The use of Australian SMART Recovery groups by people who use methamphetamine: Analysis of routinely-collected nationwide data

2021 ◽  
pp. 108814
Author(s):  
Alison K. Beck ◽  
Briony Larance ◽  
Frank P. Deane ◽  
Amanda L. Baker ◽  
Victoria Manning ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smart Recovery ◽  
Recovery Groups

From both sides: Participant and facilitator perceptions of SMART Recovery groups

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Kelly ◽  
Dayle Raftery ◽  
Frank P. Deane ◽  
Amanda L. Baker ◽  
David Hunt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smart Recovery ◽  
Recovery Groups

scholarly journals Feasibility of a Mobile Health App for Routine Outcome Monitoring and Feedback in Mutual Support Groups Coordinated by SMART Recovery Australia: Protocol for a Pilot Study (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J Kelly ◽  
Alison K Beck ◽  
Amanda L Baker ◽  
Frank P Deane ◽  
Leanne Hides ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Support Groups ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Mutual Support ◽  
Outcome Monitoring ◽  
Smart Recovery ◽  
Mutual Support Groups ◽  
Recovery Groups

BACKGROUND Despite the importance and popularity of mutual support groups, there have been no systematic attempts to implement and evaluate routine outcome monitoring (ROM) in these settings. Unlike other mutual support groups for addiction, trained facilitators lead all Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART Recovery) groups, thereby providing an opportunity to implement ROM as a routine component of SMART Recovery groups. OBJECTIVE This study protocol aims to describe a stage 1 pilot study designed to explore the feasibility and acceptability of a novel, purpose-built mobile health (mHealth) ROM and feedback app (Smart Track) in SMART Recovery groups coordinated by SMART Recovery Australia (SRAU) The secondary objectives are to describe Smart Track usage patterns, explore psychometric properties of the ROM items (ie, internal reliability and convergent and divergent validity), and provide preliminary evidence for participant reported outcomes (such as alcohol and other drug use, self-reported recovery, and mental health). METHODS Participants (n=100) from the SMART Recovery groups across New South Wales, Australia, will be recruited to a nonrandomized, prospective, single-arm trial of the Smart Track app. There are 4 modes of data collection: (1) ROM data collected from group participants via the Smart Track app, (2) data analytics summarizing user interactions with Smart Track, (3) quantitative interview and survey data of group participants (baseline, 2-week follow-up, and 2-month follow-up), and (4) qualitative interviews with group participants (n=20) and facilitators (n=10). Feasibility and acceptability (primary objectives) will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, a cost analysis, and a qualitative evaluation. RESULTS At the time of submission, 13 sites (25 groups per week) had agreed to be involved. Funding was awarded on August 14, 2017, and ethics approval was granted on April 26, 2018 (HREC/18/WGONG/34; 2018/099). Enrollment is due to commence in July 2019. Data collection is due to be finalized in October 2019. CONCLUSIONS To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use ROM and tailored feedback within a mutual support group setting for addictive behaviors. Our study design will provide an opportunity to identify the acceptability of a novel mHealth ROM and feedback app within this setting and provide detailed information on what factors promote or hinder ROM usage within this context. This project aims to offer a new tool, should Smart Track prove feasible and acceptable, that service providers, policy makers, and researchers could use in the future to understand the impact of SMART Recovery groups. CLINICALTRIAL Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12619000686101; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377336. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/15113

scholarly journals Feasibility of a Mobile Health App for Routine Outcome Monitoring and Feedback in Mutual Support Groups Coordinated by SMART Recovery Australia: Protocol for a Pilot Study

10.2196/15113 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e15113
Author(s):  
Peter J Kelly ◽  
Alison K Beck ◽  
Amanda L Baker ◽  
Frank P Deane ◽  
Leanne Hides ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Support Groups ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Mutual Support ◽  
Outcome Monitoring ◽  
Smart Recovery ◽  
Mutual Support Groups ◽  
Recovery Groups

Background Despite the importance and popularity of mutual support groups, there have been no systematic attempts to implement and evaluate routine outcome monitoring (ROM) in these settings. Unlike other mutual support groups for addiction, trained facilitators lead all Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART Recovery) groups, thereby providing an opportunity to implement ROM as a routine component of SMART Recovery groups. Objective This study protocol aims to describe a stage 1 pilot study designed to explore the feasibility and acceptability of a novel, purpose-built mobile health (mHealth) ROM and feedback app (Smart Track) in SMART Recovery groups coordinated by SMART Recovery Australia (SRAU) The secondary objectives are to describe Smart Track usage patterns, explore psychometric properties of the ROM items (ie, internal reliability and convergent and divergent validity), and provide preliminary evidence for participant reported outcomes (such as alcohol and other drug use, self-reported recovery, and mental health). Methods Participants (n=100) from the SMART Recovery groups across New South Wales, Australia, will be recruited to a nonrandomized, prospective, single-arm trial of the Smart Track app. There are 4 modes of data collection: (1) ROM data collected from group participants via the Smart Track app, (2) data analytics summarizing user interactions with Smart Track, (3) quantitative interview and survey data of group participants (baseline, 2-week follow-up, and 2-month follow-up), and (4) qualitative interviews with group participants (n=20) and facilitators (n=10). Feasibility and acceptability (primary objectives) will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, a cost analysis, and a qualitative evaluation. Results At the time of submission, 13 sites (25 groups per week) had agreed to be involved. Funding was awarded on August 14, 2017, and ethics approval was granted on April 26, 2018 (HREC/18/WGONG/34; 2018/099). Enrollment is due to commence in July 2019. Data collection is due to be finalized in October 2019. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use ROM and tailored feedback within a mutual support group setting for addictive behaviors. Our study design will provide an opportunity to identify the acceptability of a novel mHealth ROM and feedback app within this setting and provide detailed information on what factors promote or hinder ROM usage within this context. This project aims to offer a new tool, should Smart Track prove feasible and acceptable, that service providers, policy makers, and researchers could use in the future to understand the impact of SMART Recovery groups. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12619000686101; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377336. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/15113

Communication Recovery Groups for Persons with Aphasia: A Replicable Program for Medical and University Settings

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 106-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candace Vickers ◽  
Darla Hagge
Keyword(s):  
Medical Setting ◽  
Group Program ◽  
Intake Process ◽  
Student Volunteers ◽  
Group Members ◽  
University Settings ◽  
University Setting ◽  
Recovery Groups

This article describes Communication Recovery Groups (CRG), an aphasia group program that is sponsored by a medical setting and more recently a university setting. CRG's history and approach and its model of service in light of current healthcare challenges are summarized. The article also provides a detailed discussion regarding the logistics of offering conversation groups to persons with aphasia which are sponsored by medical and/or university settings, the intake process for new group members, and the training of student volunteers to help lead conversation groups.

scholarly journals Identifying the Main Components of Substance-Related Addiction Recovery Groups

2021 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 840-847
Author(s):  
Hannah. C. Rettie ◽  
Lee. M. Hogan ◽  
W. Miles. Cox
Keyword(s):  
Addiction Recovery ◽  
Main Components ◽  
Recovery Groups

Substance Abuse Recovery Groups

2015 ◽  
pp. 331-336
Author(s):  
Anjuli Desai ◽  
Frank John English Falco
Keyword(s):  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Substance Abuse Recovery ◽  
Recovery Groups

scholarly journals A longitudinal study of the comparative efficacy of Women for Sobriety, LifeRing, SMART Recovery, and 12-step groups for those with AUD

2018 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. 18-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Zemore ◽  
Camillia Lui ◽  
Amy Mericle ◽  
Jordana Hemberg ◽  
Lee Ann Kaskutas
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Smart Recovery

Appropriate Use of Recovery Groups in Nonclinical Toxicity Studies: Value in a Science-Driven Case-by-Case Approach

2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 357-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Pandher ◽  
M. W. Leach ◽  
L. A. Burns-Naas
Keyword(s):  
Laboratory Animal ◽  
Prolonged Exposure ◽  
Recovery Phase ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Appropriate Use ◽  
Toxicity Studies ◽  
Animal Use ◽  
Antidrug Antibodies ◽  
Recovery Group ◽  
Recovery Groups

A recovery phase—a nondosing period that follows the main dosing phase of a study—is sometimes included in nonclinical toxicity studies, and it is designed to understand whether toxicities observed at the end of the dosing phase are partially or completely reversible. For biopharmaceuticals with long half-lives, the inclusion of recovery arms can be helpful in understanding effects of prolonged exposure and assessing antidrug antibodies. This commentary discusses when to include recovery groups in nonclinical toxicity studies, the number of recovery groups to include in a given study, the number of animals to include in each recovery group, and the duration of the recovery phase. In general, the inclusion of recovery arms should follow a case-by-case approach that values rational scientific design and reflects the development needs and regulatory requirements applicable to individual nonclinical programs to ensure appropriate guidance for human studies while minimizing laboratory animal use.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document