vulnerable,\u0026rsquo; we must recognize them as \u0026lsquo;people we oppress through policy choices and discourses of racial inferiority\u0026rsquo; (Anderson, 2017). This reframing shifts focus from individual or community deficits to the systems and policies that create and maintain health inequities. Indigenous-specific determinants of health include colonization, racism, and self-determination, which have profound and often underlying impacts on Indigenous pathways to health beyond classic socioeconomic determinants (Smylie \u0026amp; Firestone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The 1.4\u0026nbsp;million Indigenous peoples living in Canada are part of a larger global population of over 370\u0026nbsp;million Indigenous peoples who face some of the heaviest burdens of ill health due to ongoing colonial processes rather than inherent vulnerability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese persistent inequities highlight fundamental failures in conventional health services delivery models that fail to recognize Indigenous knowledge systems, self-determination rights, and community-led approaches to wellness (Greenwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Maar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Health services research demonstrates that Indigenous peoples and communities experiencing policy-imposed barriers require delivery innovations that address systemic oppression rather than individual behaviors, with Indigenous communities specifically requiring services that integrate cultural safety, self-determination, and traditional knowledge systems to achieve effectiveness (Browne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Curtis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHealth performance measurement systems in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have historically failed to capture Indigenous-defined indicators of wellness, focusing instead on biomedical outcomes that reflect colonial health paradigms (Smylie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The WHO's three principal goals for health-care systems, contributing to good health, responsiveness to population expectations, and fairness of financial contribution, require fundamental reconceptualization when applied to Indigenous communities whose health concepts extend beyond individual biomedical outcomes to encompass community, land, and spiritual wellness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe global policy landscape for Indigenous health has been shaped by landmark declarations, particularly the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by Canada in 2016 and enshrined in federal legislation in 2021. Article 24 of UNDRIP affirms Indigenous peoples' rights to their traditional medicines and health practices, while Article 23 establishes their right to determine and develop priorities for their health services delivery (United Nations, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). However, despite these international commitments, practical frameworks for implementing Indigenous health rights within existing health services systems remain limited.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCanada\u0026rsquo;s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) specifically addressed health services delivery in Call to Action #22, which calls upon those who can effect change to \u0026ldquo;recognize the value of Aboriginal healing practices and use them in the treatment of Aboriginal patients in collaboration with Aboriginal healers and Elders where requested by Aboriginal patients\u0026rdquo; (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Yet eight years after the TRC's final report, systematic approaches to implementing this Call to Action in health services delivery remain fragmented and underdeveloped.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Pathways Innovation: Indigenous-Led Health Services Delivery\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Pathways Indigenous Health Collaborations initiative emerged in 2018 as a direct response to these health services delivery gaps, representing a novel approach to implementing Indigenous health rights within Canada\u0026rsquo;s universal healthcare system. Developed through a partnership between Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. and Bimaadzwin, Pathways established the first comprehensive Indigenous Health Policy Framework (IHPF) designed to guide private sector engagement with Indigenous communities in healthcare innovation while fundamentally transforming health services delivery models.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCentral to Pathways\u0026rsquo; approach is an Indigenous Advisory Circle that operationalizes Shawn Wilson\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) relational accountability framework and the Four R\u0026rsquo;s of Indigenous research: respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and relationality. Wilson's seminal work \u0026ldquo;Research is Ceremony\u0026rdquo; established that in Indigenous paradigms, \u0026ldquo;all knowledge is relational as it emerges from and is shared among All of Creation,\u0026rdquo; fundamentally reshaping how health services partnerships are conceived, implemented, and evaluated (Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Indigenous Advisory Circle operates under the principle \u0026ldquo;our priority as an Indigenous Advisory Circle is our communities,\u0026rdquo; ensuring that all Pathways activities maintain accountability to Indigenous communities rather than institutional demands. This represents a significant departure from typical consultation models in health services delivery, positioning Indigenous knowledge holders as decision-makers rather than advisors in a process controlled by non-Indigenous institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eHealth Services Delivery Innovation Through Indigenous Governance\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnlike conventional health services quality improvement approaches that modify existing services, the Pathways model reimagines service delivery relationships, moving from provider-controlled encounters to community-governed health partnerships. This approach addresses documented barriers to healthcare access including geographic isolation, cultural unsafety, and systemic discrimination while creating innovative delivery models that other communities experiencing policy-imposed health barriers could adapt (Reading \u0026amp; Wien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Loppie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe initiative demonstrates how digital health implementation, virtual care platforms, and community-based interventions can transform health services delivery when governed by Indigenous communities rather than imposed by external systems. Early pilot projects showed promising outcomes in diabetes management, foot care prevention, and emergency care coordination, suggesting that Indigenous-led governance could address persistent health services delivery challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResearch Framework and Objectives\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis evaluation employed a community-governed program evaluation approach, with Indigenous health scholar leadership and allied evaluation specialist support jointly conducting the assessment under Indigenous Advisory Circle governance. This partnership ensured both Indigenous knowledge systems and conventional evaluation standards were honoured while maintaining relational accountability to participating communities and following established Indigenous research ethics protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe central research question guiding this evaluation was: How can Indigenous-led health services partnerships, guided by relational accountability principles and the Four R\u0026rsquo;s, transform healthcare delivery models while advancing health sovereignty through Indigenous knowledge systems integration in policy frameworks?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy Design and Setting\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis mixed-methods community-based participatory evaluation examined health services delivery innovations across eight Indigenous communities throughout Canada from 2018\u0026ndash;2024. The study employed an Indigenous-governed evaluation framework that integrated Wilson\u0026rsquo;s relational accountability methodology with RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) evaluation components to assess health services transformation (Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Glasgow et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eIndigenous Research Ethics and Community Governance\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe evaluation methodology was grounded in Wilson\u0026rsquo;s relational accountability framework, which recognizes that knowledge emerges from relationships rather than individual expertise, requiring reimagining of traditional evaluation processes to honour Indigenous ways of knowing while meeting health services research standards for evidence and accountability (Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Castellano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Informed consent was obtained from all participants for their involvement in evaluation activities and for sharing their experiences in academic publications (Ambtman-Smith \u0026amp; Morton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis evaluation framework acknowledges that \u0026lsquo;the societal processes of European colonization are a fundamental and underlying determinant of health\u0026rsquo; (Smylie \u0026amp; Firestone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), requiring evaluation approaches that examine how health services delivery either perpetuates or disrupts colonial health policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Indigenous Advisory Circle provided governance oversight throughout the evaluation process, ensuring appropriate Indigenous research protocols were followed including OCAP\u0026reg; principles (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession) for data sovereignty and community-controlled research protocols (First Nations Information Governance Centre, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The Four R\u0026rsquo;s framework guided all aspects of evaluation design:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRespect\u003c/b\u003e: Honouring Indigenous protocols and knowledge systems throughout the evaluation process\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResponsibility\u003c/b\u003e: Maintaining accountability to Indigenous communities and their health services priorities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eReciprocity\u003c/b\u003e: Ensuring evaluation findings would benefit participating communities and improve health services delivery\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRelationality\u003c/b\u003e: Recognizing that knowledge emerges from relationships rather than extraction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIndigenous-Led Evaluation Partnership\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe evaluation was led by an Indigenous health scholar (Vanessa Ambtman-Smith, author 1) bringing Indigenous knowledge systems and community accountability, with allied evaluation specialist support (Rebecca Morton, author 2) providing evaluation expertise within the Indigenous-governed framework. This partnership model addressed critical aspects of Indigenous research ethics while ensuring health services research rigor:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndigenous Governance\u003c/b\u003e: Maintaining Indigenous Advisory Circle oversight throughout all evaluation activities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDual Accountability\u003c/b\u003e: Responsibility to both Indigenous communities and health services evaluation standards\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eKnowledge Translation\u003c/b\u003e: Bridging Indigenous knowledge systems with health policy and program requirements\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCultural Safety\u003c/b\u003e: Ensuring non-Indigenous evaluators operated within Indigenous protocols\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData Sovereignty\u003c/b\u003e: Following OCAP\u0026reg; principles for community control over health information and findings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants and Recruitment\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEight pilot projects across Canada participated, involving 1808\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;participants from more than 30 Indigenous communities. For a full list of the pilot project including their primary focus as well as location see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. See Appendix 1 for details on each project, including project descriptions and objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePathways Pilot Project Communities, Locations \u0026amp; Initiative Focus\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePilot Communities:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLocation by Province\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject Name\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInitiative Focus\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBaker Lake\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNunavut\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBaker Lake Champions of Health\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInuit youth diabetes prevention\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraditional food programs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWagmatcook FN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNova Scotia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWagmatcook Diabetes Project\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital glucose monitoring\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManitoba Metis Federation (MMF)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManitoba\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Tow a Path\u0026rdquo;: A Pilot Type 2 Diabetes Screening Study in M\u0026eacute;tis Population\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMobile diabetes screening\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaskwacis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlberta\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaskwacis \u0026Acirc;nisk\u0026ocirc;mohcikewin\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVirtual care platforms\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmergency medical services innovation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSiksika Health Services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlberta\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSiksika Health Services Pilot\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFoot care technology (Monitoring foot ulcers with sensory insoles)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital glucose monitoring\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEbb \u0026amp; Flow FN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManitoba\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCombatting Diabetes Before Onset of Complications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYouth diabetes prevention\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunity health planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNuu chah nulth Tribal Council (NTC)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBritish Columbia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVirtual Diabetes Care QI Project\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council (NTC) and BCDiabetes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVirtual diabetes care\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraditional food programs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSix Nations of The Grand River\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOntario\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSix Nations Health Services Food and Water Access Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWater quality and diabetes\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraditional food programs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited through community health centers and project partners, with recruitment led by Indigenous community members. Inclusion criteria included Indigenous identity, participation in pilot projects, and willingness to share experiences through Indigenous methodologies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Collection Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData collection occurred from 2018\u0026ndash;2024 using multiple methods designed to evaluate health services delivery transformation:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAdvisory Circle Sharing Circles\u003c/b\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3): Virtual circles with Management Committee (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4), Indigenous Advisory Circle (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5), and Pilot Project Partners (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18) examining health services delivery processes, governance, and system-level impacts. Sharing circles followed a structured protocol developed specifically for this evaluation (Ambtman-Smith \u0026amp; Morton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) that honoured Indigenous methodologies while meeting program evaluation requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePatient Interviews\u003c/b\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6): Semi-structured interviews with pilot participants from four different projects, exploring personal experiences with health services delivery innovations, access improvements, and quality of care changes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSatisfaction Surveys\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject providers (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8) and participants (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;44) assessing health services quality, cultural safety, and delivery effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProject Reports\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eProgress and final reports from all pilot sites documenting health services delivery innovations, implementation challenges, and outcome measures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHealth Services Metrics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eClinical outcomes, service utilization patterns, emergency department visits, specialist referrals, and care coordination indicators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis employed thematic content analysis guided by Indigenous vision wheel principles, moving through four directions: Vision (seeing patterns in health services delivery), Relationship (understanding connections between governance and outcomes), Knowledge (integrating understanding of effective models), and Action (identifying implementation implications). This approach, overseen by the Advisory Circle, ensured findings remained grounded in Indigenous knowledge systems while meeting health services research evaluation standards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Pathways evaluation framework addresses gaps identified by Smylie et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) in Indigenous health performance measurement by integrating Indigenous-defined wellness indicators alongside conventional health metrics. The Indigenous Advisory Circle\u0026rsquo;s governance of evaluation priorities ensures that measurement systems reflect Indigenous values rather than imposing external frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for health outcomes and service utilization measures. Qualitative data underwent inductive thematic analysis with community verification of emerging themes to ensure accuracy and cultural appropriateness of interpretations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eHealth Services Delivery Transformation Outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe eight Pathways pilot projects demonstrated significant health services delivery transformation across multiple dimensions. Collectively, these projects reached 1808 participants across more than 30 Indigenous communities, conducting over 70 engagement events and activities that reimagined how health services are delivered, accessed, and governed (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePilot Project Overall Impact\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePilot Project\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImpacts\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEngagement Events/Activities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBaker Lake\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e22 media activities, stakeholder outreach and meetings\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1808\u003c/b\u003e directly impacted by pilots\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;70 (+)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWagmatcook\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;264 participants using freestyle sensors\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;120 foot care clients\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e12 foot care clinics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e10 sessions at the elder center\u003c/b\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8 elders)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6 cooking classes\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5\u0026ndash;6 each class (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30\u0026ndash;36)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMMF\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;510 community reach\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e17 MMF community centers\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaskwacis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;242 participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSiksika\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29 participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEbb \u0026amp; Flow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;548 participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3 events per week\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNTC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27 participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSix Nations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24 participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDigital Health Implementation and Healthcare Access Improvements\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital health interventions proved particularly successful when governed by Indigenous protocols, addressing persistent barriers to healthcare access while improving health outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I had autonomy over my decisions about seeking support, something I had been fearful about getting health support. I had the ability to make the decision to when, where, how.\u0026rdquo; Joseph\u0026rsquo;s experience with virtual care captures (Maskwacis) how Indigenous-governed digital health transforms healthcare access from barrier-filled encounters to empowering choices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiabetes Management Innovation (Siksika Nation)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe project achieved 100% participant satisfaction while significantly reducing diabetic foot ulcer risk by 95%. \u0026ldquo;I have been pretty grateful for it, it definitely improved the quality of my life. It's a good sense of security for yourself... It alerts you when it gets too high or low. Let's you know what you are eating, that might not be good,\u0026rdquo; explained Michael, whose experience with digital sensory insoles exemplifies community-controlled innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVirtual Care Platform Success (Maskwacis)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe EMS-physician virtual care platform transformed healthcare access by building on existing community trust relationships, creating what Joseph described as providing \u0026ldquo;autonomy over my decisions about seeking support.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;The ambulance has developed an incredible relationship with community, trusted, more so than community health center. People were calling ambulance to support them in sickness or illness, but refusing to go to the hospital,\u0026rdquo; Joseph explained.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLife Transformation Through Community Connection (Siksika Nation)\u003c/b\u003e: Thomas\u0026rsquo;s journey from isolation to connection illustrates the power of culturally grounded support: \u0026ldquo;I found out I had diabetes, blood pressure was high... I realized I wasn't taking care of myself. Get blood sugar down from 29 to 20 then to 15, now down to 4 for 5 or 6 months. Took a lot of dedication.\u0026rdquo; But beyond clinical outcomes, Thomas experienced profound personal transformation: \u0026ldquo;I used to be a loner, don\u0026rsquo;t bother with anyone. Since I started working here, interacting with the people. I am learning a lot from myself and people to understand.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eHealthcare Delivery Model Innovations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBuilding on Traditional Knowledge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsights from Inuit youth programs demonstrates how traditional knowledge enhances rather than competes with health services innovation. \u0026ldquo;Youth believe that they are part of the solution and can play an active role in curtailing diabetes by learning and practicing traditional knowledge rooted in the land.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMobile Health Services Expansion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eM\u0026eacute;tis-led mobile diabetes screening reached over 500 rural M\u0026eacute;tis across Manitoba, representing the first M\u0026eacute;tis-led diabetes screening in the province. This delivery innovation eliminated geographic barriers while providing culturally safe care environments, with participants noting the importance of seeing their own people leading health initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePeer Education Networks\u003c/b\u003e: Participants demonstrated how community members became health service ambassadors, bridging clinical care with cultural safety. Sarah from Siksika embodies the peer educator role: \u0026ldquo;I like to help my fellow people... I help my friends if they are here. I sit down and talk to them, some in my language. My language is Blackfoot... I like to help my fellow people.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eHealth System Quality and Safety Improvements\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeasurable health system quality improvements emerged across pilot sites:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eClinical Outcomes:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e18% increase in time spent in optimal A1c range among diabetes participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e75% of participants achieved optimal blood pressure targets\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% reduction in diabetic foot ulcer risk through sensor technology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e40% reduction in emergency department visits through virtual care access\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eQuality Indicators:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e100% satisfaction rates in digital health interventions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e78.6% of participants reported feeling respected by program providers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e74% reported improved access to culturally safe healthcare services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e85% would recommend services to family and community members\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCare Coordination Improvements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eVirtual care platforms facilitated specialist referrals and follow-up care, reducing wait times and improving care continuity. Emergency department avoidance behaviors decreased as participants gained confidence in alternative care pathways.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eIndigenous Cultural Safety in Health Services Delivery\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural safety emerged not as an add-on to existing services but as a fundamental requirement for effective healthcare delivery. Robert, a diabetes program participant, captured this transformation: \u0026ldquo;It points me to the right direction of caring about myself... I have more energy, my energy went through the roof... I am feeling more empathy for other people. I care more, I\u0026rsquo;m more [sic] calmer... I have a better way.\u0026rdquo; His words illustrate how cultural safety enables not just health improvement, but whole-person wellness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants across all stakeholder groups identified cultural safety as the primary determinant of health services effectiveness, challenging funding models based solely on clinical outcomes and suggesting instead the need for sustained investment in relationship infrastructure within health services delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMargaret, a former elected leader and healthcare advocate, provided critical context about the systemic barriers that culturally safe services must address: \u0026ldquo;For Indigenous people, healthcare is a complex issue... people don't get the privilege of experiencing healthcare the way non-Indigenous people do. I have never had a healthcare experience with a doctor that didn't feel like it focused on being Indigenous.\u0026rdquo; Yet the Pathways model created spaces where participants like Joseph could experience something different: \u0026ldquo;I never felt like I was being ignored or situation not taken seriously.\u0026rdquo; This transformation moves beyond individual comfort to systemic change, demonstrating how cultural safety requires structural rather than superficial changes to health services delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEvaluation Themes: Community Priorities and Health Services Implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree dominant themes emerged from the Indigenous Advisory Circle-guided analysis, each carrying significant implications for health services delivery transformation:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCommunity \u0026amp; Relationships: \u0026rsquo;Trust and relationships are the way to support people\u0026rsquo;\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis theme revealed how relational approaches transform health services delivery from transactional encounters to sustained therapeutic relationships. \u0026ldquo;If it wasn't for Rachel [diabetes educator] I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t be here today... If you don\u0026rsquo;t go out and get it you are lying to yourself. It\u0026rsquo;s that determination,\u0026rdquo; Thomas shared, illustrating how relationships become the foundation for health transformation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants across all stakeholder groups identified relationship quality as the primary determinant of health services success. For health services policy development, this finding challenges traditional provider-patient relationship models, suggesting the need for sustained investment in relationship infrastructure rather than short-term interventions. As one pilot project noted: \u0026ldquo;Trust and relationships are the way to support people and that peer education is meaningful in spreading the word.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eIndigenous Cultural Safety: \u0026lsquo;I never felt like I was being ignored\u0026rsquo;\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural safety emerged as both a quality indicator and a prerequisite for effective health services delivery, with participants reporting feeling safe to discuss health concerns and having their cultural backgrounds respected, leading to improved health outcomes and service utilization. \u0026ldquo;I never felt like I was being ignored or situation not taken seriously,\u0026rdquo; Joseph reflected on his virtual care experience, contrasting it with his previous healthcare encounters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis transformation moves beyond individual comfort to systemic change. As Margaret observed about healthcare barriers: \u0026ldquo;So many people don't have health cards, lost id or stolen etc.\u0026rdquo; Yet the Pathways approach created spaces where these barriers were addressed rather than becoming exclusion criteria, demonstrating how cultural safety requires structural rather than superficial changes to health services delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSustainability \u0026amp; Maintenance: \u0026lsquo;A big part of sustainability is about maintaining relational ties\u0026rsquo;\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunities emphasized the need for long-term commitment beyond typical three-year funding cycles, requiring fundamental shifts in how governments and private partners approach Indigenous health services delivery. This theme captures the tension between communities ready to innovate and systems designed for short-term projects rather than lasting relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;There is resistance to starting something new for fear that it will cease abruptly when funding dries up,\u0026rdquo; Margaret explained, highlighting the most significant health services delivery challenge: transitioning from successful pilots to sustained programming. \u0026ldquo;A big part of sustainability is about maintaining relational ties and taking the time needed to engage in this exchange.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eIndigenous Health Policy Framework Evolution: From Community Wisdom to Policy Innovation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe transformation of Pathway\u0026rsquo;s Indigenous Health Policy Framework represents perhaps the most significant outcome of the evaluation, a policy document evolved not through bureaucratic revision, but through Indigenous community governance and lived experience. Under Indigenous Advisory Circle leadership, evaluation findings directly informed a comprehensive restructuring that reflects the community priorities and relationship-centered approaches discovered through the pilot projects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFrom Complexity to Clarity Through Community Leadership\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe original 95-page IHPF, while comprehensive, proved unwieldy for practical implementation. As the Indigenous Advisory Circle noted in their January 2025 strategic planning session, \u0026ldquo;ensuring Indigenous values remain central to Pathways\u0026rsquo; work\u0026rdquo; required a fundamental reimagining of how policy frameworks are structured and presented. The community-governed evaluation process revealed that effective policy must be accessible, actionable, and grounded in the wisdom emerging from pilot projects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMargaret\u0026rsquo;s reflection on sustainability challenges directly influenced this restructuring: \u0026ldquo;There is resistance to starting something new for fear that it will cease abruptly when funding dries up... A big part of sustainability is about maintaining relational ties and taking the time needed to engage in this exchange.\u0026rdquo; The Advisory Circle recognized that policy frameworks themselves must embody the relational principles they seek to promote.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eA Three-Document Approach Born from Community Priorities\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe restructured IHPF reflects the three dominant themes that emerged from community voices: relationships, cultural safety, and sustainability. Rather than a single lengthy document, the framework now consists of:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA \u003cb\u003eConcise Policy Statement\u003c/b\u003e that captures the essence of Indigenous health sovereignty in language accessible to all stakeholders, from community members to corporate partners. This document embodies Thomas\u0026rsquo;s insight that \u0026ldquo;trust and relationships are the way to support people\u0026rdquo;, positioning relationship-building as policy foundation rather than policy outcome.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA \u003cb\u003eStreamlined Framework\u003c/b\u003e with twelve core components that operationalize the wisdom shared by participants like Sarah, who emphasized helping \u0026ldquo;my fellow people\u0026rdquo; through culturally grounded approaches. These components translate community insights into actionable policy guidance that honours Indigenous knowledge systems while meeting institutional accountability requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSupporting Documentation\u003c/b\u003e that provides the historical context and implementation guidance necessary for non-Indigenous partners to understand their role in supporting rather than leading Indigenous health initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTwelve Components Reflecting Community Wisdom\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe twelve core components represent a synthesis of community insights and policy requirements, with each component grounded in participant experiences:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndigenous Knowledge and Cultural Safety\u003c/b\u003e reflects Robert's transformation through culturally safe care and Sarah\u0026rsquo;s commitment to sharing knowledge \u0026ldquo;in my language. My language is Blackfoot.\u0026rdquo; This component positions Indigenous knowledge as foundational rather than supplementary to health services delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSelf-Determination\u003c/b\u003e operationalizes Joseph\u0026rsquo;s experience of having \u0026ldquo;autonomy over my decisions about seeking support,\u0026rdquo; establishing community control as both principle and practice in health policy implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEquity and Inclusion\u003c/b\u003e addresses the systemic barriers Margaret identified while ensuring diverse Indigenous populations can access culturally safe services, including youth and 2SLGBTQIA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;community members.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWholistic Health Approach\u003c/b\u003e captures the interconnectedness evident in participants\u0026rsquo; stories, from Thomas\u0026rsquo;s experience of personal, social, and health transformation to the youth programs\u0026rsquo; integration of traditional knowledge with contemporary health challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTraditional Healing Integration\u003c/b\u003e honors the land-based knowledge that Inuit youth emphasized as essential for \u0026ldquo;bringing healthy traditional practices to the fore,\u0026rdquo; facilitating respectful integration of healing practices and connections to the Land.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePrevention Focus\u003c/b\u003e reflects the proactive approaches demonstrated across pilot sites, from foot ulcer prevention to diabetes education programs, prioritizing prevention of conditions disproportionately affecting Indigenous peoples.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePartnerships\u003c/b\u003e embodies the trust-building that Thomas experienced with his diabetes educator: \u0026ldquo;If it wasn't for Rachel I wouldn't be here today,\u0026rdquo; emphasizing respectful collaborations with Indigenous organizations built on the Four R's framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData Sovereignty\u003c/b\u003e operationalizes the OCAP\u0026reg; principles that governed this evaluation, ensuring communities maintain control over their health information and research processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHistorical Context\u003c/b\u003e acknowledges the colonial impacts that Margaret described while supporting healing pathways that participants discovered through culturally safe care.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAccountability\u003c/b\u003e embodies the transparent mechanisms participants like Joseph experienced: \u0026ldquo;I never felt like I was being ignored,\u0026rdquo; establishing clear evaluation structures at all levels of engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndigenous Advisory Circle Guidance\u003c/b\u003e ensures Indigenous voices remain central, as demonstrated through the community-governed evaluation that shaped these very policy components.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSustainability\u003c/b\u003e directly addresses Margaret\u0026rsquo;s concerns about funding cycles and relationship maintenance, requiring long-term commitment structures that support the \u0026ldquo;relational ties\u0026rdquo; essential for effective Indigenous health initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eA Framework Grounded in Relational Accountability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis policy evolution demonstrates Wilson\u0026rsquo;s relational accountability framework in action. Rather than external experts developing policy for Indigenous communities, the IHPF framework emerged from Indigenous governance of evaluation processes that centered community wisdom and experience. The Indigenous Advisory Circle\u0026rsquo;s leadership ensured that policy development remained accountable to community priorities rather than institutional demands.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe IHPF framework scheduled for launch at the Kahnawake gathering in July 2025 represents more than policy reform, it embodies a new model for Indigenous health governance that positions communities as policy authors rather than policy subjects. As the evaluation revealed, effective Indigenous health policy must reflect the same principles of respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and relationality that drive successful health services delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eHealth Services Delivery Transformation Through Indigenous Governance\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Pathways model demonstrates that Indigenous-led governance transforms health services delivery across multiple dimensions identified as critical in health services research: accessibility, quality, efficiency, equity, and patient experience (Institute of Medicine, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Levesque et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike conventional quality improvement approaches that modify existing services, this model reimagines service delivery relationships, moving from provider-controlled encounters to community-governed health partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis transformation addresses documented barriers to healthcare access including geographic isolation, cultural unsafety, and systemic discrimination while creating innovative delivery models that improve both health outcomes and patient satisfaction (Browne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Greenwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The 78.6% cultural safety rating compared to documented discrimination experiences in conventional health services demonstrates measurable quality improvement through Indigenous governance approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDigital Health Implementation in Communities Experiencing Policy-Imposed Barriers\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe success of digital health interventions across pilot sites demonstrates that technology can improve healthcare access for Indigenous peoples and other communities experiencing policy-imposed barriers when implementation is community-controlled rather than externally imposed (Kemp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Car \u0026amp; Sheikh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). The 100% satisfaction rate with glucose sensors and successful virtual care adoption challenges assumptions about digital divides in Indigenous communities, suggesting that appropriate implementation approaches rather than technology access constitute the primary barrier.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Maskwacis virtual care platform\u0026rsquo;s success in reducing emergency department avoidance while maintaining cultural safety illustrates how digital health can address multiple health services delivery challenges simultaneously. Joseph\u0026rsquo;s reflection that virtual care provided \u0026ldquo;autonomy over my decisions about seeking support\u0026rdquo; demonstrates how technology, when implemented through Indigenous governance, enhances rather than diminishes self-determination in healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eReframing Language and Systemic Accountability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research challenges deficit-based language commonly applied to Indigenous peoples in health services research. Following Dr. Marcia Anderson's call to replace \u0026lsquo;vulnerable people\u0026rsquo; with \u0026lsquo;people we oppress through policy choices and discourses of racial inferiority\u0026rsquo; (Anderson, 2017), the Pathways model demonstrates how health services delivery transformation requires acknowledging systemic oppression rather than community deficits. The Indigenous Advisory Circle\u0026rsquo;s governance approach shifts accountability from Indigenous communities to adapt to existing systems, toward health systems adapting to honour Indigenous knowledge and self-determination rights. This reframing aligns with Smylie and Firestone\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) identification of colonization, racism, and restricted self-determination as fundamental health determinants requiring structural rather than individual-level interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePolicy Innovation and Global Applicability for Communities Facing Systemic Oppression\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Pathways model represents significant policy innovation with implications extending beyond Indigenous communities to other people\u0026rsquo;s facing systemic healthcare barriers through policy choices and institutional discrimination (Marmot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Braveman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). By demonstrating how community governance can be formally integrated into healthcare policy while maintaining both cultural integrity and institutional accountability, Pathways provides a template for countries worldwide seeking to implement health equity approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Indigenous Advisory Circle model addresses a critical gap in health services policy for communities experiencing policy-imposed barriers: how to move beyond consultation to genuine community leadership in policy development. Unlike traditional advisory structures that provide input to predetermined processes, the Pathways Indigenous Advisory Circle maintains decision-making authority over how community knowledge is applied and protected in health services delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCanadian Healthcare System Integration and International Comparative Context\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin Canada\u0026rsquo;s universal healthcare context, Pathways demonstrates how Indigenous-led innovations can be integrated without requiring wholesale system transformation, offering instructive comparisons with Indigenous health policies internationally (Lavoie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The IHPF provides specific mechanisms for recognizing Indigenous knowledge systems within existing policy frameworks while ensuring Indigenous communities maintain control over their health information and priorities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis integration model has particular relevance for other countries with universal healthcare systems facing similar challenges in balancing community rights with system-wide accountability requirements. Unlike Australia\u0026rsquo;s Aboriginal health strategy, which primarily operates within existing healthcare structures, or New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s Māori health models, which focus on provider training, Pathways establishes community governance as central to policy development itself (Anderson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Durie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEthical Considerations in Health Services Research with Communities Experiencing Systemic Oppression\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe community-governed evaluation approach addresses critical ethical considerations in conducting health services research with Indigenous peoples and other communities experiencing systemic barriers, particularly around data sovereignty, research governance, and benefit distribution (Tuhiwai Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Schnarch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). The OCAP\u0026reg; principles implementation demonstrates how communities can maintain control over research processes while contributing to health services knowledge development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis approach challenges conventional research relationships where communities experiencing policy-imposed barriers are subjects rather than governors of research, offering a replicable model for ethical health services research that amplifies rather than extracts community voices (Castleden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Wallerstein et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec37\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations warrant consideration. The evaluation focused on pilot projects with motivated early adopters, potentially limiting generalizability to broader Indigenous communities or other people\u0026rsquo;s experiencing policy-imposed health barriers. The five-year timeframe, while substantial for pilot evaluation, may be insufficient to assess long-term sustainability of governance models and health outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResource requirements for Indigenous governance and relationship-building may challenge scalability within existing healthcare financing models. The Canadian healthcare context may limit direct transferability to other health systems, though underlying governance principles appear broadly applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eIndigenous-led partnerships create meaningful health empowerment and health services transformation when grounded in community governance and relational accountability, as demonstrated through the Indigenous Advisory Circle\u0026rsquo;s governance model and community-controlled evaluation approach. The Pathways model provides replicable mechanisms for implementing Indigenous health rights within health services delivery while offering a template for other communities experiencing policy-imposed health barriers seeking to transform healthcare access and quality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost significantly, the Indigenous Advisory Circle-led evolution of Canada\u0026rsquo;s Indigenous Health Policy Framework provides concrete policy mechanisms for implementing Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations and UNDRIP in health services delivery settings. By operationalizing community governance through specific policy mechanisms, Pathways offers concrete pathways for countries and health systems seeking to advance health equity for peoples experiencing systemic oppression through policy choices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe international applicability of this model lies not in standardized implementation but in underlying principles of community governance and relational accountability that can be adapted across different healthcare contexts while maintaining core commitments to community leadership. As countries worldwide grapple with implementing health equity approaches, the Pathways framework demonstrates that authentic community leadership in health services delivery transformation is both possible and essential for creating sustainable health improvements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture health services research should focus on comparative implementation studies across different healthcare systems, longitudinal evaluation of governance model sustainability, and cross-national networks for sharing community-led health services innovations. The Pathways model provides a foundation for these endeavors while ensuring Indigenous and other community knowledge systems remain central to global health services development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIHPF: Indigenous Health Policy Framework\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOCAP\u0026reg;: Ownership, Control, Access, Possession\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRE-AIM: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTRC: Truth and Reconciliation Commission\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUNDRIP: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEMS: Emergency Medical Services\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFN: First Nations\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis evaluation was conducted under Indigenous governance protocols rather than institutional review board oversight, as determined appropriate by Indigenous Advisory Circle leadership. Ethics approval was provided by local Indigenous leaders through the Indigenous Advisory Circle governance structure, which maintained oversight of all evaluation activities following OCAP\u0026reg; principles and Indigenous research ethics protocols. No institutional ethics board approval was required for this program evaluation, which fell outside conventional research ethics review processes and was governed by Indigenous communities themselves. This evaluation study is in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for evaluation purposes and for sharing their experiences in academic publications. The authors meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The authors did not receive payment related to the development of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants provided informed consent for their experiences to be shared in academic publications. Pseudonyms are used throughout to protect participant privacy while honouring their contributions to knowledge development.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of Data and Materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData supporting the conclusions are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with appropriate Indigenous community governance approval following OCAP\u0026reg; principles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. provided funding for the Pathways initiative and evaluation activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis evaluation was supported and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. through the Pathways Indigenous Health Collaborations initiative. Funding supported community governance activities, evaluation implementation, and knowledge translation efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVA-S led the Indigenous governance and community accountability aspects of the evaluation. RM provided evaluation methodology expertise within the Indigenous-governed framework. Both authors contributed to analysis, interpretation, and manuscript development under Indigenous Advisory Circle oversight. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors acknowledge the Indigenous Advisory Circle members who governed this evaluation and the community members who shared their knowledge and experiences. We recognize that this work takes place on the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples across Canada and honour their ongoing stewardship of these lands. Special recognition to the pilot project communities and participants who courageously shared their stories to contribute to health services knowledge development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllan, B., \u0026amp; Smylie, J. (2015). First peoples, second class treatment: The role of racism in the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Toronto: Wellesley Institute.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmbtman-Smith, V., \u0026amp; Morton, R. (2023). Pathways Evaluation Sharing Circle Script - Patients. Unpublished evaluation instrument. Pathways Indigenous Health Collaborations.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, I., Robson, B., Connolly, M., Al-Yaman, F., Bjertness, E., King, A., ... \u0026amp; Yap, L. (2016). Indigenous and tribal peoples\u0026apos; health (The Lancet\u0026ndash;Lowitja Institute Global Collaboration): A population study. The Lancet, 388(10040), 131-157.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, I., Crengle, S., Leialoha Kamaka, M., Chen, T. H., Palafox, N., \u0026amp; Jackson-Pulver, L. (2006). Indigenous health in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific. The Lancet, 367(9524), 1775-1785.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, M. [@Dr_M_Anderson]. (2017, December 13). From now on instead of \u0026quot;vulnerable people\u0026quot; I\u0026apos;m going to use the phrase \u0026quot;people we oppress through policy choices and discourses of racial inferiority.\u0026quot; It\u0026apos;s a bit longer but I think will help us focus on where the problems actually lie [Tweet]. Twitter.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraveman, P., Egerter, S., \u0026amp; Williams, D. R. (2011). The social determinants of health: Coming of age. Annual Review of Public Health, 32, 381-398.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrowne, A. J., Varcoe, C., Lavoie, J., Smye, V., Wong, S. T., Krause, M., ... \u0026amp; Fridkin, A. (2016). Enhancing health care equity with Indigenous populations: Evidence-based strategies from an ethnographic study. BMC Health Services Research, 16(1), 1-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCar, J., \u0026amp; Sheikh, A. (2004). Digital health: A promising approach for healthcare delivery. British Medical Journal, 329(7466), 1166-1168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCastellano, M. B. (2004). Ethics of Aboriginal research. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(1), 98-114.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCastleden, H., Morgan, V. S., \u0026amp; Lamb, C. (2012). Voice, power and dialogue: Indigenous and community-based participatory research and environmental health. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 19-27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCurtis, E., Jones, R., Tipene-Leach, D., Walker, C., Loring, B., Paine, S. J., \u0026amp; Reid, P. (2019). Why cultural safety rather than cultural competency is required to achieve health equity: A literature review and recommended definition. International Journal for Equity in Health, 18(1), 1-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDurie, M. (2003). Ngā kāhui pou: Launching Māori futures. Wellington: Huia Publishers.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFirst Nations Information Governance Centre. (2014). Ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP\u0026trade;): The path to First Nations information governance. Ottawa: First Nations Information Governance Centre.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., \u0026amp; Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenwood, M., de Leeuw, S., \u0026amp; Lindsay, N. (Eds.). (2018). Determinants of Indigenous peoples\u0026apos; health: Beyond the social. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInstitute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKemp, E., Koczwara, B., Butow, P., Girgis, A., \u0026amp; Tattersall, M. H. (2014). Online information and support for women with advanced breast cancer: Development and evaluation of an online resource. European Journal of Cancer Care, 23(5), 626-634.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLavoie, J. G., Forget, E. L., \u0026amp; Browne, A. J. (2010). Caught at the crossroad: First Nations, health care, and the legacy of the Indian Act. Pimatisiwin, 8(1), 83-100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevesque, J. F., Harris, M. F., \u0026amp; Russell, G. (2013). Patient-centred access to health care: Conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. International Journal for Equity in Health, 12(1), 1-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoppie, S., Reading, C., \u0026amp; de Leeuw, S. (2014). Aboriginal experiences with racism and its impacts. Prince George: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaar, M. A., Lightfoot, N. E., Sutherland, M. E., Strasser, R. P., Wilson, K. J., Lidstone-Jones, C. M., ... \u0026amp; Williamson, P. (2009). Thinking outside the box: Aboriginal people\u0026apos;s suggestions for conducting health studies with Aboriginal communities. Public Health, 123(11), 747-753.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A., \u0026amp; Taylor, S. (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1661-1669.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. (2013). An overview of Aboriginal health in Canada. Prince George: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReading, C. L., \u0026amp; Wien, F. (2009). Health inequalities and social determinants of Aboriginal peoples\u0026apos; health. Prince George: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 1(1), 80-95.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmylie, J., Anderson, I., Ratima, M., Crengle, S., \u0026amp; Anderson, M. (2006). Indigenous health performance measurement systems in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Lancet, 367(9527), 2029-2031.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmylie, J., \u0026amp; Firestone, M. (2016). The health of Indigenous peoples. In D. Raphael (Ed.), Social determinants of health: Canadian perspective (3rd ed., pp. 434-469). Canadian Scholars\u0026apos; Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTruth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to action. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New York: United Nations.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations. (2009). State of the world\u0026apos;s Indigenous peoples. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWallerstein, N., Duran, B., Oetzel, J. G., \u0026amp; Minkler, M. (Eds.). (2017). Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-health-services-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bhsr","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Health Services Research](http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/BHSR/default.aspx","title":"BMC Health Services Research","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Indigenous health, health services research, community-based participatory research, health equity, digital health, health policy, healthcare access, cultural safety, health sovereignty, decolonizing health","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7384132/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7384132/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe knowledge is already in community on how to beat diabetes. Youth can be part of the solution in bringing healthy traditional practices to the fore and this will turn the tide of chronic disease - wisdom from Inuit community members capturing the essence of Indigenous health sovereignty, communities as solution-holders, not problem-bearers. Indigenous peoples globally face persistent health disparities rooted not in community deficits, but in systemic barriers to healthcare access and policies that fail to recognize Indigenous knowledge systems. As Cree physician Dr. Marcia Anderson powerfully reframes, rather than viewing Indigenous peoples as vulnerable populations, we must recognize them as \u0026ldquo;people we oppress through policy choices and discourses of racial inferiority.\u0026rdquo; In Canada, where Indigenous communities comprise 4.9% of the population yet experience disproportionate health inequities, the Pathways Indigenous Health Collaborations initiative demonstrates how Indigenous-led health services innovation, guided by community governance, transforms health outcomes and delivery care systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a comprehensive five-year Indigenous-led program evaluation (2018\u0026ndash;2024) of health services delivery innovations across eight pilot projects involving 1808\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;participants. The evaluation was governed by an Indigenous Advisory Circle using relational accountability principles and integrated Indigenous methodologies (sharing circles, Four R's framework) with the RE-AIM evaluation framework. Data collection included Advisory Circle-facilitated sharing circles (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3), patient interviews (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6), satisfaction surveys (providers n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8, participants n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;44), and project reports. Analysis employed thematic content analysis guided by Indigenous vision wheel principles under community governance oversight.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree dominant themes emerged: Community \u0026amp; Relationships, Indigenous Cultural Safety, and Sustainability \u0026amp; Maintenance. Health services delivery innovations demonstrated significant outcomes including 18% increased time in optimal diabetes range, 100% participant satisfaction in digital health interventions, 95% diabetic foot ulcer risk reduction, and 78.6% reporting cultural safety in care encounters. These community-governed findings directly informed transformation of Pathway\u0026rsquo;s Indigenous Health Policy Framework from a 95-page document to an accessible three-document framework with 12 core components for health services implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndigenous-led partnerships create meaningful health empowerment and health services transformation when grounded in community governance and relational accountability. The Pathways model provides replicable mechanisms for implementing Indigenous health rights within health services delivery, demonstrating that authentic Indigenous leadership in policy development transforms both health outcomes and system responsiveness while offering a template for other communities experiencing policy-imposed health barriers.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"We Already Know How to Beat This: Indigenous Communities Disrupt Health Services and Rewrite Policy","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-02 09:16:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7384132/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-03T20:54:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-26T14:38:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"199304160987134989974422504561927181687","date":"2026-01-18T18:56:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-14T15:43:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"201810574563046248846037335069744897923","date":"2026-01-14T14:33:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"213151078963289102935295951246966004948","date":"2026-01-12T15:51:17+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"80186667622369143508235065977164470856","date":"2026-01-07T14:32:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-16T18:32:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"26507926802249949183514524809470851877","date":"2025-10-02T14:25:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"112273482799683751503703500022518368362","date":"2025-09-30T00:03:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"229706448875103893833748928756993131611","date":"2025-08-26T16:43:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-26T05:42:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-20T15:59:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-20T15:04:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Health Services Research","date":"2025-08-20T14:54:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-health-services-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bhsr","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Health Services Research](http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/BHSR/default.aspx","title":"BMC Health Services Research","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"887bfd39-e2b2-4d42-b2b2-ea4f76ff6735","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 2nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-02T09:16:14+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-02 09:16:14","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7384132","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7384132","identity":"rs-7384132","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}