ABSTRACT
This paper examines the development and implementation of the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model, designed by Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre and currently being piloted through the Inuusirvik Community Wellness Hub in Iqaluit, Nunavut. The model represents a paradigm shift away from siloed Western service delivery frameworks towards an integrated approach grounded in Inuit epistemology, language, and cultural practices. Drawing on Indigenous methodologies and community-based approaches, this paper articulates how the model’s eight interconnected components create a comprehensive wellness system that honours Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit knowledge) while addressing contemporary community needs. The innovative approach offers valuable insights for other jurisdictions seeking to decolonise service delivery systems and develop culturally responsive alternatives. This paper contributes to growing scholarship on Arctic Indigenous health and wellness frameworks by demonstrating how the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model deserves recognition in academic discourse as a unique and innovative approach to community wellbeing.
KEYWORDS: Inuit health, holistic service delivery, decolonisation, indigenous methodologies, community wellness, cultural responsiveness, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit
Introduction
The colonisation of Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland in Canada, has resulted in service delivery systems that fail to adequately address the needs and realities of Inuit communities [1–4]. Western frameworks imported to the North remain siloed, fragmented, and disconnected from the holistic worldviews, cultural practices, and epistemologies of Inuit [5–7]. This disjunction has contributed to ongoing health disparities, cultural disruption, and challenges in service provision that fail to honour the inherent strengths and knowledge systems of Inuit communities [8].
In response to these challenges, the Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre, an independent community-led research centre in Iqaluit, Nunavut, has developed the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model. This model represents a revolutionary approach to community wellness by integrating services around a central core of Inuit cultural values and knowledge, creating a comprehensive framework that addresses all aspects of community health and wellbeing. The model is currently being piloted through the Inuusirvik Community Wellness Hub in Iqaluit, which brings together diverse programmes including land-based initiatives, counselling services, intergenerational learning, early childhood education, and professional development within a unified, culturally-grounded framework.
This paper examines how the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model stands as a much-needed alternative to colonial service delivery frameworks by centring Inuit ways of knowing and being. It explores the theoretical underpinnings, structural components, and practical applications of the model, demonstrating its potential to transform service delivery not only in Nunavut but in other contexts where Indigenous communities seek culturally responsive, decolonised approaches to wellbeing.
Theoretical framework: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as foundation
The Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model is grounded in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ), a comprehensive term that encompasses Inuit knowledge, practices, and epistemology. Often inadequately translated as “traditional knowledge”, IQ represents a complex, evolving system of understanding that spans past, present, and future. According to Healey Akearok, Mearns, and Mike (2023), IQ is “an all-encompassing term that refers to Inuit knowledge and practices across time” that provides the philosophical foundation for understanding health and wellness from an Inuit perspective [1].
The Inuit worldview emphasises interconnectedness between all aspects of life – physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions cannot be separated, nor can the individual be isolated from family, community, environment, and culture [5,9,10]. This holistic understanding directly challenges Western service delivery models that compartmentalise care into distinct departments and disciplines with limited communication between sectors. By contrast, the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model proposes to address the interconnected nature of wellbeing by integrating services around a common cultural core.
The Inuusirvik Community Wellness Hub operates as a manifestation of core Inuit values that fundamentally shape its approach to community wellness and service delivery. The model is grounded in ilaginniq (family), which prioritises strengthening familial and kinship connections through programming that serves multiple generations simultaneously within shared spaces. Unikkaaqatigiinniq (the power and meaning of story) informs the hub’s commitment to knowledge sharing and oral tradition, creating platforms for intergenerational teaching/learning and community narrative building. The principle of piliriqatigiinniq (working for the common good) is embedded in the hub’s governance structure and programming decisions, ensuring that individual and organisational activities contribute to collective community wellbeing. Pijitsirniq (giving or volunteering without expectation of return) guides the non-profit-driven programming model and the culture of reciprocity that characterises community engagement within the space. Pilimmaqsarniq (skill development) shapes the hub’s educational and training initiatives, emphasising capacity building that enhances both individual capabilities and community resilience. Finally, Inuuqatigiitsiarniq (respect for our shared humanity) ensures that the physical design and programming approaches create inclusive, accessible environments that honour the dignity and worth of all community members. These values collectively transform the Inuusirvik model from merely an alternative service delivery mechanism into a culturally grounded wellness ecosystem that reinforces Inuit ways of being while addressing contemporary community needs. Unlike imported Western frameworks that may incorporate surface-level cultural elements without changing fundamental structures, this model emerges organically from Inuit epistemology and values.
The limitations of colonial service delivery frameworks
Before examining the components of the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model, it is important to understand the limitations of the colonial service delivery frameworks it seeks to replace. Western service models introduced to Nunavut communities through colonisation have created numerous challenges that undermine their effectiveness and cultural appropriateness that have been documented elsewhere, rigorously, and over many decades [4,11–21].
First, Western service frameworks typically operate in silos, with mental health, physical health, education, justice, and social services functioning as separate entities with distinct mandates, funding streams, and accountability structures [22]. This fragmentation contrasts sharply with Inuit holistic understandings of wellbeing, where all aspects of human experience are interconnected. The separation of services creates barriers to access, forces individuals to navigate complex systems, and results in uncoordinated care that fails to address root causes of community challenges.
Second, colonial service frameworks often prioritise professional expertise over community knowledge and leadership. Services are designed and delivered by outside professionals who may have limited understanding of the cultural, historical, and social contexts of Inuit communities [22,23]. This approach marginalises Inuit knowledge and leadership while reinforcing dependency on external resources and expertise.
Third, Western service models frequently focus on deficit-based approaches that emphasise problems, risks, and pathologies rather than strengths, resilience, and community assets [24]. This deficit orientation reinforces negative stereotypes, undermines community confidence, and fails to recognise the inherent strengths and knowledge systems that exist within Inuit communities.
Fourth, colonial service frameworks typically prioritise individual interventions over collective, community-based approaches [2,25,26]. This individualistic focus conflicts with Inuit cultural values that emphasise interconnectedness, collective responsibility, and the importance of family and community in promoting wellbeing.
Finally, Western service models often rely on standardised, Western-evidence-based practices developed in southern, urban contexts that may have limited relevance or effectiveness in northern, Indigenous communities [6,27]. This challenge is widely recognised and documented in previous research by other scholars [9,27–36]. The literature has shown that Western-focused approaches fail to recognise the unique cultural, geographical, and social contexts of Inuit communities or their own rigorously developed evidence-based practices. As such, Western interventions may be ineffective or culturally inappropriate [37].
The Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model directly addresses these limitations by creating an integrated, culturally-grounded framework that centres Inuit knowledge, leadership, and community strengths. It represents a fundamental shift away from fragmented, deficit-based, individualistic approaches towards a holistic, strength-based, community-centred model of service delivery.
Methodological approach: development of the Inuit Holistic service delivery model
Epistemological framework
The development of the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model was guided by an epistemological framework that privileges Inuit ways of knowing and integrates methodologically rigorous approaches to community-based participatory research (CBPR). Central to this framework was the Piliriqatigiinniq Health Research Community Model [38], which establishes five Inuit conceptual foundations for research excellence: Inuuqatigiittiarniq (respect for all/shared humanity), Pittiarniq (kindness/generosity), Iqqaumaqatigiinniq (thinking deeply together until realisation), Unikkaaqatigiinniq (storytelling/power of narrative), and Piliriqatigiinniq (working together for the common good).
This methodological approach aligned with what Wilson (2008) describes as “research as ceremony”, wherein the process itself honours and reinforces the relational accountability inherent in Indigenous knowledge systems [39]. The epistemological positioning of this study thus represented a deliberate elevation of Inuit methodological approaches, consistent with the existing scholarship emphasising the importance of methodologies that honour cultural protocols and knowledge systems [40,41].
Longitudinal foundation of research
The development of the model emerged from a decade-long programmatic research agenda conducted by Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre through multiple interconnected studies examining diverse aspects of Inuit health and wellbeing. This body of work includes comprehensive Nunavut-based studies on child health [11,42–48], youth wellness [49–52], mental health interventions [53,54], the Makimautiksat Youth Wellness Program [55], Inunnguiniq parenting programmes [43,56], sexual health interventions [49,51,54,57,58], intergenerational trauma [19,21,59–61], and health systems research [62].
Each of these studies contributed empirical findings and methodological insights that informed the conceptual development of the holistic service delivery model. Rather than representing discrete research endeavours, these studies formed an interconnected body of work characterised by consistent community engagement, methodological innovation, and theoretical development rooted in Inuit epistemology and lived experience.
Mixed methods approach
The model development employed a sequential exploratory mixed methods design [63] implemented over a 10-year period (2015–2025). This design was specifically selected to honour both the rigour of systematic inquiry and the relational, narrative-based approaches prioritised in Inuit knowledge systems. The methodological sequence comprised four distinct phases:
Phase 1: synthesis of existing knowledge
The initial phase involved a comprehensive synthesis of findings from previous studies conducted by Qaujigiartiit, using a modified narrative approach based on the concept of Unikkaaqatigiiniq [38]. This approach was used to identify key themes, principles, and story/experiential elements that would form the theoretical foundation of the model. Analytical procedures were guided by the concept of Iqqaumaqatigiinniq (thinking deeply together until realisation), involving iterative cycles of analysis, reflection, and consultation with community research partners [38].
Phase 2: theoretical model development
Building on the synthesis of existing knowledge, the team worked with Elders, knowledge keepers, service providers, and community members to develop a preliminary theoretical model based on the discussions held with community members between 2006–2008 [64–66]. This process employed Inuit methodologies that prioritise visual and relational understanding [38,40]. Seven concept mapping sessions were conducted with a total of 43 participants over a 2-year timeframe (2018–2019), including 8 Elders, 17 service providers, 12 programme users, and 6 community leaders. These sessions were structured around the principle of Aajiiqatigiinniq (decision making through discussion and consensus), allowing for collaborative refinement of the model’s components and their interrelationships.
Phase 3: community consultation (2019–2022)
The preliminary model underwent extensive community consultation through a series of informal and formal community engagement sessions with diverse stakeholders, including daycares, non-profit agencies, healthcare providers, government representatives, and community members. Participants provided feedback on the model’s theoretical coherence, cultural appropriateness, practical applicability, and potential implementation challenges.
A key methodological innovation during this phase was the application of a community-based asset development framework [67] adapted for Inuit contexts. This approach shifted the focus from deficit-based needs assessments to strength-based identification of existing community resources, capacities, and cultural assets that could be mobilised and integrated within the service delivery model.
Phase 4: Model refinement and preparation for pilot implementation (2022–2023)
The final phase involved refinement of the model based on community consultation findings and preparation for pilot implementation at the Inuusirvik Community Wellness Hub. This phase employed implementation science methodologies [68] adapted to incorporate Inuit perspectives on programme implementation and sustainability.
Ethical considerations
The methodological approach was guided by ethical protocols that extend beyond conventional research ethics to incorporate Inuit ethical frameworks. All activities adhered to the principles outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 (TCPS2) Chapter 9: Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples of Canada [69], as well as the specific ethical guidelines developed by the Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre and Nunavut Research Institute [38,70].
Central to the ethical framework was the concept of relational accountability which emphasises researchers’ responsibility to maintain ethical relationships with all aspects of the research process, including participants, knowledge, and communities [38]. This ethical stance required ongoing reflexivity, transparency, and responsiveness to community concerns throughout the model development process.
Validation and trustworthiness
Multiple validation strategies were employed to ensure the trustworthiness, cultural appropriateness, and practical utility of the resulting model. These strategies included: Member checking- Preliminary findings and model components were reviewed by community members to provide validation and iterative adjustments; Prolonged engagement – the ten-year development process allowed for deep engagement with communities and iterative refinement of the model based on ongoing feedback; Service provider assessment – frontline service providers evaluated the model’s practical applicability and potential for addressing service gaps; Implementation feasibility assessment – stakeholders involved in the pilot implementation evaluated the model’s operational feasibility and resource requirements.
Components of the Inuit Holistic service delivery model
The Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model, as illustrated in the graphic from Qaujigiartiit, consists of eight interconnected service components organised around a central cultural core. This structure reflects the holistic nature of Inuit understandings of wellbeing, where all aspects of human experience are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Each component serves a distinct function while contributing to the overall integrity of the model.
Land-based programs
Land-based programmes form a crucial component of the model, reflecting the profound connection between Inuit identity, wellbeing, and the natural environment. As described in the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Health System Model, these programmes honour the concepts of “Sila/Nuna” (weather, land, or environment) through activities that strengthen participants’ relationship with the land, water, and traditional ecological knowledge.
Land-based programmes include traditional hunting and harvesting activities, wilderness skills development, environmental education, and cultural camps where intergenerational knowledge transmission occurs in authentic contexts. These initiatives recognise that for Inuit, the land is not merely a setting for activities but a living entity with which humans maintain reciprocal relationships essential to physical, mental, spiritual, and cultural wellbeing.
The integration of land-based programmes within the service delivery model challenges Western dichotomies that separate “healthcare” from “environmental education” or “cultural activities”. Instead, it acknowledges that connection to land is itself a healing modality and a fundamental determinant of Inuit health. As one community member noted during the COVID-19 pandemic research conducted by Qaujigiartiit, “When you go on the land you forget that there is a whole other world in the city. It makes you strong and resilient” [71].
Knowledge, evaluation, and evidence
This component emphasises the importance of knowledge creation, documentation, and evaluation that honours both Inuit and Western ways of knowing. The Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre has long been at the forefront of developing culturally appropriate research methodologies that centre Inuit perspectives and priorities.
The knowledge component includes:
Community-based participatory research on health and wellness topics identified by Inuit communities
Documentation and preservation of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit related to health and healing
Development of culturally appropriate evaluation frameworks that measure outcomes meaningful to Inuit communities
Creation of an evidence base that integrates Inuit knowledge with Western research methodologies
Training and capacity building for Inuit researchers and knowledge keepers
This approach challenges colonial research paradigms that have historically extracted knowledge from Indigenous communities without reciprocity or respect. Instead, it establishes a framework where knowledge is co-created, community-owned, and directly applied to improving service delivery and community wellbeing.
Counselling supports and services
The counselling component provides culturally responsive mental health and wellness supports grounded in Inuit understandings of emotional and relational wellbeing. Unlike conventional Western counselling models that focus exclusively on individual psychology, the Inuit approach recognises the interconnectedness of mental, emotional, spiritual, and relational dimensions of health.
Counselling services in this model include:
Individual and family support provided by counsellors trained in both Western techniques and Inuit helping approaches
Integration of Inuit healing practices and supports when appropriate and desired
Trauma-informed care that acknowledges historical and intergenerational trauma while emphasising resilience and cultural strengths
Crisis intervention services that mobilise family and community supports
Group healing circles and community-based emotional wellness activities
This approach challenges the artificial separation between mental health services and other aspects of wellness, integrating counselling within a holistic framework that connects emotional wellbeing to cultural identity, community relationships, and connection to land. Furthermore, the boundary-less nature of the model creates inclusive spaces for all community members, including LGBTQAI+ individuals, diverse family structures, and addressing specific health concerns across age groups.
Education and professional development
The education and professional development component focuses on building capacity within Inuit communities to deliver culturally grounded services across all sectors. This includes training for health providers, educators, counsellors, programme coordinators, and community leaders in both Inuit and Western approaches to service delivery.
Key aspects include:
Training programmes that centre Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as the foundation for service delivery
Professional development opportunities that build skills while honouring existing knowledge and experience
Mentorship programmes that pair students and learners with experienced practitioners and knowledge keepers
Educational pathways that prepare Inuit youth for careers in health, education, and community services
Ongoing learning opportunities that keep service providers connected to evolving community needs and cultural knowledge
Arts-based activities that harness the power and meaning of Inuit artistic forms of expression in education, health, healing, and wellbeing over the life course.
This component addresses the historical dependence on outside professionals by building local capacity while ensuring that all service providers, whether Inuit or non-Inuit, develop the cultural competence needed to work effectively within the model.
Intergenerational learning programs
Intergenerational learning programmes facilitate the transmission of knowledge, values, skills, and cultural practices across generations. These initiatives recognise that traditional Inuit education occurred through relationships between youth and Elders within authentic contexts of daily life, hunting, crafting, and community activities.
Such programmes include:
Elder-youth mentorship initiatives where Inuit skills and knowledge are shared
Cultural workshops where Elders teach language, crafts, and Inuit practices
Documentation of oral histories and Inuit knowledge
Community events that bring multiple generations together around shared activities
School-based programmes that integrate Elders’ knowledge into formal education
The intergenerational component directly addresses cultural continuity, which research has identified as a protective factor against many health and social challenges in Indigenous communities. By strengthening connections between generations, these programmes support identity development, cultural pride, and the preservation of essential knowledge and skills.
Family drop-in programs
Family drop-in programmes provide accessible, welcoming spaces where families can gather for support, connection, learning, and play. These programmes recognise the central importance of family relationships in Inuit culture and the need for community spaces that nurture these connections.
Drop-in programmes include:
Parent-child playgroups that support early childhood development through culturally relevant activities
Family resource centres where parents can access information, support, and resources
Informal gathering spaces where families connect with each other and with service providers
Parenting programmes grounded in Inuit child-rearing practices and values
Practical support services such as cooking programmes, sewing groups, and tool-making workshops
This component breaks down barriers between “parenting services”, “child development programs”, and “family support” by creating integrated spaces where families can access multiple forms of support in a non-stigmatising, culturally affirming environment.
Early childhood education
The early childhood education component focuses on nurturing the holistic development of young children through programmes grounded in Inuit childrearing philosophies and practices. Inuit approaches to early childhood development emphasise learning through observation, storytelling, play, and participation in daily activities within a context of loving, respectful relationships.
Early childhood initiatives can include:
Daycare and preschool programmes where Inuktitut language and culture form the foundation of curriculum
Training for early childhood educators in both Inuit and Western evidence-based approaches
Parent-child programmes that support holistic development across physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual domains
Resources and materials that reflect Inuit culture, environment, and daily life
Outdoor learning opportunities that connect young children with the land
This approach contrasts with standardised Western early childhood models by centring Inuit values, language, and cultural practices while supporting children’s development across all domains in integrated, culturally meaningful ways.
Cultural and wellbeing literacy programs
Cultural and wellbeing literacy programmes support the development of knowledge, skills, and practices related encompassing all aspects of Inuit wellness. These initiatives recognise that cultural knowledge and identity are fundamental determinants of health and wellbeing.
Such programmes include:
Language revitalisation initiatives that strengthen Inuktitut proficiency
Cultural skills workshops in areas such as sewing, hunting, food preparation, and tool making
Health literacy programmes that integrate Inuit knowledge about physical, mental, and spiritual wellbeing
Arts-based initiatives that connect powerful cultural expression modalities with healing and wellness
Digital literacy programmes that help community members navigate contemporary information environments
This component challenges the separation between “cultural programs” and “health education” by recognising that cultural knowledge, practices, and identity are inseparable from overall wellbeing.
Integration and synergy: the power of the Holistic model
What distinguishes the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model from conventional service frameworks is not just the culturally grounded nature of each component, but the intentional integration of these components into a cohesive, synergistic system. Rather than operating as separate programmes under a shared organisational umbrella, the eight components interact and reinforce each other through shared philosophical foundations, collaborative practices, and interconnected programming.
This integration occurs through several mechanisms:
Shared physical space: The Inuusirvik Community Wellness Hub provides a physical environment where all components of the model can operate in close proximity, facilitating collaboration, referrals, and holistic service delivery.
Collaborative programming: Components regularly develop joint initiatives that leverage their respective strengths and resources to address community priorities in integrated ways.
Shared learning and evaluation: Knowledge generated through research and evaluation circulates throughout the model, informing ongoing development and improvement across all components.
Fluid boundaries: Unlike rigid departmental structures in conventional organisations, the boundaries between components remain flexible, allowing for adaptation to emerging community needs and priorities.
This integrated approach creates numerous benefits:
Community members can access multiple services through a single point of entry, reducing barriers and fragmentation
Knowledge and resources flow across traditional service boundaries, maximising impact and efficiency
Cultural knowledge and practices permeate all aspects of service delivery, ensuring cultural safety and relevance
Complex community challenges can be addressed through coordinated, multi-faceted responses
The model can adapt and evolve in response to changing community needs and priorities
Implementation: the Inuusirvik community wellness Hub
The practical implementation of the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model is currently underway through the Inuusirvik Community Wellness Hub in Iqaluit. This innovative facility brings together all eight components of the model under one roof, creating an integrated environment for holistic service delivery.
The development of Inuusirvik represents the culmination of years of community-based research, planning, and advocacy by Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre. The physical design of Inuusirvik reflects Inuit cultural values and spatial concepts, creating an environment that feels welcoming, accessible, and culturally validating. Inspired by Inuit science and engineering concepts, the design calls on the qammaq (summer structure made of sod and skins) the iglu (snow house), and the qaggiq (large snow structure for gatherings) for inspiration, including how the building “breathes” like an iglu and brings in natural light emulating ice panels in a qaggiq. The space embodies the holistic, interconnected nature of the service delivery model.
The Inuusirvik Community Wellness Hub has welcomed over 5,000 visitors since April 2024, with 1,031 people participating in structured programmes across all age groups from children to professionals. The facility has hosted 78 user groups from 28 different organisations, with non-profits representing the majority of programme users (55 out of 78), while maintaining 5 weekly programmes including mental health support and addiction recovery services.
The synergistic nature of the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model becomes evident through concrete examples of coordinated programming. When a traditional fish preparation workshop was offered in the community classroom, the prepared country food was incorporated into meals at the on-site daycare, demonstrating how cultural knowledge transmission directly supports early childhood nutrition while strengthening intergenerational relationships. Similarly, co-locating an Inunnguiniq parenting programme with a non-profit governance workshop created unexpected cross-disciplinary engagement. Participants naturally interacted during breaks, leading to discussions about how Inuit child-rearing principles could inform organisational governance. This resulted in non-profits requesting cultural competency training while parenting programme participants gained understanding of Inuit perspectives on child and adolescent development with knowledgeable community members and Elders. Daily operations reveal additional examples: Elders in the dedicated Elders room engaging in crafts and projects naturally connect with individuals from other programmes, creating impromptu mentorship opportunities. When this environment of organic collaboration occurs repeatedly across all programming – land-based learning intersecting with counselling supports, professional development informing family activities – the cumulative result transcends individual programme outcomes. The inevitable conclusion is fundamentally improved community services and enhanced access to comprehensive, culturally grounded support systems.
Implementation of the model involves ongoing collaboration with community members, Elders, service providers, and partner organisations. Regular gatherings ensure that the hub remains responsive to community priorities and grounded in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit knowledge and processes. These collaborative processes reflect the model’s commitment to Aajiiqatigiinniq (decision making through discussion and consensus) and Piliriqatigiinniq (working together for a common cause).
The hub serves as both a service delivery site and a living laboratory for the ongoing development and refinement of the model. Through continuous evaluation, reflection, and adaptation, the implementation process generates valuable knowledge about effective, culturally grounded approaches to service delivery in Inuit communities.
Discussion
A paradigm shift in service delivery
The Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model represents more than just a practical framework for service integration – it constitutes a fundamental paradigm shift in how we conceptualise health, wellness, and service delivery in Indigenous contexts. This shift has significant theoretical implications for fields including public health, social work, education, and Indigenous studies.
First, the model challenges conventional Western understandings of “evidence-based practice” by demonstrating how Indigenous knowledge systems can inform rigorous, effective service delivery frameworks grounded in their own evidence. Rather than simply adapting Western models through surface-level cultural modifications, it builds an entirely new approach grounded in Inuit epistemology. This challenges academic and professional disciplines to expand their understanding of what constitutes valid knowledge and effective practice.
Second, the model illustrates how decolonisation can move beyond critique to generative reconstruction. While critical analyses of colonial service systems are essential, the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model offers a constructive alternative that demonstrates what decolonised approaches can look like in practice. This contributes to growing scholarship on Indigenous methodologies that emphasise the importance of building, not just deconstructing.
Third, the model provides a concrete example of how self-determination can be exercised in the realm of human services. By developing services grounded in Inuit knowledge, values, and leadership, Qaujigiartiit demonstrates how communities can reclaim control over essential services while creating approaches that better meet their needs and reflect their worldviews.
Finally, the model advances theoretical understanding of how culture, language, and identity function as determinants of health and wellbeing in Inuit and Arctic contexts. Rather than treating cultural elements as supplementary “nice-to-have” additions to core Western services, it positions Inuit cultural knowledge and practices as the foundation upon which effective services must be built.
Lessons for other contexts
While the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model has been developed specifically for Nunavut communities, its philosophical foundations and structural approach offer valuable insights for other contexts where conventional service delivery frameworks fail to meet community needs. Several key lessons can be applied more broadly:
Centring Indigenous knowledge systems: The model demonstrates the importance of building service frameworks from within Indigenous epistemologies rather than simply adding cultural elements to Western approaches. This principle can guide service development in diverse Indigenous contexts globally.
Integration versus fragmentation: The holistic, integrated structure of the model provides a template for addressing the fragmentation that characterises many service systems. This approach can inform service integration efforts in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous contexts.
Community leadership and self-determination: The development process led by Qaujigiartiit illustrates how community-based organisations can drive systemic change through persistent, strategic efforts grounded in local knowledge and priorities. This demonstrates pathways to self-determination that may be relevant for other marginalised communities.
Cultural safety and responsive service delivery: The model provides practical examples of how services can be delivered in ways that honour cultural identity, knowledge, and practices. These approaches can inform cultural safety efforts across diverse service contexts.
Research and practice integration: The model’s knowledge, evaluation, and evidence component illustrate how research can be fully integrated with service delivery, creating a continuous cycle of learning, application, and refinement. This approach challenges conventional separations between research and practice domains.
These lessons are particularly relevant for other circumpolar regions facing similar challenges of geographical isolation, colonial legacies, and the need to develop culturally responsive services for Indigenous populations. However, they also offer insights for urban Indigenous communities and other contexts where conventional service models fail to address community needs and priorities.
Challenges and future directions
While the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model offers a powerful alternative to colonial service frameworks, its implementation faces several challenges that must be addressed as the model continues to develop. These challenges include:
Sustainable funding: Holistic, integrated service models often face challenges within funding systems designed for siloed, categorical programs. Developing sustainable funding mechanisms that support the integrated nature of the model remains an ongoing challenge.
Policy environment: Existing policy frameworks may create barriers to integrated service delivery by imposing conflicting mandates, reporting requirements, and accountability structures. Advocacy for policy reform that supports holistic approaches is essential.
Professional preparation: Many service providers have been trained in Western disciplinary frameworks that may not prepare them to work effectively within an integrated, culturally grounded model. Ongoing professional development and changes to professional education are needed.
Evaluation and knowledge translation: Demonstrating the effectiveness of the model using methodologies that honor both Inuit and Western approaches to evaluation remains a challenge, particularly given the limitations of conventional outcome measures.
Scaling and adaptation: As the model expands beyond the initial implementation site, questions arise about how to scale the approach while maintaining its integrity and responsiveness to local community contexts.
Future development of the model will need to address these challenges while continuing to centre Inuit leadership, knowledge, and community priorities. Potential directions include the development of specialised components that address emerging community priorities; expansion to additional communities throughout Nunavut; creation of training programmes that prepare service providers to work effectively within the model; policy advocacy aimed at creating supportive funding and regulatory environments; ongoing research and evaluation to document impacts and refine approaches; and knowledge exchange with other Indigenous communities developing similar models.
Conclusion
The Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model developed by Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre represents a groundbreaking approach to community wellness that challenges colonial service delivery frameworks while offering a viable, culturally grounded alternative. By integrating services around a central core of Inuit cultural knowledge and values, the model addresses the fragmentation, cultural disconnection, and ineffectiveness that have characterised imported Western service systems in Nunavut.
The methodological approach to developing the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model represents a deliberate integration of rigorous research methods with Inuit epistemological frameworks and community-based participatory approaches. By centring Inuit knowledge and leadership throughout the development process, the methodology itself embodied the decolonising intent of the resulting model. The seven-year development timeline, extensive community engagement, and iterative refinement process have resulted in a theoretically sound, culturally grounded, and practically applicable model for transforming service delivery in Inuit communities.
The model’s eight interconnected components – land-based programmes, knowledge and evaluation, counselling services, education and professional development, intergenerational learning, family drop-in programmes, early childhood education, and cultural wellbeing literacy – work together synergistically to create a comprehensive services-focused approach to community wellness that honours the holistic nature of Inuit understandings of health and wellbeing.
Beyond its practical applications in service delivery, the model makes significant theoretical contributions to fields including public health, Indigenous studies, and social services by demonstrating how Indigenous knowledge systems can inform the development of effective, culturally responsive service frameworks. It provides a concrete example of decolonisation in practice, moving beyond critique to generative reconstruction of essential community services.
As the model continues to develop through implementation at the Inuusirvik Community Wellness Hub, it offers valuable lessons for other contexts where conventional service frameworks fail to meet community needs. By centring Inuit knowledge, integrating traditionally fragmented services, and prioritising community leadership and self-determination, the Inuit Holistic Service Delivery Model provides an example for transformative change in how services are conceptualised and delivered in Indigenous communities.
In conclusion, the model deserves recognition in academic discourse as a unique and innovative approach to community wellness that has the potential to inform service delivery transformation not only in Nunavut but in diverse contexts globally. Its development represents a significant achievement in the ongoing work of decolonising health and social services while building approaches that honour the knowledge, strengths, and self-determination of Indigenous communities.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
We extend our deepest gratitude to the Iqalungmiut who have contributed their time, wisdom, and energy to this project over more than a decade of collaborative work. This initiative was possible because of the generosity of community members who shared their knowledge, participated in consultations, provided feedback, and supported the vision of community-led wellness infrastructure in countless ways both large and small. Most importantly, we wish to honour the fundamental contributions of the late Andrew Tagak Sr., whose visionary leadership was the catalyst for this work. His deep understanding of community needs and unwavering commitment to Inuit-led solutions provided the foundation upon which the Inuusirvik Community Wellness Hub was built. While Andrew passed away before he could witness the realisation of this shared vision, his influence permeates every aspect of the project. The work continues as a testament to his belief in the power of community-driven wellness initiatives and his dedication to creating spaces where Inuit values and contemporary needs can coexist and flourish.
Funding Statement
This article highlights a case study example at the Inuusirvik Community Wellness Hub in Iqaluit, Nunavut which received funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada, 1920-HQ-000121.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Supplementary Information
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/22423982.2025.2560062
References
- [1].Healey Akearok G, Mearns C, Mike N.. The Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit health and wellbeing system: a holistic, strength-based, and health-promoting model from Inuit communities. 47(1-2). Inuit Studies; 2024. 425–16. [Google Scholar]
- [2].Healey Akearok G, Rana Z. Community perspectives on COVID-19 outbreak and public health management: inuit positive protective pathways and lessons for Indigenous public health theory. Can J Public Health. 2024;ePub(3):395–407. doi: 10.17269/s41997-024-00863-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Healey Akearok G. Nunavut health system governance scoping review. Iqaluit: Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre; 2019. [Google Scholar]
- [4].Ferguson M. Report of the Auditor General of Canada - health care services - Nunavut. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- [5].Inutiq M, Mearns C, Healey Akearok G. Holistic education and pedagogy from the Inuit worldview. Int J Indigenous Health. 2024;20(1):1–13. doi: 10.32799/ijih.v20i1.42763 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Mearns C, Healey Akearok G. Enriching Canada’s health research landscape with Inuit knowledge, methods, and transformative spaces: 10 recommendations for policy and practice. Arctic. 2024;77(2). doi: 10.14430/arctic80225 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Penney J, Johnson-Castle P. COVID-19 and Inuit Nunangat: research, responsibility & infrastructure inequality. In: Yellowhead Institute. Toronto, Canada: Toronto Metropolitan University; 2020. [Google Scholar]
- [8].Tam T. The time is now: CPHO spotlight on eliminating TB in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Public Health Agency of Canada PHAC; 2018. [Google Scholar]
- [9].Tagalik S. Inuit knowledge systems, Elders, and determinants of health: harmony, balance, and the role of holistic thinking Greenwood, Margo, Leeuw, Sarah de, Lindsay, Marie eds. In: Determinants of indigenous peoples’ health: beyond the social (Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars Press; ). 2018. p. 93. [Google Scholar]
- [10].Karetak J, Tagalik S, Tester FJ. Inuit qaujimajatuqangit: what Inuit have always known to be true. Winnipeg: Fernwood; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- [11].QIA . Qikiqtani Truth Commission final report: achieving Saimaqatigiingniq. 2012.
- [12].RCAP, R.C.o.A.P . Highlights from the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa, Canada: Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- [13].Kral M. Postcolonial suicide among Inuit in Arctic Canada. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2012;36(2):306–325. doi: 10.1007/s11013-012-9253-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Kral MJ, Idlout L, Minore JB, et al. Unikkaartuit: meanings of well-being, unhappiness, health, and community change among Inuit in Nunavut, Canada. Am J Community Psychol. 2011;48(3–4):426–438. doi: 10.1007/s10464-011-9431-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Galloway T, Horlick S, Cherba M, et al. Perspectives of Nunavut patients and families on their cancer and end of life care experiences. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2020;79(1):1–12. doi: 10.1080/22423982.2020.1766319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Affleck W, Chachamovich E, Chawky N, et al. Suicide among the Inuit of Nunavut: an exploration of life trajectories. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(6):1812. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17061812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Pollock Nathaniel J., Healey, Gwen K., Jong, Michael, Valcour, James E., Mulay, Shree, et al. Tracking progress in suicide prevention in Indigenous communities: a challenge for public health surveillance in Canada 18:1320. BMC Public Health; 2018. p. 1–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Itk ITK. National Inuit suicide prevention strategy. Ottawa: Inuit Tapirit Kanatami; 2016. [Google Scholar]
- [19].Healey GK. (Resettlement, displacement, and family separation: understanding the historical events which contribute to health inequality in Nunavut. 2016;(42):47–68. doi: 10.22584/nr42.2016.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Healey GK, Racher FE. Assessing the health of communities in northern Canada. In: Robinson AA, Vollman ETMcFarlane J, editors. Canadian community as partner: theory and multidisciplinary practice. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2008. 180–182. [Google Scholar]
- [21].Healey GK, Meadows LM. Tradition and culture: an important determinant of Inuit women’s health. 2008;4(1):25–33. doi: 10.18357/ijih41200812312 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Cherba M, Healey Akearok GK, MacDonald WAS. Addressing provider turnover to improve health outcomes in Nunavut. Can Med Assoc J. 2019;191(13):E361–E364. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.180908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Abelesen B, Strasser R, Heaney D, et al. Plan, recruit, retain: a framework for local healthcare organizations to achieve a stable remote rural workforce. 2020;18(63):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12960-020-00502-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Healey GK. Exploring the development of a health care model based on Inuit wellness concepts as part of self-determination and improving wellness in northern communities. In: Piggot T, and Arya N, editors. Under-served: healther determinants of Indigenous, inner-city and migrant populations in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Scholar Press; 2018. 92–104. [Google Scholar]
- [25].Kral M, Idlout L. Community wellness and social action in the Canadian Arctic: collective agency as subjective well-being. Traditions LK, Valaskis GG, editors. Healing. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- [26].Healey Akearok GK, Lavoie, J. G., Larsen, C. V. L., Olesen, I., Rautio, A., Timlin, U., Parkkinen, K., Cook, D., Johannsdottir, L., Broderstadt, A. Ragnhild, Dagsvold, I., Siri, S., Stoor, J. P., Sebastián, M. San, Nilsson, L. M., et al. Policy recommendations from the COVID-19 pandemic in the Arctic: a systems’ thinking approach Arctic. 2024. [Google Scholar]
- [27].Cohen-Fournier SM, Brass GM, Kirmayer L. Decolonizing health care: challenges of cultural and epistemic pluralism in medical decision-making with Indigenous communities. Bioethics. 2021;35(8):767–778. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12946 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Watson A, Purkey E, Davison C, et al. Indigenous strength: braiding culture, ceremony and community as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Indigenous Health. 2022;17(1):111–121. doi: 10.32799/ijih.v17i1.36716 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Lavoie JG, Stoor JP, Rink E, et al. Historical foundations and contemporary expressions of a right to health care in Circumpolar Indigenous contexts: a cross-national analysis. Elem Sci Anth. 2021;9(1):1–23. doi: 10.1525/elementa.2019.00079 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Redvers J. “The land is a healer”: perspectives on land-based healing from Indigenous practitioners in northern Canada. Int J Indigenous Health. 2020;15(1):90–107. doi: 10.32799/ijih.v15i1.34046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [31].Redvers N, Marianayagam J, Blondin B. Improving access to Indigenous medicine for patients in hospital-based settings: a challenge for health systems in northern Canada. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2019;78(2):1589208. doi: 10.1080/22423982.2019.1589208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [32].Diffey L, Lavallee B. Is cultural safety enough? Confronting racism to address inequities in Indigenous health. (MB): University of Manitoba; 2016. [Google Scholar]
- [33].Paradies Y. Colonisation, racism and indigenous health. J Pop Res. 2016;33(1):83–96. doi: 10.1007/s12546-016-9159-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [34].Lavoie JG, Kornelsen D, Wylie L, et al. Responding to health inequities: indigenous health system innovations. Global health. Epidemiol Genomics. 2016;1(e14):1–10. doi: 10.1017/gheg.2016.12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [35].Redvers JM. Land-based practice for Indigenous health and wellness in Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories. In: Environmental design. Calgary: University of Calgary; 2016. [Google Scholar]
- [36].Lavoie JG. Policy and practice options for equitable access to primary healthcare for Indigenous peoples in British Columbia and Norway. Int Indigenous Policy J. 2014;5(1):1–17. doi: 10.18584/iipj.2014.5.1.6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [37].MacLachlan J. Naalagiursaniq tunnganarnirlu (learning to listen and be welcoming): engaging Inuit perspectives on Timimut Ikajuqsivik (rehabilitation services) for children in the Qikiqtani Region of Nunavut. TSpace: University of Toronto; 2022. [Google Scholar]
- [38].Healey G, Tagak A Sr.. Piliriqatigiinniq ‘working in a collaborative way for the common good’: a perspective on the space where health research methodology and Inuit epistemology come together. Int J Crit Indigenous Stud. 2014;7(1):1–8. doi: 10.5204/ijcis.v7i1.117 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [39].Wilson S. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Blackpoint (NS): Fernwood Publishing; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- [40].Kovach M. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto (ON): University of Toronto Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- [41].Price J. Tukisivallialiqtakka things I have now begun to understand: inuit governance, Nunavut and the kitchen consultation model. In: Indigenous governance. University of Victoria; 2007. [Google Scholar]
- [42].Caughey AB, Sargeant JM, Møller H, et al. Inuit country food and health during pregnancy and early childhood in the circumpolar north: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):1–16. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [43].Mearns C, Healey Akearok G, Cherba M, et al. Early childhood education training in Nunavut: insights from the Inunnguiniq (“making of a human being”) pilot project. First Peoples Child Fam Rev. 2020;15(1):120–126. doi: 10.7202/1080812ar [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [44].Healey GK. Inuit early childhood education: health evidence review. Iqaluit: Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- [45].RCYNU, R.f.C.a.Y.N . Representative for children and youth in Nunavut: 2016–27 annual report. Iqaluit (NU): Office of the Representative for Children and Youth Nunavut; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- [46].Healey G. Inuit parent perspectives on sexual health communication with adolescent children in Nunavut: “It’s kinda hard for me to try to find the words”. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2014;73(1):25070. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v73.25070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [47].Marchildon, Torgerson. Nunavut: a health system profile. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- [48].Young K, Marchildon G, editors. A comparative review of circumpolar health systems: Internatoinal Journal of Circumpolar Health. Northern Canada: Circumpolar Health Supplements; 2012. p. 41–51. Chapter 3 [Google Scholar]
- [49].Healey G. Youth perspectives on sexually transmitted infections and sexual health in Northern Canada and implications for public health practice. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2016;75(1):30706. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v75.30706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [50].Redvers J, Bjerregaard P, Eriksen H, et al. A scoping review of Indigenous suicide prevention in circumpolar regions. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2015;74(1):27509–27510. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v74.27509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [51].Healey G. Inuit family understandings of sexual health and relationships in Nunavut. Can J Public Health. 2014;105(2):e133–37. doi: 10.17269/cjph.105.4189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [52].Cole M. Youth sexual health in Nunavut: a needs-based survey of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2003;63(Suppl 2):270–273. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v63i0.17917 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [53].Healey G, Mearns JL, Noah C. The eight ujarait (rocks) model: supporting Inuit adolescent mental health with an intervention model based on Inuit ways of knowing. Int J Indigenous Health. 2016;11(1):92–110. doi: 10.18357/ijih111201614394 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [54].Healey Akearok GK, Salaffie M. Nipivut (our voices): a discussion about an Inuit values based research framework and it’s application in Nunavut. In: Wilson S, Breen ADuPre L, editors. Research as reconciliation in press. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars/Women’s Press; 2019. 229–240. [Google Scholar]
- [55].Healey Akearok G. Building community wellness hubs: a case study of Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre’s social enterprise initiative. In: Vandermale B., and Leader, editors. State of rural Canada: inclusive and sustainable futures for rural and northern communities. Toronto: Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation; 2025. 16–29. [Google Scholar]
- [56].Healey GK, The Inunnguiniq parenting program: a case study in Nunavut. In: Canadian community as partner. Vollman A. Robinson, editor. 4th ed. Baltimore (MD): Wolters Kluwer Health; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- [57].Corosky GJ, Blystad A. Staying healthy “under the sheets”: inuit youth experiences of access to sexual and reproductive health and rights in Arviat. Nunavut, Canada. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2016;75(1):31812–31817. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [58].Healey GK. Exploring sexual health through drama and performance arts: the development of arts-based public health interventions for Nunavut youth. A report on the activities of a project funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Iqaluit (NU): Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre; 2012. p. 17. [Google Scholar]
- [59].Sallaffie M, Penney J, Healey Akearok G. Survey of Nunavut post-secondary students: determinants of school completion, post-secondary education, and education success. Can J Educ Revue Canadienne De l’éducatIon. 2021;44(3):764–787. doi: 10.53967/cje-rce.v44i3.4709 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- [60].Diakite N, Healey Akearok G. Family violence in Nunavut: a scoping review. Iqaluit, Canada: Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre; 2019. [Google Scholar]
- [61].Healey Akearok G, Cherba M, Tabish T. Pathways to mental well-being for Indigenous boys and men: community-led and land-based programs in the Canadian North. Iqaluit (NU): Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre; 2018. [Google Scholar]
- [62].Young TK, Chatwood S. Health care in the north: what Canada can learn from its circumpolar neighbours. CMAJ: Can Med Assoc J = J de l’Assoc Medicale Canadienne. 2011;183(2):209–214. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.100948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [63].Creswell JW. Research design: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- [64].Healey GK. Report on health research ethics workshop and community consultation in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. Iqaluit (NU): Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut.; 2007. [Google Scholar]
- [65].Healey GK Community Priorities. In: Community-identified health priorities for Nunavut. Iqaluit (NU): Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network – Nunavut.; 2006. 4–5. [Google Scholar]
- [66].Healey GK. Report on health research ethics workshop and community consultation in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Iqaluit (NU): Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- [67].Cunningham G, Mathie A. From clients to citizens: asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven development. Occasional paper series. Coady International Institute, St. Francis Xavier University; 2002: Antigonish (NS). [Google Scholar]
- [68].Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, et al. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC PsychOl. 2015;3(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [69].CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC . Tri-council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. C.I.o.H. research, N.S.A.E.R.C.o. Canada, and S.S.A.H.R.C.o. Canada, Editors: Canada; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- [70].ITK and NRI . Negotiating research relationships with Inuit communities: a guide for researchers. Ottawa (ON) and Iqaluit (NU): Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Nunavut Research Institute; 2007. p. 38. [Google Scholar]
- [71].Healey Akearok G. Understanding the power of community during COVID-19. Arct yearbook. 2023:Special Issue: Arctic Pandemics 1–4. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.