Developing and Implementing a Culturally Consonant Treatment Fidelity Support Plan with the Apsáalooke Nation.

Treatment fidelity remains underreported in health intervention research, particularly among Indigenous communities. One explanation for this gap is the lack of culturally consonant strategies listed in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) treatment fidelity framework, the gold standard for understanding and measuring fidelity. This paper focuses on the development and implementation of a culturally consonant treatment fidelity support plan across two of the five BCC fidelity areas, provider training and treatment delivery, within a chronic illness self-management program for the Apsáalooke (Crow) Nation. Our team selected and adapted strategies from, and added strategies to, the BCC framework, that centered on relational accountability and the Apsáalooke culture. To be culturally consonant, we approached treatment fidelity as supporting Aakbaabaaniilea (Apsáalooke program facilitators) rather than monitoring them. This resulted in the development of a fifth treatment fidelity area: building and fostering relationships. We propose that fidelity to relational accountability is the foundation of successful programs in Indigenous communities. This suggests an important shift from tracking what was conducted in an intervention to prioritizing how things were conducted. We encourage others to view the BCC framework as a starting point in developing fidelity strategies that are consonant with local cultures.

Community sharing: Contextualizing Western research notions of contamination within an Indigenous research paradigm.

Báa nnilah is a chronic illness self-management program designed by and for the Apsáalooke (Crow) community. Arising from a collaboration between an Indigenous nonprofit organization and a university-based research team, Báa nnilah's development, implementation, and evaluation have been influenced by both Indigenous and Western research paradigms (WRPs). Báa nnilah was evaluated using a randomized wait-list control group design. In a WRP, contamination, or intervention information shared by the intervention group with the control group, is actively discouraged as it makes ascertaining causality difficult, if not impossible. This approach is not consonant with Apsáalooke cultural values that include the encouragement of sharing helpful information with others, supporting an Indigenous research paradigm's (IRP) goal of benefiting the community. The purpose of this paper is to address contamination and sharing as an area of tension between WRP and IRP. We describe how the concepts of contamination and sharing within Báa nnilah's implementation and evaluation are interpreted differently when viewed from these contrasting paradigms, and set forth a call for greater exploration of Indigenous research approaches for developing, implementing, and evaluating intervention programs in Indigenous communities. (Improving Chronic Illness Management with the Apsáalooke Nation: The Báa nnilah Project.: NCT03036189), ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT03036189).

Developing an Indigenous Goal-Setting Tool: Counting Coup.

Chronic illness self-management best practices include goal-setting; however, the goal theory that many tools employ relies on individualistic principles of self-efficacy that are not culturally consonant within many Indigenous communities. During the creation of the Báa nnilah program, a chronic illness self-management intervention, we developed a goal-setting tool specific to the Apsáalooke Nation. Emerging from an Indigenous paradigm and methodology, Counting Coup serves as a goal-setting tool that promotes the Apsáalooke culture, connects individuals with their ancestors, and focuses on achievement of goals within relationships. Future research and practice should be grounded in the historical and cultural contexts of local communities when designing and implementing goal-setting tools. Limitations to Counting Coup as a goal-setting tool include the need for program facilitators to have a relationship with participants due to Counting Coup's foundation in relational accountability and that the environmental context may pose difficulties for participants in moving towards healthy behavior change.