Skip to main content

A Delphi yarn: applying Indigenous knowledges to enhance the cultural utility of SMART Recovery Australia

Abstract

Background

Mutual support groups are a popular treatment for substance use and other addictive behaviours. However, little is known about the cultural utility of these programmes for Indigenous peoples.

Methods

A three-round Delphi study, utilising Indigenous research yarning methods was conducted to: (1) Obtain expert opinion regarding the cultural utility of an Indigenous SMART Recovery handbook; (2) Gain consensus on areas within the SMART Recovery programme that require cultural modification and; (3) Seek advice on how modifications could be implemented in future programme design and delivery. The panellists were 11 culturally, geographically, and professionally diverse Indigenous Australian health and wellbeing experts. A group consensus level of 80% was set prior to each survey round.

Results

There was 100% participant retention across all three Delphi rounds. The panel reached consensus on five key programme modifications (composition of a separate facilitator and group member handbook; culturally appropriate language, terminology, and literacy level; culturally meaningful programme activities; supplementary storytelling resources; and customisation for diverse community contexts). The panel also developed a series of practical implementation strategies to guide SMART Recovery through a modification process.

Conclusion

The findings highlight the importance of involving Indigenous peoples in the design, delivery and validation of mainstream mutual support programmes. Indigenous-led programme modifications could help improve accessibility and usefulness of mutual support groups for Indigenous peoples worldwide. This study is an example of how Indigenous research methods can be used alongside the Delphi technique. This approach demonstrated a way that Indigenous peoples from culturally and geographically diverse locations can participate in research anonymously, autonomously and without added burden on personal, community or professional obligations.

Background

Mutual support group programmes are a popular treatment for problems arising from substance use and other behaviours of addiction (e.g. gambling) [1, 2]. Such groups offer non-clinical, community-based meetings that harness experiential knowledge and mobilise member-to-member social, emotional, and informational support [3]. Treatment offered by such programmes is free to attend and offered on an ongoing basis [4].

The most prevalent mutual support group programmes are the 12-step modalities (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Gamblers Anonymous (GA)) and SMART Recovery. Research shows that regular group attendance can help build personal insight [5], enhance problem-solving skills [6] and promote long-term abstinence [7]. However, a recent systematic review by Dale et al. found that few studies have examined the ‘cultural utility’ of these popular programmes for Indigenous peoples (defined as perceived suitability and helpfulness) [8].

Underpinned by western knowledge and empiricism, there are tenets of the 12-step programmes and SMART Recovery that appear counter-cultural for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (hereafter referred to as “Indigenous Australians”). For example, AA is built upon western religious ideologies [9] that differ from Indigenous Australians’ notions of spirit and spirituality [10]. SMART Recovery is centred on western psychological theories (i.e., cognitive behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing) [11,12,13,14] that have not undergone cultural validation to demonstrate their therapeutic benefits for Indigenous peoples [15,16,17,18].

A small group of studies show that Indigenous Australians and First Nations American and Canadian peoples have begun to informally embed their cultures in AA [19,20,21,22] and SMART Recovery [23]. This has included linguistic substitutions [24], replacing western religious practices for traditional ceremonies [25], and omitting programme components perceived as being inconsistent with an Indigenous worldview of health and wellness [23]. Of these studies, just one [23] provided detailed examples of how SMART Recovery could be adjusted to better suit Indigenous Australians (based on Indigenous facilitators’ and group members’ feedback). One key recommendation was the need for culturally appropriate programme materials.

In 2014, SMART Recovery Australia received a small, one-off non-government grant to modify their original programme handbook for Indigenous Australian facilitators and group members. The resulting handbook contains the same core programme tools and operational features as the mainstream resource but is supplemented with Indigenous Australian artwork and words (e.g., “yarndi” (cannabis)). The handbook was co-created with Indigenous Australian health professionals who, at the time, were completing SMART Recovery facilitator training (n = 5; of which n = 4, New South Wales; n = 1, Victoria). However, since then, this Indigenous Australian handbook has not been formally integrated into the SMART Recovery programme (personal communication with SMART Recovery Australia). Neither has it been reviewed by a broader group of Indigenous Australians.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to consult with Indigenous Australian health and wellbeing experts to: (1) Obtain expert opinion regarding the cultural utility of the SMART Recovery Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programme handbook; (2) Gain consensus on areas within the programme that require cultural modification; and (3) Seek advice on how modifications could be implemented in future programme design and delivery.

Methods

An Indigenous-lensed Delphi design

The Delphi technique [26] was used to coordinate an iterative Indigenous research topic yarn [27] with a culturally, geographically and professionally diverse panel of Indigenous Australian health and wellbeing experts. The Delphi technique uses a series of questionnaire rounds to solicit consensus opinions from a group of experts [28]. Indigenous research topic yarning is a relational and culturally acceptable method for obtaining Indigenous peoples perspectives on a research topic [29]. Yarning was used instead of traditional interviews to avoid a question–answer dialogue and to ensure participants’ cultural safety.

The Delphi technique was chosen over other consensus methods (e.g. focus groups) because it enabled our panellists to participate despite differing geographical locations, time zones and professional, community or personal obligations [30]. The anonymity, autonomy and relational nature of the Delphi technique [31] was also compatible with Indigenous research principles (relationality, reciprocity and respect) [32,33,34]. The combination of Indigenous and western research methods helps strengthen the cultural and scientific credibility of findings [35].

The study design (Fig. 1) adhered to the four fundamental Delphi requirements: anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and statistical analysis of group responses [36]. Research topic yarning (conducted 1:1 with each panellist and ED via phone) was incorporated into the design to establish respectful and reciprocal relationships between the researcher and panellists prior to initiating the Delphi process. Yarning was continued (via phone, text and email) in between survey rounds to promote maximum contribution of the expert voice [27]. The decision to conduct three Delphi rounds was made in collaboration with panellists to determine a level of involvement that did not compromise cultural, community or professional obligations or the integrity of the Delphi technique. A similar approach to reduce participant burden was used in a New Zealand study involving both Maori and non-Maori panellists [37]. Three Delphi rounds has been shown to be sufficient to achieve group consensus [38]. Collaborative yarning [27] (yarning purposed to share and explore research ideas) was also conducted after each Delphi round to enable panellists to contribute to study write up.

Fig. 1
figure1

Study design. 1 1:1 Yarning occurred individually between researcher and a panellist

Formation of the panel

In the absence of literature confirming an optimal Delphi panel size [39], we sought to recruit panellists with sufficient expertise [28] and within the recommended panel size of 8–12 experts [31, 40].

Panel selection criteria

Selection criteria for the panellists were: (1) aged 18+ ; (2) self-identify as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent; (3) a minimum of two years of work or academic experience in an Indigenous-specific drug and alcohol, mental health and/or related health and wellbeing field (not necessarily continuous); and (4) basic computer proficiency with reliable access to a computer and internet for the study duration. Panellists were not required to have prior experience with SMART Recovery or other mutual support group programmes. This was because impartiality can strengthen Delphi results [28]. Efforts were made to recruit even numbers of women and men and Indigenous peoples from different community contexts.

Panel recruitment

All panellists were recruited using purposive sampling. Panellists were invited to participate by a personalised email or phone call (ED). Four panellists had professional or academic connections with the research team (ED, KL, KCo, JC, RI, KCl and PK). Another six panellists were trained SMART Recovery facilitators who were known to the researchers via other studies. The remaining panellist was recruited via recommendation from another panellist. Anonymity was protected by de-identifying all data and corresponding with panellists individually.

Ethics and informed consent

Ethical approval was granted by the University of Wollongong (#2018/398), the Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia (#04–19-845), the Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee (#939) and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales (#1447/18). All participants provided written and verbal consent through an informed process.

Procedure

Data collection

All data were collected between March and July 2020 (by ED). Qualitative and quantitative data were collected across each of the three sequential rounds. Round 1 involved 1:1, telephone-based, research topic yarning (yarns). Rounds two and three used an electronic survey. A portion of panellists (n = 5) provided additional qualitative information in between the Delphi rounds (e.g. justifications for responses and suggestions regarding research implications). These data were aggregated into the accumulating pool of data and analysed accordingly. An a priori consensus level of 80% was set prior to each survey round.

Round 1: Individual research topic yarns

Individual research topic yarns were conducted (by ED with each panellists) to build rapport and to initiate the Delphi process. Because research topic yarning can either be unstructured or semi-structured [27], all yarns involved an open dialogue to obtain panellists’ freely expressed views and opinions [41]. Yarns also comprised of a series of pre-planned yarning questions to ensure qualitative and quantitative information was systematically collected. Yarning questions were piloted (by ED) with an Aboriginal Elder prior to administrations. All yarns were transcribed using hand-recorded notes (ED). To ensure transcript accuracy, care was taken to record responses verbatim [42] and verbal confirmation was sought from each panellist of the written accounts as the yarns progressed. Three panellists asked to see the yarning script prior to participating in a yarn. Each panellist provided written responses to the script (via email) in addition to participating in a 1:1 phone yarn.

Panellists were asked to prepare for their yarn by reviewing an electronic version of the SMART Recovery Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programme handbook (provided to them by ED). The structured yarning questions asked panellists to provide their biographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, Indigeneity, educational background, professional experience, and level of familiarity with SMART Recovery). Panellists were then asked two quantitative questions: (1) How culturally appropriate is the handbook? and (2) How well do you think the handbook communicates the elements of the SMART Recovery programme for an Indigenous audience? Responses used a ranking scale (0–10).

Yarning was then used to elicit panellists’ impressions of the handbook and to generate a list of modifications (i.e. adaptations, omissions, inclusions) they felt would enhance its cultural utility for Indigenous Australians. A series of prompts sought panellists’ views on culturally appropriate ways to use imagery, language, literacy and programme activities—in relation to programme content, design and delivery. These prompts were drawn from previous research that showed these are areas of mutual support group programmes most commonly modified by Indigenous peoples [23,24,25].

Rounds 2 and 3: Electronic surveys

Each survey was pilot tested for accuracy, usability and timeliness prior to dissemination by members of the research team (n = 3) and by Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples not involved in the study (n = 5).

Both survey rounds were initiated by email to panellists (ED; individually and simultaneously). Each email contained a unique electronic survey link and a visual feedback report detailing the previous round’s group responses. Each survey was available for two weeks. Reminder emails were sent manually after seven days to non-responders.

Round 2

The aim for Round 2 was to: (1) Achieve group consensus on the list of proposed programme modifications (derived from Round 1); and (2) Solicit suggestions for how each modification could be practically implemented.

Panellists used a 5-point Likert scale to rate 15 proposed programme modifications. They were asked to indicate their level of agreement on each modification’s ability to enhance the cultural utility of the programme (strongly agree through to strongly disagree). Panellists were then given a free-text box to suggest how each modification could be practically implemented. These text boxes also allowed panellists to make other comments as needed.

Round 3

The aim of Round 3 was to obtain consensus on an accepted set of strategies to enable implementation of the suggested programme modifications. The panellists were presented with a table divided into five key programme modifications. They were asked to either “accept” or “reject” a series of implementation strategies assigned to each. A free-text box was provided for panellists to list reasons why an implementation strategy was rejected. Panellists were also asked to: re-rate two items that did not reach consensus (during Round 2); order their preferences for four proposed handbook titles; and answer four closed questions about this Delphi experience. A free-text box asked for suggestions on how the Delphi technique could be improved for future Indigenous-focused research.

Data analysis

Round 1: Individual yarns

Yarning transcripts were prepared for analysis by de-identifying and converting each from handwritten notes into electronic files (Microsoft Word: qualitative data; Excel: quantitative). Qualitative data were analysed manually (ED) using thematic content analysis [28, 31, 43]. This involved an initial open-coding phase of each transcript to identify themes, followed by a focused phase to collapse themes into major categories. All transcripts were checked for coding (KL) and discussed (ED, KL) to reach agreement. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

Rounds 2 and 3: Electronic surveys

All survey data were collected using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) [44].

Results

Panellists

Panellists were 11 Indigenous Australian health and wellbeing experts representing six communities spanning rural, remote and urban contexts (Yuin, Gadigal and Bunjalung—New South Wales, NSW; Nyungar—Western Australia, WA; Nukunka and Kaurna—South Australia, SA). As shown in Table 1, there were six men and five women, with a mean age of just under 50 years (range: 33–65 years). Just over half of the panellists (n = 6/11) were trained SMART Recovery facilitators, and of these, four were facilitating Indigenous-specific SMART Recovery groups. Of the remaining panellists, four had prior knowledge of SMART Recovery (and of AA) via their professional networks. One panellist had no knowledge or experience with any mutual support group programmes.

Table 1 Panellists (n = 11) socio-cultural characteristics

Education and professional expertise

Panellists had a range of clinical and research expertise that collectively offered more than 190 years of Indigenous health-related work experience. The panellists were working in a variety of settings including a state-funded health service (n = 3), university (n = 3), non-government welfare organisation (n = 1), and an Aboriginal Community-Controlled health service (n = 4). Educational qualifications ranged from diploma level (n = 3) to Doctor of Philosophy (n = 1 completed; n = 2 candidates).

Delphi rounds

Round 1

There was 100% participant retention rate across all three Delphi rounds. The panellists scored the cultural appropriateness of the handbook as 4.3 out of 10 (SD = 2.5). Their rating for how well the handbook communicated the elements of the SMART Recovery programme for an Indigenous Australian context was slightly higher at 5.5 out of 10 (SD = 2.9). Fifteen proposed modifications emerged following thematic analysis of the yarning transcripts (see Table 2).

Table 2 Results from Round 2: showing the variation in group agreement for each of the 15 proposed programme modifications (consensus level 80%)

Round 2

During Round 2, almost all of the proposed modifications achieved group consensus (n = 13/15; ≥ 80%). Just over half of the modifications (n = 8/15) achieved perfect consensus. Table 2 shows the different levels of agreement achieved for each of the 15 proposed modifications. Two modifications did not reach consensus (each scoring 72%). These were: “The handbook should have the capacity for each community to use locally relevant scenarios as examples of applying SMART tools and techniques” and “Creating an audio version of the handbook(s) would be useful for some people/communities”.

All panellists used the free-text survey boxes provided to offer suggestions for how the proposed modifications could be practically implemented. Their responses generated an initial list of 80 implementation strategies that were reduced to 29 items by removing duplicates and during thematic content analysis (See Table 3). Themes were checked (by KL) and discussed (ED, KL) to reach consensus. Emerging themes were verified with panellists (n = 6) who utilised a 1:1 yarning opportunity (with ED) in between survey rounds.

Table 3 Data analysis approach taken to identify and categorise the panellists list of agreed implementation strategies

Between Rounds 2 and 3, the endorsed list of 13 modifications was refined by grouping similar concepts together. This created five core categories defining key aspects of the programme that the panel recommended be changed (see Table 3). The 29 implementation strategies were then arranged according to the modification they related to.

Round 3

In this round, all but one of the 29 implementation strategies were accepted (n = 28/29) (Table 3). The one strategy that was rejected (by n = 4/11) was: to “Prepare handbook(s) as generic templates with no imagery and simple language”. This related to the key modification “strategy for localised customisation”. The panellists’ reasons for rejecting this strategy was the belief that being responsible for customising SMART Recovery programme materials would be a burden on local facilitators. Two alternative strategies were proposed by these four panellists: (1) To create a customised handbook during facilitator training and, (2) For SMART Recovery to [practically and financially] support facilitators to create a handbook on return to their communities after training is completed. The final set of accepted implementation strategies are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Final list of programme modifications and implementation strategies achieved

The two items from Round 2 that did not reach group consensus were re-rated and both achieved a group consensus (91%). These were then amalgamated into a final set of endorsed programme modifications Panellists preferred the handbook titles: “Stay solid, stay grounded” and “Getting strong and living long” (equal first place); then “SMART Recovery for me and my community” and lastly; “The SMART way to give up”.

Panellists were positive about their experience of being a Delphi study participant:

“I think the Delphi style was user friendly, clear understanding of what was expected from the participant. Well set out”

“It has been a pleasure to be involved”

“Look forward to the end product”

“Thank you for giving me the opportunity to have my say”

Almost all panellists (n = 10/11) answered “yes” to: (1) having had enough opportunity to offer their expertise; (2) that their opinions were incorporated and; (3) that they could participate with minimal disruption to their daily work demands. Nine of the eleven panellists felt that a Delphi study was an appropriate method for obtaining Indigenous knowledges. Only one panellist offered a suggestion for how the Delphi method could be improved for future research with Indigenous peoples:

“Go out to communities and speak with key Elders, get their input, listen to them and expand on what they are trying to achieve”.

Discussion

To our knowledge this is the first study to combine an Indigenous research method with the Delphi technique to explore the cultural utility of mutual support group programmes. This study assembled a culturally, geographically, and professionally diverse panel of 11 Indigenous Australian health and wellbeing experts. The panel was tasked with reviewing and commenting on the suitability and helpfulness (i.e. cultural utility) of an Indigenous Australian SMART Recovery programme handbook. Over three Delphi rounds the panel reached consensus on five key programme modifications and developed a set of strategies to help SMART Recovery integrate them into future programme planning and design. These findings offer promise for improving Indigenous Australians’ access to SMART Recovery [45, 46] and is an important first step in determining cultural validity of this programme for Indigenous peoples, globally. They also contribute to creating a more equitable mainstream health care sector [47].

Culture is a critical part of Indigenous people’s health and wellbeing [16, 48]. As such it is vital that internationally available programmes like SMART Recovery consider their cultural utility as this will help to ensure they can meet the recovery needs of Indigenous peoples worldwide [49,50,51]. Prior to this study, just one other [23] had considered the role of culture within SMART Recovery. Consistent with Dale et al. [23], the current study identified aspects within the model (contents, design and delivery) that, if modified, could improve the programme’s suitability and perceived helpfulness for Indigenous Australians. The need for similar adaptations to improve the cultural utility of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has been highlighted by First Nations peoples in the United States of America [21, 25, 52] Common among the endorsed programme modifications were strategies designed to reduce access and engagement barriers. For example, more than a third of implementations strategies (n = 11/29) related to reducing cross-cultural language and literacy barriers [45, 47, 53]. Another seven strategies were focused on how artwork, symbolism, and imagery could make the programme more appealing to a diverse group of Indigenous Australians [54,55,56,57].

The panel recommended that the group member handbook be supplemented with storytelling resources and testimonials from recovered Indigenous group members. Storytelling, is a traditional form of therapy used by Indigenous peoples around the world to promote health and healing [58]. Research supports healing narratives (re-storying) as an effective and culturally validated form of treatment for Indigenous [59, 60] and non-Indigenous peoples in recovery from problematic substance use and behavioural addictions [61, 62]. In light of this, SMART Recovery could consider including narrative therapy alongside their current therapeutic approach (of cognitive behaviour therapy and motivational interviewing) [12].

One aspect of the modification process that SMART Recovery may find challenging would be accommodating localised programme customisations [13, 14, 63]. Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population includes over 250 distinct language and cultural groups [64]. Each community has diverse needs and aspirations [65] and is impacted on uniquely by historical, political and socio-economic determinants of health and wellbeing [66]. As such, the panellists were firm in their recommendation that any future amendments be co-designed, collaboratively implemented and continually co-evaluated via partnerships with representatives from diverse community groups.

All panellists felt that the Delphi technique was a culturally appropriate method to undertake Indigenous-focused research. The Delphi technique has been used in previous studies with Indigenous health and wellbeing professionals from Australia, New Zealand, American and Canada to identify health priorities [67, 68] and develop culturally appropriate treatment guideline and rating scales [37, 69,70,71,72,73]. As methodological adaptations to the Delphi technique are permissible we synthesised Indigenous research methods (collaborative and research topic yarning) [27] alongside the Delphi technique [74]. This was done to maximise contribution of the Indigenous voice, and adhere to the principles of Indigenous research: respect, relationship and reciprocity [32, 33, 75]. This approach is vital to ensure the cultural safety of Indigenous peoples participating in research [76]. It is also an effective way that Indigenous knowledges can be translated into health promoting policies and practices [77].

Limitations

This study is limited by a small sample size of experts primarily located in New South Wales (n = 6/11). Indigenous voices from regions of Tasmania, Victoria, Northern Territory, Queensland, and the Torres Strait Islands are missing. Likewise, the voices of Indigenous health professionals experienced in non-substance related addictions are would further strengthen the findings. Social desirability bias may have affected some panellists (n = 4) who were known to the research team. However, actions taken to mitigate this included maintaining anonymity between panellists [31], explicit reminders made in each round of data collection that there were no right or wrong answers [78], and by ED positioning herself as a guardian [79] of the Indigenous knowledge holders and knowledges represented within this study.

Implications

This study contributes to a small but growing body of research showing the need to modify mainstream mutual support groups to be more suitable and helpful for Indigenous Australians. By consulting with Indigenous Australian health and wellbeing professionals, this study makes explicit the areas within the SMART Recovery programme that require cultural modification. A developed set of implementation strategies are offered to help SMART Recovery prioritise areas for change.

Future research is needed to expand our understanding of how the SMART Recovery programme could be most relevant and helpful for Indigenous peoples worldwide. This would require drawing on the knowledges of Indigenous health and wellbeing professionals and Indigenous SMART Recovery facilitators and groups members from more diverse Indigenous communities. It would be important to include Indigenous peoples internationally who have not yet had the chance to provide their perspective of the SMART Recovery programme.

Future research is also needed to determine the cultural utility of other popular mutual support groups programmes (e.g. AA and GA). Once cultural utility has been determined it will be important to culturally validate these programmes to ensure the needs and preferences of all Indigenous peoples (Australian and worldwide) are being supported. The cross-cultural methodology used within this study could assist such work.

This Indigenous-lensed Delphi study appeared to be a culturally appropriate and practical method for conducting Indigenous-focused research. Future studies could consider the role of video conferencing (1:1) which has particular relevance given difficulties engaging in face-to-face data collection due to COVID-19. Video (i.e. face-to-face) rather than phone conferencing, is also more aligned to Indigenous ways of communicating [29], and could help establish trust and rapport between participant and researcher [80].

Conclusions

This study helps fill important empirical gaps in how to improve the cultural utility of mainstream mutual support groups for Indigenous peoples. The study findings highlight the importance of involving Indigenous peoples in the design, delivery and validation of mainstream mutual support programmes. Programmes that lack Indigenous input can perpetuate biases within mainstream health care approaches and impede Indigenous peoples’ access to equitable and appropriate care.

By embedding Indigenous research methods (yarning) with the Delphi technique, this study offers a culturally appropriate, efficient, and collaborative way that Indigenous cultural knowledges can be integrated into health care policy and practice. It is possible that this approach could help give voice to Indigenous peoples more globally. This study design may also help other mainstream mutual support groups programmes (like AA) evaluate and enhance their cultural utility and validity for Indigenous peoples in similarly colonised countries (i.e. United States of America, Hawaii, Canada and New Zealand).

Availability of data and materials

Data for this project is stored at the University of Wollongong based at Northfields Avenue Wollongong, New South Wales, 2500 Australia.

Abbreviations

AA:

Alcoholics anonymous

GA:

Gamblers anonymous

References

  1. 1.

    Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, Chou PS. Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence. Addiction. 2006;101(6):824–34.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hing N, Breen H, Gordon A, Russell A. The gambling behavior of Indigenous Australians. J Gambl Stud. 2014;30(2):369–86.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Public Health England. Improving mutual aid engagement: a professional development resource. London: Public Health England; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kelly JF, Magill M, Stout RL. How do people recover from alcohol dependence? A systematic review of the research on mechanisms of behavior change in Alcoholics Anonymous. Addict Res Theory. 2009;17(3):236–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Binde P. A Swedish mutual support society of problem gamblers. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2012;10(4):512–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Sanders JM. Use of mutual support to counteract the effects of socially constructed stigma: gender and drug addiction. J Groups Addict Recover. 2012;7(2–4):237–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kelly JF, Humphreys K, Ferri M. Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs for alcohol use disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;3:116.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dale E, Kelly PJ, Lee KSK, Conigrave JH, Ivers R, Clapham K. Systematic review of addiction recovery mutual support groups and Indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America and Hawaii. Addict Behav. 2019;98:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kurtz E. Not god: a history of Alcoholics Anonymous. United States of America: Simon and Schuster; 2010. p. 456.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Dudgeon P, Rickwood D, Garvey D, Gridley H. A history of aboriginal psychology. In: Working together: aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practices. 2nd ed. Barton, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014. p. 588.

  11. 11.

    SMART Recovery. About SMART Recovery 2019. https://www.smartrecovery.org/about-us/.

  12. 12.

    Beck AK, Forbes E, Baker AL, Kelly PJ, Deane FP, Shakeshaft A, et al. Systematic review of SMART Recovery: outcomes, process variables, and implications for research. Psychol Addict Behav. 2017;31(1):1–20.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Castro FG, Barrera M Jr, Holleran Steiker LK. Issues and challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based interventions. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010;6:213–39.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Westerman T. Guest Editorial. Aust e-J Adv Ment Health. 2004;3(3):88–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bennett-Levy J, Wilson S, Nelson J, Stirling J, Ryan K, Rotumah D, et al. Can CBT be effective for Aboriginal Australians? perspectives of Aboriginal practitioners trained in CBT. Aust Psychol. 2014;49(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Brady M. Culture in treatment, culture as treatment. A critical appraisal of developments in addictions programs for indigenous North Americans and Australians. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(11):1487–98.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Gone JP. Indigenous traditional knowledge and substance abuse treatment outcomes: the problem of efficacy evaluation. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2012;38(5):493–7.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Casey W. Strong Spirit Strong Mind model informing policy and practice. In: Working together: aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice. 2nd ed. Barton, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014. p. 588.

  19. 19.

    Herman-Stahl M, Chong J. Substance abuse prevalence and treatment utilization among American Indians residing on-reservation. Am Indian Alsk Native Ment Health Res. 2002;10(3):1–23.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kenny MC. An integrative therapeutic approach to the treatment of a depressed American Indian client. Clin Case Stud. 2016;5(1):37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Spicer P. Culture and the restoration of self among former American Indian drinkers. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53(2):227–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Beals J, Novins DK, Spicer P, Whitesell NR, Mitchell CM, Manson SM. Help seeking for substance use problems in two American Indian reservation populations. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57(4):512–20.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Dale E, Lee KSK, Conigrave KM, Conigrave JH, Ivers R, Clapham K, et al. A mixed methods yarn about SMART Recovery: first insights from Australian Aboriginal facilitators and group members. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2020. (Under review).

  24. 24.

    Coyhis D, Simonelli R. Rebuilding Native American communities. Child Welfare. 2005;84(2):323–36.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Coyhis D, Simonelli R. The Native American healing experience. Subst Use Misuse. 2008;43(12–13):1927–49.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi Method: techniques and applications [Digitized 27 Aug 2007]: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Advanced Book Program; 1975.

  27. 27.

    Bessarab D, Ng’andu B. Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in Indigenous research. Int J Crit Indigenous Stud. 2010;3(1):37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2002;41(4):376–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Walker M, Fredericks B, Mills K, Anderson DJ. “Yarning” as a method for community-based health research with indigenous women: the indigenous women’s wellness research program. Health Care Women Int. 2014;35(10):1216–26.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    de Meyrick J. The Delphi method and health research. Health Educ. 2003.

  31. 31.

    Keeney S, McKenna H, Hasson F. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Malaysia: Wiley; 2011. p. 207.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Wilson S. What is an indigenous research methodology? Can J Native Educ. 2001;25(2):175–9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Wilson S. Research is ceremony: indigenous research methods. illustrated. Canada: Fernwood Publishing; 2008. p. 144.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Lin I, Green C, Bessarab D. Yarn with me: applying clinical yarning to improve clinician–patient communication in Aboriginal health care. Aust J Prim Health. 2016;22(5):377–82.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Durie M. Understanding health and illness: research at the interface between science and indigenous knowledge. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33(5):1138–43.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    von der Gracht HA. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2012;79(8):1525–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Zawaly K, Kerse N, Tippett L, Buetow S. Cognitive-load of activities for Māori and non-Māori: a New Zealand consensus. J Strength Condition Res. 2019;19(3):599–603.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Mullen PM. Delphi: myths and reality. J Health Organ Manage. 2003;17(1):37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53(2):205–12.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Akins RB, Tolson H, Cole BR. Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5(1):37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Fredericks BL, Adams K, Finlay SM, Fletcher G, Andy S, Briggs L, et al. Engaging the practice of yarning in action research. ALARA. 2011;17(2):7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):655–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Gray D, Stearne A, Bonson M, Wilkes E, Butt J, Wilson M. Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander alcohol, tobacco and other drugs treatment service sector: harnessing good intentions (Revised Version). Perth: Curtin University; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Gray D, Wilson M, Allsop S, Saggers S, Wilkes E, Ober C. Barriers and enablers to the provision of alcohol treatment among Aboriginal Australians: a thematic review of five research projects. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2014;33(5):482–90.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Allan J, Campbell M. Improving access to hard-to-reach services: a soft entry approach to drug and alcohol services for rural Australian Aboriginal communities. Soc Work Health Care. 2011;50(6):443–65.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Dudgeon P, Bray A, D’Costa B, Walker R. Decolonising Psychology: validating social and emotional wellbeing. Aust Psychol. 2017;52(4):316–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Clifford A, Shakeshaft A. A bibliometric review of drug and alcohol research focused on Indigenous peoples of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2017;36(4):509–22.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Swan P, Raphael B. Ways Forward: National Consultancy Report on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mental Health. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Freeman T, Edwards T, Baum F, Lawless A, Jolley G, Javanparast S, et al. Cultural respect strategies in Australian Aboriginal primary health care services: beyond education and training of practitioners. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2014;38(4):355–61.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Coyhis D, White WL. Alcohol problems in Native America. Alcohol Treat Q. 2002;20(3–4):157–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Gray D, Wilson M, Allsop S, Saggers S, Wilkes E, Ober C. Barriers and enablers to the provision of alcohol treatment among Aboriginal Australians: a thematic review of five research projects. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2014;33(5):482–90.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Teasdale KE, Conigrave KM, Kiel KA, Freeburn B, Long G, Becker K. Improving services for prevention and treatment of substance misuse for Aboriginal communities in a Sydney Area Health Service. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008;27(2):152–9.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Kreuter MW, Lukwago SN, Bucholtz RD, Clark EM, Sanders-Thompson V. Achieving cultural appropriateness in health promotion programs: targeted and tailored approaches. Health Educ Behav. 2003;30(2):133–46.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Calsyn DA, Burlew AK, Hatch-Maillette MA, Wilson J, Beadnell B, Wright L. Real men are safe-culturally adapted: utilizing the Delphi process to revise real men are safe for an ethnically diverse group of men in substance abuse treatment. AIDS Educ Prev. 2012;24(2):117–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Lee KS, Dawson A, Conigrave KM. The role of an Aboriginal women’s group in meeting the high needs of clients attending outpatient alcohol and other drug treatment. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2013;32(6):618–26.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Kovach M. Conversational methods in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child Fam Rev. 2019;14(1):123–36.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Bacon V. What potential might narrative therapy have to assist Indigenous Australians reduce substance misuse? Aust Aboriginal Stud. 2007;2007(1).

  60. 60.

    Ruttan L, Laboucane-Benson P, Munro B. A story I never heard before: Aboriginal young women, homelessness and restoring connections. Pimatisiwin A J Aboriginal Indigenous Community Health. 2008;6(3).

  61. 61.

    Graham JM. Narrative therapy for treating video game addiction. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2014;12(6):701–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Singer JA, Singer BF, Berry M. A meaning-based intervention for addiction: using narrative therapy and mindfulness to treat alcohol abuse. In: Routledge C, Hicks J, editors. The experience of meaning in life. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. p. 379–91.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Sanders TVL, Cavazos-Rehg P, Jupka K, Caito N, Gratzke J, Tate K, et al. Evidential preferences: cultural appropriateness strategies in health communications. Health Edu Res. 2008;23(3):549–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Indigenous Australians: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies 2020. updated 21.02.2020. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/indigenous-australians-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people.

  65. 65.

    Gee G, Dudgeon P, Schultz C, Hart A, Kelly K. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social and emotional wellbeing. 2nd ed. Barton: ACT: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014. p. 588.

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Determinants of wellbeing for Indigenous Australians. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Shoemaker ES, Kendall CE, Mathew C, Crispo S, Welch V, Andermann A, et al. Establishing need and population priorities to improve the health of homeless and vulnerably housed women, youth, and men: a Delphi consensus study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4):e0231758.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Stoner L, Matheson AG, Perry LG, Williams MA, McManus A, Holdaway M, et al. Principles and strategies for improving the prevention of cardio-metabolic diseases in indigenous populations: an international Delphi study. Prev Med. 2017;96:106–12.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Hart LM, Jorm AF, Kanowski LG, Kelly CM, Langlands RL. Mental health first aid for Indigenous Australians: using Delphi consensus studies to develop guidelines for culturally appropriate responses to mental health problems. BMC Psychiatry. 2009;9(1):47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Hart LM, Bourchier SJ, Jorm AF, Kanowski LG, Kingston AH, Stanley D, et al. Development of mental health first aid guidelines for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experiencing problems with substance use: a Delphi study. BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10(1):78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Chalmers KJ, Bond KS, Jorm AF, Kelly CM, Kitchener BA, Williams-Tchen A. Providing culturally appropriate mental health first aid to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander adolescent: development of expert consensus guidelines. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2014;8(1):6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Armstrong G, Ironfield N, Kelly CM, Dart K, Arabena K, Bond K, et al. Re-development of mental health first aid guidelines for supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who are engaging in non-suicidal self-injury. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):300.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Bond KS, Dart KM, Jorm AF, Kelly CM, Kitchener BA, Reavley NJ. Assisting an Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person with gambling problems: a Delphi study. BMC Psychol. 2017;5(1):27.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Neale J, Finch E, Marsden J, Mitcheson L, Rose D, Strang J, et al. How should we measure addiction recovery? Analysis of service provider perspectives using online Delphi groups. Drugs Educ Prev Pol. 2014;21(4):310–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    National Health Medical Research Council. Keeping research on track II: a companion document to “Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders". Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Kawakami AJ, Aton K, Cram F, Lai M, Porima L. Improving the practice of evaluation through indigenous values and methods. Illustrated ed: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 219–42.

  77. 77.

    Zavala M. What do we mean by decolonizing research strategies? Lessons from decolonizing, Indigenous research projects in New Zealand and Latin America. Decolonization Indigeneity Educ Soc. 2013;2(1):55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Ananthram S. HRM as a strategic business partner: The contributions of strategic agility, knowledge management and management development in multinational enterprises–empirical insights from India. Asia Pacific Human Resource Management and Organisational Effectiveness. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2016. p. 87–109.

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Raven M. Protocols: devices for translating moralities, controlling knowledge, defining actors in Indigenous research, and critical ethical reflection. Aust Aboriginal Stud. 2010;2:33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Hamilton SL, Maslen S, Best D, Freeman J, O’Donnell M, Reibel T, et al. Putting ‘justice’ in recovery capital: Yarning about hopes and futures with young people in detention. Int J Crime Justice Soc Democracy. 2020;9(2):20–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible through collaborative partnerships with Aboriginal communities, individuals and organisation across the Australian states of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. The authors would like to acknowledge and pay respect to the traditional custodians of these lands, to creator God, Elders past, present and emerging. We acknowledge and pay our respects to the work of the handbooks’ original contributors and artists and we express our gratitude for being able to build on your work. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of James H Conigrave (statistical advice) and Monika Dzidowska (REDCap support).

Funding

ED received support from the University of Wollongong and from the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Indigenous Health and Alcohol (#1117198). K Conigrave is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (#1117582).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ED: Study design, survey design and distribution, data collection and analysis, drafted paper, synthesised co-authors comments, conducted feedback of study findings to panellists. KMC: Contributed to and reviewed manuscript. PK: Contributed to and reviewed manuscript. RI: Contributed to and reviewed manuscript. KC: Contributed to and reviewed manuscript. KSKL: Reviewed transcripts and thematic analysis from each Delphi round, interpretation of results, reviewed several drafts of manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Dale.

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

ED and PK are members of the SMART Recovery Australia Research Advisory Committee. SMART Recovery Australia had no role in study design, analysis or write up. PK had no role in data analysis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dale, E., Conigrave, K.M., Kelly, P.J. et al. A Delphi yarn: applying Indigenous knowledges to enhance the cultural utility of SMART Recovery Australia. Addict Sci Clin Pract 16, 2 (2021). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13722-020-00212-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mutual support group
  • Indigenous
  • Addiction
  • Substance use
  • SMART recovery
\