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

Peter J Kelly; Dayle Raftery; Frank P Deane; Amanda L Baker; David Hunt; Anthony Shakeshaft

doi:10.1111/dar.12416

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

Drug Alcohol Rev. 2017 May;36(3):325-332. doi: 10.1111/dar.12416. Epub 2016 Jun 1.

Authors

Peter J Kelly¹, Dayle Raftery¹, Frank P Deane¹, Amanda L Baker², David Hunt³, Anthony Shakeshaft⁴

Affiliations

¹ Illawarra Institute for Mental Health, School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
² School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
³ SMART Recovery Australia, Sydney, Australia.
⁴ National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

PMID: 27246699
DOI: 10.1111/dar.12416

Abstract

Introduction and aims: The Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART Recovery) program provides facilitated mutual aid for people with addictions. To date, little research has examined SMART Recovery. This paper examined participant and facilitator perceptions of the helpfulness of cognitive behaviour therapy tools in SMART Recovery groups. SMART Recovery's strengths and areas for improvement were also explored, as well as overall participant satisfaction with SMART Recovery.

Design and methods: This exploratory study was conducted as part of the first national survey of SMART Recovery in Australia. Paper surveys were posted to all registered SMART Recovery groups for participants. SMART Recovery facilitators were emailed a link to an online survey.

Results: Overall, satisfaction with SMART Recovery was moderate to strong. Participants and facilitators perceived the cognitive behaviour therapy tools incorporated within SMART Recovery to be helpful. Participants and facilitators nominated the group experience and the SMART Recovery tools and strategies as helpful aspects of SMART Recovery. Participants and facilitators were concerned with improving public knowledge about SMART Recovery groups, updating the structure and content of SMART Recovery groups, and increasing training for facilitators.

Discussion and conclusions: SMART Recovery displays strengths as communicated by those who utilise its services. However, there are opportunities to continue to improve SMART Recovery. Updating the training for facilitators and increasing communication between SMART Recovery Australia's head office and its facilitators may serve to improve service delivery. Future research should focus on examining the efficacy of SMART Recovery groups on participant outcomes.[Kelly PJ, Raftery D, Deane FP, Baker AL, Hunt D, Shakeshaft A. From both sides: Participant and facilitator perceptions of SMART Recovery groups. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;36:325-332].

Keywords: SMART Recovery; cognitive behaviour therapy; consumer perception; mutual support group; service evaluation.

MeSH terms

Adult
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy / methods
Female
Health Personnel / psychology*
Humans
Male
Mental Health Recovery*
Middle Aged
Patient Participation / psychology*
Patient Satisfaction
Perception*
Self Care / methods
Self Care / psychology
Self-Help Groups
Substance Abuse Treatment Centers
Substance-Related Disorders / psychology*
Substance-Related Disorders / therapy*
Surveys and Questionnaires